DaVinci

And if ONE person who is not eligible to vote, votes... Then the system has failed and the Constitution breached. Fact is that right now there is NO WAY to tell who is voting. And that is just stupid. How do I propose to fix it? I have already given examples: Follow what Canada has done and require one of the three options to prove you are who you say you are. BTW, you do know that you can cast a provisional ballot in FL right? If you are not on the rolls, you can cast a paper ballot and that ballot is put to the side and your claim to be eligible to vote is looked into. If you are allowed, the vote is counted, if not then it does not. So you let people who are unable at that time cast a provisional ballot and then their claim is looked into. So in a nutshell: 1. Follow Canada's plan of identification requirements. 2. Implement it a year out from a national election so people have time to meet the new requirements. 3. Provide provisional ballots for those who still do not have ID. This really should not be that big of a deal... you ALREADY have to register to vote. Having some ID when you actually do it should not be some Herculean effort.

Isn't attacking the player not the ball one of the weaker methods of debate?

NOT a similar case. He grabbed a gun and went LOOKING for trouble. He was not under physical attack.

You know that do you? Canada felt that there was so they put 'common sense' rules in place. Clearly people in FL thought there was, otherwise they would not have done anything. Very few crimes are committed with firearms compared to the number of firearms available. Why register them? And how are you going to know that it was done illegally if you don't have to provide ID or track it in any way?

Same as the liberals blaming Bush for Katrina.

Good question

Who says they think it is better? And not agreeing with Govt HC for all is not equal to thinking these programs are good. Personally, having had Tricare and having had to use the VA.... They suck and I'll stick with my private insurance thanks.... BTW didn't a bunch of Canadians have to sue to be allowed to have private insurance? That is a smart move. That is not.

All the ACA really does is force you to buy from those companies.... That is one of my problems with it. Another problem is, like others have said, that it works on access, but not the cost. Finally, I don't like the idea that the govt can make an individual buy a product from a private company or have to pay a tax.

This just shows your personal slant than bring anything of substance to the discussion.

2000 elections led to Bush winning. Bush sent the US into Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush won by 537 votes, 0.009% of the population.

And if people are not required to prove who there are.... then how in the hell are you going to know if they are voting illegally? What is there to stop me from voting for you in your district?

Skydiving is not in the Constitution... you OK with banning it? Riding a horse is not in the Constitution, you OK with banning it? And here you ignore the part I said twice about "AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT HURT OTHERS". Until you admit that part.... This discussion has no point.

False. 2006-2007 was operation wide receiver. It was run by the Arizona branch of the ATF and it involved the participation of Mexican authorities and they at least tried to track the weapons when they got to Mexico. It was also shut down in 2007. Fast and Furious was done by the FEDERAL ATF, the Mexican Govt knew nothing about it and the ATF made no attempt to track the weapons once in Mexico. Also, the ATF punished people who tried to be whistle blowers. So vastly different programs with only one trait in common.

Yes, I was AGREEING. He understood even if you did not.

1. Because I believe we should be responsible for ourselves and not expect others to take care of us. 2. Because I believe in the 2nd Amendment. 3. Because I don't see success as evil.

Good. Isn't it already illegal for an illegal to work in the US? This is disagree with. Basically the Fed is saying the State cannot arrest a person for being in the Country illegally. So they are saying only the Fed can arrest for a Federal crime, and the State can't make a law making a Federal crime also a State crime. And all of this would not be needed if the Fed was actually doing something about illegal immigration. This whole thing seems to remind me of the old debate about the dust bowl.... The central US was getting destroyed by terrible farming practices. The Federal Govt didn't show any concern until a dust storm hit DC and the people running from the area created a problem. In this case the Fed is ignoring a problem that is having a major impact on the border States.

Yes, and Yes. And others see no value in skydiving. Still others see no value in allowing you to own a firearm. Others see no value in domesticating horses for 'sport'. Just because YOU don't 'see it' does not mean that you are not stepping on others rights.

Once again you show you have no idea about topics yet still run your mouth. Proving once again that you can't understand the written word. I'll put the parts you didn't grasp the first time in bold: "But even larger than that.... An individual should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they please as long as they do not hurt another individual. A person wants to smoke pot and is not hurting anyone? Great! A person wants to carry a gun and is not using it but for lawful SD? Great! A person wants to sleep with a person of the same sex willingly? None of anyone else's business. So if a person wants to drink and is not hurting anyone, or wants to snort coke and is not hurting anyone, or wants to carry a gun and is not hurting anyone.... They should be allowed. They lose the right to do as they please when their actions affect others. On welfare? Well you are taking tax money. Stealing to pay for your habit? Well, you are a criminal for theft." So next time, try reading.

And you have never seen a life turn to crap over alcohol?

What is so difficult about: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Congress will not pick one religion over another and will not prevent a person from worshiping. It gets sticky when we talk about pagans sacrificing virgins... But the general concept is very easy to grasp... Just like only allowing legal voters to cast a ballot. The 2nd is even easier. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not allow murder, but it clearly allows the ownership and carry of weapons. Well in the case of voting, require a person to show who they are before they cast a ballot.... Not terribly difficult since Canada already does it. The founders knew that taxation without representation was bad, but they also knew that representation without taxation is also bad. Trying to make only those who had 'skin in the game' be allowed to vote was an attempt to avoid having an electorate that could vote entitlements to themselves without having to pay for the cost of them. Slavery was not a major issue in the 1700's; There was no mention of slavery in the Articles of Confederation at all. Which is not to say it was not an issue at all. John Jay wrote that the idea of them discussing 'liberty' while slavery was allowed involved "an inconsistency not to be excused". Patrick Henry refused to go to the convention over the issue. But slavery was codified in the Constitution in the process of "Compromise" that so many people claim we should do now on major issues. Without the compromise there would of been no Constitution. The slaves counting as three-fifths of a whole person was against the North's wishes that they not count at all. And 1808 was a date put into place in Article 1, Section 9 putting a 20 year "protection" for the slave trade.... And on January 1, 1808 Congress passed a law banning it. As for women having the right to vote..... Well, men were sexist and were in control. You do notice that most of the Amendments to the Constitution GRANT more freedoms or solidify freedoms rather than take them away right? But that is not important to the issue being discussed here. What is so damn bad about making each vote count by only allowing legal voters to vote? Why is it that this is not an issue in Canada? How do we do it? We require the person to provide some sort of proof of who they are, Canada has some great examples that no one seems to be upset about, why reinvent the wheel? 1. Govt issued ID. 2. Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address. Such as: Identity Cards Driver's Licence Health Card Canadian Passport Certificate of Canadian Citizenship (Citizenship Card) Birth Certificate Certificate of Indian Status (Status Card) Social Insurance Number Card Old Age Security Card Student ID Card Provincial/Territorial Identification Card Liquor Identification Card Hospital/Medical Clinic Card Credit/Debit Card Employee Card Public Transportation Card Library Card Canadian Forces Identity Card Veterans Affairs Canada Health Card Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec Card CNIB ID Card Firearm Possession and Acquisition Licence or Possession Only Licence Fishing, Trapping or Hunting Licence Outdoors or Wildlife Card/Licence Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities Parolee Identification Card Original documents (with name and address) Utility Bill (telephone, TV, public utilities commission, hydro, gas or water) Bank/Credit Card Statement Vehicle Ownership/Insurance Correspondence issued by a school, college or university Statement of Government Benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit) Attestation of Residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve Government Cheque or Cheque Stub Pension Plan Statement of Benefits, Contributions or Participation Residential Lease/Mortgage Statement Income/Property Tax Assessment Notice Insurance Policy Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: Attestation of Residence, Letter of Stay, Admission Form or Statement of Benefits Bold are the thing I have on me or in my car... I'd bet you are close to the same 3. Have a person who has that information who lives in the same area as you vouch for you. How is any of that difficult? In addition you could make the law take place in two years... That would give PLENTY of time to anyone to gather those documents.

Ah, so more "Bush did it!" but you can't use Bush since he was not in office yet. Did, it was crap. According to your own views when the Dems had the WH, Senate and House the economy should have been AWESOME... Yet it was not. Bill Clinton does not agree with you.

And yet when Bush did it you were calling for his head on a pike... and now defending Obama. So, you are doing the SAME thing you bitch at others for doing.

Weed has been shown to lower blood sugar in diabetics. Weed has been shown to help with chronic pain. Weed has been shown to help glaucoma. There are PLENTY of medical uses for 'speed'. But even larger than that.... An individual should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they please as long as they do not hurt another individual. A person wants to smoke pot and is not hurting anyone? Great! A person wants to carry a gun and is not using it but for lawful SD? Great! A person wants to sleep with a person of the same sex willingly? None of anyone else's business. So if a person wants to drink and is not hurting anyone, or wants to snort coke and is not hurting anyone, or wants to carry a gun and is not hurting anyone.... They should be allowed. They lose the right to do as they please when their actions affect others. On welfare? Well you are taking tax money. Stealing to pay for your habit? Well, you are a criminal for theft.

Sorry dude, not going to fly. I understand the need to ID for both buying a gun and voting. I also understand that a permit to carry a weapon is not a civil rights violation (as long as you can actually get the permit unlike NY, or CA). So, since I AGREE seeing an Id to buy a gun is a good idea... Your trying to put me in that camp has failed. So why should I be required to show ID to buy a gun, but not to vote?

The issue is the double standard people have on civil rights. My right to own a gun can be questioned each and every time I buy a gun. My right to carry a gun can be questioned whenever a cop asks. I have to show ID to buy a gun, I have to BUY and ID to carry a gun and show it to any cop that asks. Yet being asked to show an ID to vote is somehow a great sin against civil rights? Screams of hypocrisy. And Bill of Rights is not a difficult document to read, the only issue is when others try to interpret it to mean what they want. People go ape shit when anything is done to limit the individuals rights with regard to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. And you can bet if the 3rd was in use that they would be against that just as strongly.... But the 2nd, they crap on and feel good about it. Hypocrisy.