|
njlauren -> RE: Constitutional erosion (8/17/2013 1:35:44 PM)
|
These are both constitutional rights, and on the surface, both deal with issues of trying to regulate a basic right enumerated in the constitution. The right to vote is granted to all us citizens and it is not a privilege, it is a right,but rights are never limitless. Eligibility for voting has always had limits, it took an amendment to the constitution to allow women to vote, it took an act of congress for native americans to vote (kind of ironic, right?), and the age of voting was originally set at 21, then moved to 18 by an amendment since the constitution specified 21. Felons on parole and such cannot vote because in a sense, they are not fully citizens, and part of the penalty of being convicted of a crime is losing basic rights. The voting age was established because it was thought under a certain age, a person cannot handle the right to vote, as time went on people kind of realized that if a kid can be sent off to get his ass blown off, he also has the ability to vote. The problem with voting is that while the constitution established rules on voting, it left the mechanics up to the states and that has led to all kinds of problems. Electoral votes are decided based on the whim of each state, and it can end up being a very games system, when they award electoral votes by congressional district that in turn is often gerrymandered to the point of being ludicrous. Before the 1960s, the southern states stopped blacks from voting, by having things like poll taxes (at least for blacks), or 'poll tests' that in many cases, for blacks were given in Ancient Greek.
The question with the voter id bills the GOP keeps pushing is twofold...one, is there really the amount of cheating they claim, and is there proof of that? Fox News screams about Acorn and so forth, but the reality is that cheating at the polls hasn't changed much over the years, it has existed, but it hasn't changed....which then leads to point 2, why are they pushing for this? And the answer is very well facing a declining electorate, the GOP is looking for any excuse to disenfranchise enough minority voters to in effect keep a white majority. It is not surprising that the places that are doing this are in the very area where the GOP is clinging to power by gerrymandering districts, it is in the 'red states' that are threatening to turn blue. The issue isn't whether voter id is legal or illegal, it is the way it is being done and how it is being implemented. I would have to do some work on google, but in one place what they found was with voter id, they were performing all kinds of things to deny black voters their id card, claiming they were criminals or otherwise not eligible to vote, while whites walked in there and it was practically a rubber stamp, including documented cases where they basically didn't do anything to verify who they are. The question with voter id laws is, like poll taxes and such, it being done to protect against fraud or to commit an even bigger fraud, deny blacks and other minorities the right to vote while making sure as many whites can vote as possible, and everything I have read seems to indicate the laws are being used for that purpose.
With the right to bear arms, even liberal constitutional scholars are arguing it is an inherent right, and the way it is written I am pretty certain it is, and knowing the background of the law, same thing. That said, like any other right, like voting, there is a right to regulate them. Like with voting, regulating guns is up to the states for the most part, at least in terms of rules of owning and buying them (there is federal law, because guns have an interstate impact, so you I believe still cannot buy guns by mail or the internet [that could have changed, I am not sure]), and they severely regulate ownership of automatic weapons. Arguing that gun regulation is unconstitutional flies in the face of hundreds of years of law. The real issue around guns is gun ownership and responsibility, and that is the problem. No place may ban owning private weapons, but the court also ruled that laws on licensing and purchasing weapons is legal, as long as the basic right itself is not denied. The second amendment doesn't say people have the right to buy any weapon they want (try buying a stinger missile or an anti tank weapon or an RPG, and see what happens), and it doesn't say they have the right to walk into a store and buy guns and ammo after saying howdy, and fill up their trunks, despite what the NRA claims. Things like Teflon bullets, that are designed to go through body armor, have no place in private hands, talon bullets likewise have no legitimate civilian uses and have been banned. The right to buy and have weapons is regulated, and it is because the right to own guns is modified by the right to maintain safety in society.
One of the biggest things absolute gun types love to throw out is criminals don't care about laws, and that is true. What they don't say, not surprisingly, is that most of the weapons criminals use were originally purchased legally. close to 70% of the guns pulled off the streets of NYC were bought legally in a handful of states down south with lax gun laws, and when traced, almost all of them were bought legally and were not reported stolen or lost, in part because the states don't require owners to do so. More importantly a lot of those guns get to the hands of criminals because Joe Billy Bob and the like walk into a gun store, go through the background check, and fill up their trunk with guns then drive to the big cities and sell them in the black market, of the guns that originally were bought legally, researchers say the data shows that a large percentage of them were bought specifically to sell into the black market. If states had any kind of basic registration and reporting requirements they do for cars, this could be stopped because someone reporting all these guns stolen or lost would look kind of obvious....
Put it this way, without legal guns flowing into the black market, guns would become very expensive and would be less common. It is a lot harder to smuggle in guns then it is to bring them in via the legal pipeline, which is what gun control is about. I think honest citizens should be able to buy guns, I just think that they should be subject to the same kind of regulations we have for things like owning a car, I don't think it should be like buying a hammer or a box of nails.
|
|
|
|
