Out of curiosity...


PDA






nick012000
June 23, 2006, 05:45 AM
Which would you rather lose: the right to vote, or the right to bear arms?

Believe it or not, I actually saw this on a dating site matchmaking question section.

If you enjoyed reading about "Out of curiosity..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cz75bdneos22
June 23, 2006, 05:47 AM
right to vote

Fly320s
June 23, 2006, 05:50 AM
Right to vote.

Firearms, and the proper mindset, can go a long way in restoring the right to vote.

DigitalWarrior
June 23, 2006, 10:24 AM
Hilarity will ensue...

I figure if they are even contemplating disenfranchising me, we are doing OK at keeping them honest. The more workable and devious solution is to implement a system whereby I may vote, but my vote is not counted, or overwhelmed by false votes. If I manage to remove the paper-trail it is the perfect crime.

Luckily I do not ever have to worry about that (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/)


Oh....


Well Crap...:)

GTSteve03
June 23, 2006, 11:16 AM
If I remember my US History correctly...

The right to vote was not a universal right in the original Constitution. However, the right to bear arms was.

So, I would rather lose the right to vote, as the founding fathers obviously didn't feel it was as important.

Biker
June 23, 2006, 11:23 AM
As long as I bear arms, I guarandamnTEE I have the right to vote in one form or another.;)

Biker

WT
June 23, 2006, 11:28 AM
Looking at the state election returns and the actions of my 'representatives' it appears that I have already lost the right to vote.

Molon Labe
June 23, 2006, 11:30 AM
Voting is way overrated. And I don't consider it to be an inalienable right.

Gordon Fink
June 23, 2006, 11:58 AM
Bearing arms is a natural right, while voting is a civil right. Though one can lose the right to vote, one cannot lose the right to bear arms.

~G. Fink

DoubleTapDrew
June 23, 2006, 12:14 PM
As long as I bear arms, I guarandamnTEE I have the right to vote in one form or another.

Biker

+1!
Voting (in elections anyway) is just trying to decide who is going to take away less of your freedoms.

Molon Labe
June 23, 2006, 12:37 PM
voting = statutory right = civil right

voting ≠ natural right = inalienable right

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2006, 12:46 PM
Lemmeesee

Ballot Box

Soap Box

Cartridge Box


The reason I don't want the UN to take away my cartridge box is because I believe they eventually want to steal the ballot box too. But with the cartridge box we can regain the ballot box.

I'm sparring with the issue...:p

rev214
June 23, 2006, 12:52 PM
already lost the right to vote...liberal judges nullify my votes all the time...:banghead:

Camp David
June 23, 2006, 12:54 PM
Bearing arms is a natural right, while voting is a civil right. Though one can lose the right to vote, one cannot lose the right to bear arms.

Gordon: While I agree fully with your first sentence; your second is logically unsound. In many governments, the right to bear arms has been removed from the individual, thus your statement is in error. Even here in our own nation, areas outside your own home are effectively neutralized from your "bearing arms" environment without lots of additional permits; i.e., concealed carry permit and open-carry areas are increasingly rare. Thus, for the purposes of discussion, this nation is slowly denying the right you say you cannot loose!

While I fully support the Second Amendment, I wouldn't want to live within its republic if the right to vote was denied. Therefore, that right is more primary to me than the one that offers self defense.

calzoom
June 23, 2006, 12:54 PM
Up here in WA our votes are stolen, hidden, or declared invalid buy a Federal Judge Activist's who are owned by a certain political party. From Fancy stadiums to Governors it matters not.

So I guess I have to side on Bearing Arms.

longeyes
June 23, 2006, 01:06 PM
#3: The right to date.

Gordon Fink
June 23, 2006, 01:19 PM
In many governments, the right to bear arms has been removed from the individual, thus your statement is in error. Even here in our own nation, areas outside your own home are effectively neutralized from your “bearing arms” environment without lots of additional permits.…

The right to arms can be suppressed, but it cannot be taken away. Even where one’s right to arms has been infringed, it is still possible to acquire and carry weapons “illegally.” Even inmates in maximum-security prisons frequently manage to arm themselves.

~G. Fink

loadedround
June 23, 2006, 01:45 PM
Biker: That was well said! My sentiments exactly.

Carl N. Brown
June 23, 2006, 02:57 PM
Which would you rather lose: the right to vote, or the right to bear arms?


I had ancestors who were denied both rights. Hummmmmm.

Which would I rather lose, lungs to breath air or heart to pump blood?

Neither.

As for voting,
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=41462&stc=1&d=1151088594

Yakko
June 23, 2006, 05:02 PM
If you lose one the other is likely to follow.:uhoh:

oldfart
June 23, 2006, 05:25 PM
Voting at a ballot box is nice and the preferred way to do things, but, as a last resort, voting from the rooftops is also possible if you have guns.

TX1911fan
June 23, 2006, 05:32 PM
I look at it this way. If I lose the right to vote first, I still have a means to get that right back if I remain armed. If I am effectively disarmed, however, I have no means to restore any rights infringed thereafter. There is a reason that the 2A is called "America's First Freedom." Without it, no other freedoms can be assured. Whether we are willing to fight for them is another question.

Molon Labe
June 23, 2006, 09:31 PM
In many governments, the right to bear arms has been removed from the individual, thus your statement is in error.You are confusing the existence of a right with the practice of a right.

As an example, every Japanese citizen (who is not in jail) has a right to keep and bear arms. But the Japanese government has forbid the citizens from practicing this right.

It is impossible for a government to confiscate your inalienable rights; they are part of you. A government can only forbid you from exercising them.

Lupinus
June 24, 2006, 12:08 AM
right to vote

lot more likly to restore the right to vote while still baring arms, then it is to restore the right to bare arms through voting

Otherguy Overby
June 24, 2006, 12:23 AM
Does a politician have a constitutionally garranteed right to life?

Just how should we vote? Bullets or ballots?

iiibdsiil
June 24, 2006, 12:30 AM
Right the vote. I want to be able to shoot myself when I'm living in a society that is THAT screwed up.

beerslurpy
June 24, 2006, 12:34 AM
If they want to take away the right to vote, they had better take the guns first.

So my prediction is neither will happen, at least not as far as I can forsee.

No_Brakes23
June 24, 2006, 12:42 AM
Without question, the right to bear arms is more important.

The effect of our vote and the veracity of vote counting are both suspect, anyway.

But even if the President was democratically elected, and we didn't have private corporations counting our votes with no citizen oversight, I would still take arms over voting.

There is always rooftop voting, after all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Out of curiosity..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!