[ScramasaxDurango]

Not sure what I think about this. Can't decide if it characterizes all gun owners/southerners as crazy. Makes me think, regardless. You might find it interesting. I guess you could say that arms guarantee the right to vote? Either way, it's an interesting question to answer (which would you rather give up-- the right to bear arms, or the right to vote?).

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/4/19/17/the-craziest-states-in-america-11706-1271711623-39.jpg

Since I have no idea if that grabbed the right image, I'll also hyperlink it

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/the-craziest-states-in-america

[M-Cameron]

if that map is factual and correct......


i find it interesting that in states where there is high gun control( California, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, ect.), they voted more "green" than gun friendly states like Texas, Arizona, ect.


and im not really sure the author of the article understands that without the right to bear arms.....we most likely wouldnt have a right to vote....but what do i know, i do live in one of those "crazy" states after all.

[Tommygunn]

Well ... being in Alabama I am happy we value the right to keep and bear arms as highly as we do ... and perturbed that we're so willing to give up the right to vote .....:scrutiny::eek:

[ArfinGreebly]

. . . perturbed that we're so willing to give up the right to vote . . .

The question is a false dichotomy.

Would you rather starve or eat your children?

Would you rather live under communism or under fascism?

Would you rather beat your wife or kick your dog?


Why would you chose either option in any of those questions?

What would make you think that the only valid choices would ever be losing the right to vote or losing the right to bear arms?

The question itself is flawed.

It proposes that those two choices are all you get.


Now, imagine that someone actually forced that decision on you. We have already seen that the "right to vote" can be co-opted to the point where your vote really does not affect the outcome.

If you have to choose between irrelevant "voting" and retaining the means to re-assert your relevance, then that's a different kind of choice, isn't it?

Rather different from choosing between, say, "losing the right to vote yourself rainbows and unicorns versus losing the right to murder people."


Understand that the question, as asked, isn't the question as answered. The choices expressed in the answers are a product of the respondent's world view and the filters through which the questions are "heard."


All of that said, it really is a bad question, and the resulting graph is pretty meaningless, absent the thought context of the respondents.

[Zoidberg523]

ArfinGreebly +1 I could not agree more.

[DeepSouth]

Unless I am terribly mistaken, and I may be, there is no such thing as a "right" to vote, at least on a federal level.

Feel free to correct me if you know where it is addressed as a right in our legal system, or founding documents.


EDIT:

This is what I was thinking of.

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Right to bear arms is security for other rights, with it we can vote.

[ScramasaxDurango]

Guess so. Just thought it was interesting, like I said. I guess it also shows you how the media, whether that be Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or any other source, can skew things to reflect their personal opinions. Anybody who says that the news is unbiased is an idiot. I usually try to read the same article in both CNN, Fox, BBC, and a few other places if I have time... I kinda figure the truth lies somewhere in between what each is saying.

[Tommygunn]

False Dichotomy
. . . perturbed that we're so willing to give up the right to vote . . .

The question is a false dichotomy.

Would you rather starve or eat your children?

Would you rather live under communism or under fascism?

Would you rather beat your wife or kick your dog?


Why would you chose either option in any of those questions?

What would make you think that the only valid choices would ever be losing the right to vote or losing the right to bear arms?

The question itself is flawed.

It proposes that those two choices are all you get......

True. I was simply "waxing philosophical" about the issue. But it's true, it is not a legitimate choice.