Purchasing question

[AFTERMATH]

I still don't understand the big fuss. It's not like it's difficult or costs money to get a permit to purchase. There are much worse states. Just be glad we don't have a waiting period for every gun you buy. It took me two days to get my PTP and now I can walk into a store and walk out with a gun in under 30 min. That's pretty good in my opinion.

That's right, we should all just be happy we have the privilege to exercise our unalienable rights.

[Collector1337420]

I still don't understand the big fuss. It's not like it's difficult or costs money to get a permit to purchase. There are much worse states. Just be glad we don't have a waiting period for every gun you buy. It took me two days to get my PTP and now I can walk into a store and walk out with a gun in under 30 min. That's pretty good in my opinion.

It is this exact attitude that people have been brainwashed into, which leads me to predict, firearms will be banned and confiscated within my lifetime.

Shame grimbeaver. You have brought great shame on us.

[Heffay]

Getting a permit in a shall issue state isn't exactly a violation of the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment.

Even speech has regulations, and it's not all bad.

[Mn01r6]

Getting a permit in a shall issue state isn't exactly a violation of the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment.

Even speech has regulations, and it's not all bad.

How about if we say you have to jump through the same hoops to buy a gun as you do to vote? They are both rights that are harmful if exercised by prohibited (or dead) people.

[Heffay]

Getting a permit in a shall issue state isn't exactly a violation of the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment.

Even speech has regulations, and it's not all bad.

How about if we say you have to jump through the same hoops to buy a gun as you do to vote? They are both rights that are harmful if exercised by prohibited (or dead) people.

Because different things are different?

[Hmac]

Getting a permit in a shall issue state isn't exactly a violation of the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment.

Even speech has regulations, and it's not all bad.

How about if we say you have to jump through the same hoops to buy a gun as you do to vote? They are both rights that are harmful if exercised by prohibited (or dead) people.

Voting is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

[jshuberg]

Owning a firearm is a right. Voting is a privilege, or more specifically an entitlement provided by the state to eligible citizens.

[Mn01r6]

Getting a permit in a shall issue state isn't exactly a violation of the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment.

Even speech has regulations, and it's not all bad.

How about if we say you have to jump through the same hoops to buy a gun as you do to vote? They are both rights that are harmful if exercised by prohibited (or dead) people.

Voting is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

You are drawing a distinction without difference. They are both rights necessary for the proper operation of the union. Constitutionally guaranteed rights are limited all the time too.

[Heffay]

Ya, voting is definitely a right. It is clearly and unequivocally defined in the 9th Amendment. It couldn't be more clear.

[jshuberg]

There are fundamental rights (described as Rights in the founding documents), and legal rights (described as Privileges in the founding documents). Referring to privileges as "rights" is a fairly modern development (1940s or 1950s I believe), and represents the devolution of the term to a less precise meaning.

Owning a firearm is a fundamental right. Voting is a legal right. They are entirely different things, as legal rights can and are denied entire classes of people, such as non-citizens. Fundamental rights by way of comparison are universally observed to be possessed by all people within US jurisdictions. Fundamental rights cannot be denied without individual due process, Constitutionally anyways. YMMV in the current post-constitutional government.

The "right" to vote is not granted by the Federal Government. It is granted by the state governments, and differ from state to state. The voter rights amendment simply provides a list of reasons that a state cannot use to restrict the privilege if voting, such as race, sex, etc. There is nothing that would prevent a state returning to restricting the privilege of voting to landowners, or taxpayers, etc.

The MN constitution, which is the legal document that established the ability to vote in the state, refers to it as an *entitlement*, which is a type of privilege where the government is compelled to provide a service to the people - in the case of voting, the service being the holding of elections.

In today's world, the term "right" is thrown around to describe many different types of things, and most people who use the term don't realize that the meaning of the word has changed over the history of the country, and currently is a blanket term used to describe many different and disparate things.

[xd ED]

To add my $0.02 to the conversation, I'll (more or less) repeat something I heard Jason Lewis once say, and I paraphrase: A 'right' requires nothing/ no action on the part of anyone else.

A privilege 'is something that someone/ something supplies to you....

I haven't been able to find a contradiction to those few, simple words.

[Heffay]

9th Amendment.

Pretend all you want it doesn't exist. Just because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Rights are rights.

[Snowgun]

Pony Pwned!

[Uffdaphil]

Getting a permit in a shall issue state isn't exactly a violation of the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment.

Even speech has regulations, and it's not all bad.

The difference is that general free speech limitations, i.e. outlawing yelling fire in a crowded theater, do not create a registry of free speech advocates. A list of those most able and of a mind to resist tyranny is a most valuable tool for the enemies of liberty. Without it, the would-be totalitarian must search all the sheep for the wolves hidden in the flock.

Being forced to exercise second amendment rights under the Sword of Damocles is an infringement worse than outlawing specific features of weaponry.

[Heffay]

Referring to privileges as "rights" is a fairly modern development (1940s or 1950s I believe), and represents the devolution of the term to a less precise meaning.

What did our founding fathers say about voting? Did they refer to it as a right or a privilege?

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

Methinks it's you who is attempting to redefine what a right is.

Firearms are denied to entire classes of people as well, such as wifebeaters and felons. Does that make owning a firearm one of your "privileges"?