The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

av8tr1 said:
Good grief this thread is just full of fail. Yes I am sure in your victim mentality someone out there in the US government is plotting a giant gun control conspiracy to ensure that only "white" people can own guns. Now we really get to the heart of the matter and some of the truth comes out.

Come on.....This is 2016. While that might happen in some remote small town in the middle of no where there isn't a grand conspiracy to keep "non-whites" from owning guns. Not saying racism doesn't happen. It most certainly does. But there is not a vast conspiracy by the US government to keep "non-whites" from owning firearms.

Our government is "THE" most diverse government on the planet in the history of the world. I spent a lot of my career working for the government. In the Army we had one color, that was Green. In the Air Force we had one color, Blue. The only people in our government complaining about keeping "non-whites" from excising their 2nd amendment rights are the conspiracy theorists.

God Grief.....
Click to expand...

In 1934?
 
Lawman said:
No what competency test is required to vote.

Go ahead, you are demanding one to use a firearm. Why should we let you or be subject to your voting if you can't competently demonstrate the ability to do so responsibly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your vote has a systems of checks and balances to protect it, for example you don't vote directly for the President. The Founders didn't trust the public.
 
av8tr1 said:
When you were with ALPA would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?
Click to expand...

HAHAHHAHA when I was with ALPA?!??!?!?! What does that mean?
 
Seggy said:
Your vote has a systems of checks and balances to protect it, for example you don't vote directly for the President. The Founders didn't trust the public.
Click to expand...

No what competence requirement is in place to vote. Answer the question. You demand one for guns why can't we have one or more specifically should we have one for voting.

I ask because the tests that existed in the south after blacks got the vote... They were found to be unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
HAHAHHAHA when I was with ALPA?!??!?!?! What does that mean?
Click to expand...

What ever union you were with. I thought it was with ALPA. Regardless, you claim to have been a union rep. While you were with the union would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?
 
Cptnchia said:
Many of those socialist countries that you admire and want to emulate require voter IDs. If their gun laws are good enough for us, why not their voting laws?
Click to expand...

From this article...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...her-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html

That’s in addition to many countries that don’t require ID to vote, such as “Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland),” the authors wrote.
Click to expand...

As I would take the gun laws of Australia, not sure what your point is.
 
av8tr1 said:
What ever union you were with. I thought it was with ALPA. Regardless, you claim to have been a union rep. While you were with the union would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?
Click to expand...

Still don't get it.

I was a union rep and still a member.
 
Seggy said:
Your vote has a systems of checks and balances to protect it, for example you don't vote directly for the President. The Founders didn't trust the public.
Click to expand...

This guy disagrees with you.

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration


A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

The link to the full article.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
 
Seggy said:
Still don't get it.
Click to expand...

Seggy said:
Oh, so just because I want to help out fellow pilots and the Association I pay a lot of money to, that makes me an alpaoid. Playing fast and loose with definitions and words I see.
Click to expand...

So now you can't even get your own BS right. Were you or were you not a union rep?

If you were a union member/rep the question stands in response why we have voting ID laws. While you were with the union would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?

If you were not a union member/rep who "helped out fellow pilots and paid a lot of money to an Association" then disregard my question.
 
Seggy said:
An example.
Click to expand...
C'mon, you're still here, "an example" of what? The government granting a corporate monopoly on firearms distribution? Why choose Walmart? What's your point? Single source distribution? Common background check source? Again- What's your point Mr. "An Example"?
 
av8tr1 said:
So now you can't even get your own BS right. Were you or were you not a union rep?

If you were a union member/rep the question stands in response why we have voting ID laws. While you were with the union would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?

If you were not a union member/rep who "helped out fellow pilots and paid a lot of money to an Association" then disregard my question.
Click to expand...
Dude, I dunno what your goal is to trying to discredit his position with union stuff but that is pretty well established.
 
av8tr1 said:
So now you can't even get your own BS right. Were you or were you not a union rep?

If you were a union member/rep the question stands in response why we have voting ID laws. While you were with the union would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?

If you were not a union member/rep who "helped out fellow pilots and paid a lot of money to an Association" then disregard my question.
Click to expand...

FWIW, members in good standing could vote for changes to pay and QOL.
 
Cptnchia said:
This guy disagrees with you.

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration


A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

The link to the full article.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
Click to expand...

That is part of it sure.

Notice the part about that the founders felt men shouldn't campaign for pubic office. Wonder what they are thinking about today's electoral landscape.
 
Seggy said:
That is part of it sure.

Notice the part about that the founders felt men shouldn't campaign for pubic office. Wonder what they are thinking about today's electoral landscape.
Click to expand...
They would be embarrassed. Like most of us today, which I think says a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top