[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yours studys come from Articles & Blog Posts Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

Are you saying bloggers can't do "studys"? That programmer/analysts can't do studies? Isn't the objective of a liberal education to learn how to think for yourself? How to study? How not to be left in the helpless position of having to depend on others, especially so-called "experts" to tell you how to think?

My studys : The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is a nonpartisan, left-leaning law and public policy institute kinda like 300

Oh good, a "left leaning" nonpartisan institute. Isn't "nonpartisan left leaning" an oxymoron?

Detbuch: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
wdmso: Doesn't it?
[points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
wdmso: You there, what is your profession?
Free Greek-: I am a blogger ... sir.
wdmso: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
Free Greek-: I write articles , sir.
wdmso: writer.

Nice, the really rational "might makes right" argument. The Persians won that battle, because they had the far greater numbers, but as a "statistical" aside, the Greeks killed a much higher number of Persians than vice versa. The Greeks put up a heroic, magnificent fight, and are remembered with favor and affection, as the more valorous, and victors in the war of being most admired. And, anyway, even though the Persians won that battle by the "statistic" of killing all but one of the Greeks, while, statistically, the Persians had many warriors remaining, the Greeks eventually won the war.

wdmso: [turns back shouting] Brennan center for Justice What is YOUR profession?
Lawers: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
wdmso: [turning to Detbuch] You see, old friend? I brought more lawyers and facts than you did!

Yes, let us put our faith in lawyers, not on those who can think for themselves. And FACTS? What facts? A left leaning group selected a set of variables out of a larger landscape of variables and from that compiled some statistics? Rather than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, let me try to get at what I think is the heart of the matter. If those who argue that requiring a type of ID to vote is undemocratic also argue against and deny the majority's desire and strike down the majority's vote to require that ID, is that Democratic? Is it Democratic when the majority's vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman is struck down in favor of a minority's choice of definition?

Do those who insist that requiring a type of ID to vote suppresses the right to vote also believe that requiring such ID to drive suppresses the right to drive? Isn't it rational to require the ID if it is mandatory to have a license to drive? And isn't it rational to require that those who wish to drive learn how and what the rules are? Who is suppressed from driving when such requirements are made. Apply that as an analogy to the right to vote.

We have become a society which requires, more and more, the need for education and qualification to do "important" things in order to "suppress" participation of those who we deem not prepared to do those things. Yet, those on the left who demand stricter qualifications and more education in order to participate in so many of those "important" things, they, on the other hand, believe that even those who are most ignorant of our constitutional system, of what the civic responsibility is to protect and defend our system of government and how it is supposed to work, and for what purpose it was conceived . . . they, on the other hand, feel that even the most ignorant of all of that should be allowed to cast their vote (which is more powerful and potentially harmful than shooting a gun) to impose laws and obligations on the rest of society. And even that we should make it easier for them to do so.

Yet again 2a Supports state we need to enforce the gun laws we have now not enact new ones making it harder for law abiding people to buy a Gun .... But have no issues making more laws to address an issues to restrict law abiding people to vote .??. seems some think fraud has effected a recent election I cant make this stuff up

http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...raud/page/full

Again, you skirt the issue of the second amendment being an unalienable right not to be abridged, but voting is not. But, OK, let's use your non-constitutional argument. Let's make as a requirement to vote all the same kinds of laws we have now re owning a gun. You know, needing the proper ID, background checks, etc., etc. Then all will be equal and we won't have to impose any more restrictions on either gun ownership or voting. Would that be OK with you?