close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Resolved...

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by gwalchmai, May 2, 2012.

  1. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    24,095
    651
    Jan 9, 2002
    Outside the perimeter
    Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

    Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.
     

  2. Angry Fist

    Angry Fist The Original® Lifetime Member

    37,792
    5,353
    Dec 30, 2009
    Hellbilly Hill
  3. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    24,095
    651
    Jan 9, 2002
    Outside the perimeter
    Good point. Maybe better if each taxpayer gets an extra vote for each dependent over 18.
     
  4. G-19

    G-19

    1,735
    0
    Jul 1, 2004
    Are they some how not capable of making their own decisions on who to vote for? Why should it be as their father says? Why not their mother?

    If they are of age and living at home for free, it has to be ok with their parents. It don't remove their rights.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  5. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    24,095
    651
    Jan 9, 2002
    Outside the perimeter
    Well, I would think it would go without saying that her husband would tell her how to vote....
     
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    If their father is intelligent, he can convince them rather than make them. If you've raised your kids right, they will make good decisions. Don't let that stop you from letting them making mistakes. That's how most of us learned maturity anyway.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  7. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,316
    41
    Apr 16, 2009
    If you have done your job as a parent:

    By the time your kids are old enough to vote, they should be mature enough, intelligent enough and confident enough to make up their own mind.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  8. I think I might support a return to allowing only property owners to vote. Kids who leaching off their parents probably aren't really voting much.
     
  9. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,316
    41
    Apr 16, 2009
    This practice was abolished in 1812-1860.

    The 15th amendment in 1870 expanded the ban and widened the protection.

    By virtually all accounts, the law you propose was used in the past to allow a voting class of only the wealthy landed population.

    Post civil war, it and literacy tests were used almost exclusively to prevent minorities from voting.

    I must misunderstand what you are proposing because it sure sounds like you are trying to turn the clock back to 1870 and are advocating the practices that were used to limit control of the law to just the white rich.

    Heck, if that is what you are advocating, let's bring poll taxes back too. What do you think about $50,000-$100,000 due at the polling station? I'm still voting are you? Let's limit the voting electorate to only those of the population that have proven they have the ability to earn and retain substantial wealth. Maybe we need a poll tax substantially higher than that to keep the likes of me from voting... By your logic, the normal work-a-day man can't understand the high finance of government. Right? So let's nail everyone with a tax only the wealthiest can afford.

    It's all tongue in cheek of course, but think about what you advocated in your post.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  10. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    There is no constitutional right to vote in national elections.
     
  11. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,316
    41
    Apr 16, 2009
    There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated and protects classes of voters. I footnoted, please go read it.

    You are using circular logic. My sons used to do that when they were young.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  12. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    Amendment XV

    Section 1.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv


    :dunno:



    I don't see anything guaranteeing the right to vote in national elections. It just says that you can't be discriminated against based on race, color or servitude.
     
  13. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,316
    41
    Apr 16, 2009
    Keep digging young man. Look at the precedent law and the subsequent clarifications.

    I've seen your posts before and I completely understand when you take a stance, your points will be far ranging and not always to the point. I choose not to participate in a debate you will no never acquiesce. As I've observed, you have never admitted a change in your stance ever.

    The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

    It is really just a yes or no answer.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  14. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    No, there is no guaranteed right to vote in national elections. Boortz explains it in this book.

    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001W6RRQG/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=abracapocus-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=B001W6RRQG"]Amazon.com: Somebody's Gotta Say It: Neal Boortz: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-KEUQkgQL.@@AMEPARAM@@51-KEUQkgQL[/ame]

    If the right to vote is guaranteed then why is Jesse Jackson Jr. introducing legislation to do just that, guarantee the right to vote?

    http://www.fairvote.org/rep-jesse-jackson-jr-d-il-introduces-rtv-amendment#.T6H5elLfW0M
     
  15. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    See post below yours. :wavey:
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  16. Raise the voting age to adults only.

    A 29 year old pot head living in Mom's basement is not an adult, a 20 year old Marine is an adult.










    I guess administering it would be a challenge:whistling:


    OK, how about voting on tax day, turn in your return in order to vote. Bring photo ID with Form 1040 & etc.

    If your refund exceeds your taxes, you're not a taxpayer, you're on welfare, and you don't get to vote this year.
    As your consolation prize, take home a pound of delicious government cheese, while supplies last.
    :eat:
     
  17. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,316
    41
    Apr 16, 2009

    You never answered it. Circular logic again.

    Read your history books or pay attention in your civics class if you are still in high school. You cannot have a poll tax, a literacy test, or a requirement to own land to vote.

    Are you advocating those laws be put on the books again?

    Again, it is really just a Yes or No question.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  18. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    51,971
    4,423
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Instead of limiting the vote, how about we simply level out the people with skin in the game?

    National budget / # of citizens of majority age = your share

    And everyone who wants to vote, votes.
     
  19. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    51,971
    4,423
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    I used to feel the same way he did but I've migrated. I don't want any man to have another's will democratically forced upon him. Limiting the vote to landowners, net taxpayers, poll tax or whatever allows one man to hold dominion over another man's life. While I understand the sentiment, I disagree with that.

    Instead, see post above.