I confess, I do have arms. But I assure you they are on me, I am not in them. I do not want more power to any particular state(s).
So, democracy isn't cool when it doesn't advance your perspective? So, is this what we have here in Tennessee? Tyranny of the majority? Are you up in arms about this when it suits your views? Republicans dominate through the one man, one vote rule and the urban pockets of Democrats have little say in the governing of this state. I'm certainly not advocating a change in that methodology, so I don't think your critique of it suiting me holds much water.
They are taken care of? How so, when your argument is that rural people wouldn't be because they constitute a similar percentage of the population as these minority groups? If those groups are "taken care of" because their vote counts the same as anyone else's then the same should apply to everyone when it comes to something like the Electoral College.
No, I am saying that rural states are taken care of equally under the current system and would not be under your dream utopia. I'm also saying that those group are also represented currently as you would have to be saying they aren't.
Is there another right one we exercise for which we need to register? Speech, religion, etc.? I'm for making voting as least restrictive as possible, regardless of any sense of personal effort necessary.
Awesome, so you also agree I should be able to walk up and get an AR-15 with no questions asked, since no restrictions and rights and all, sweet.
Guess you were pissed when SCOTUS overturned the Tennessee same-sex marriage ban. I mean, 81.3% of Tennesseans wanted this.
Utopia? It's a system that, basically, exists in most democratic countries of each vote counting the same. This idea you're trying to suggest that I'm some dreamy liberal is crazy. The system I advocate is pretty simple and already works in a number of places. But, no, I disagree. Rural states are given more than equal treatment in a number of respects. A voter in Wyoming has a 1.5 times more proportional say in the Electoral College than someone from California. Thus, they are specifically given special treatment, which is not given to any other group, in order to rectify an imbalance in their numbers.
Actually, this is about a right, so this fails here. It has nothing to do with political representation or the value of one's vote. What your problem seems to be is that the majority will not align with you in some cases and you don't like it, but it has nothing to do with the rights you can exercise as preserved by the Constitution.
So you were upset that the people's vote was overturned by a document (or interpretation thereof actually) that you've already said is outdated?
Emphasis on the "least restrictive as possible" part with a probably adding of "...as possible and reasonable", too.
You keep adding bullshit parts to my argument. The argument is that certain parts are outdated and need to be updated. Please, otherwise, point out where I said to scrap the Constitution.
Nope, it's right there in the Constitution, says "bare arms". Never says anything about background checks, waiting periods, etc. Nothing about reasonableness and such.
So why are we being picky and choosy? What's the criteria? Again - were you upset when 81.9% of Tennesseans vote was canceled out?
The attempts by lame duck congresses to undermine the will of the people and newly elected governors is disturbing.
It actually doesn't allow for personal ownership other than in a militia (cue Float), but that's another argument. The Constitution also doesn't say you can libel someone, but there's exceptions allowed for threats and violations of others' rights.
Quit making all this so complicated. We're talking simplicity and less restrictive here. Make up your mind, do we want some restrictions or not?
No, because Tennesseans were voting on the restriction of rights of other citizens not merely exercising their preferred political party or philosophy. There's a distinct difference. You are conflating two ideas. The Constitution has always been an amendable document, which is why it has been adjusted so many times. Me advocating an adjustment isn't so far out from left field, especially if it's based on corrected what is deemed to be an outdated aspect of it. Hell, it wasn't until about 100 years ago citizens could even vote for their senator.
Fixed that for you. You were advocating stuff like civics tests and registering because people are lazy. That's just creating hoops for the sake of creating hoops, unless you can justify them for some other reason.
Oh, so when it doesn't fit your criteria, then it's not voting, it's tyranny of the majority? It is amazing that liberals don't push harder to amend the thing to get what they want, isn't it? Instead, run it through the courts to get an interpretation to there liking instead of, you know, updating it like intentions were.
