Saturday, January 20, 2007
What if Your Right To Vote Was Treated With The Same Contempt Your Right of Arms Is?
People are always making the comparison of the right of arms to the privilege of driving*.
Reader "Susan of the Frozen North", in a satori like flash of insight, realized that this is the wrong comparison, and her husband, Reader Ted was good enough to share her insight with me, along with permission to publish.
The idea, and some of the text is hers, but I expand on the idea and edit for publication.
She begins with the tangential to us question, "Why is the Dem-Wing so opposed to voter fraud laws and their enforcement, while at the same time contemptuous of the constitutionally enumerated right of arms? Let's see what voting would look like if it were treated in the same way as they treat RKBA:"
A) Voters would be required to pass criminal and pyschiatric background checks, to ensure that your right to vote is current and valid, not lost due to felony convictions, and that you have never been deemed to be legally mentally incompetent. The issuance of documentation to this effect may be delayed for many months. During this process, you will be fingerprinted and mug shot, just like an ordinary criminal. In some jurisdictions, the law enforcement officers will ask you why you'd want to vote, and whether you had any nefarious purposes in mind.
A.5) There will be a fee associated with this background check. It can range anywhere from $50 to $500.
B) This background check must be kept current at a yearly interval.
C) You will need to show definitive identification.
D) At the polls, you must show the paperwork that proves A and B, and fill out a affidavit, under threat of perjury, revalidating your status as eligible to vote.
E)An instant check of all of the above will then be performed, via telephone, to a state and federal database. This database will be frequently wrong, out of commission, or overloaded. The result of this call will be one of "denied, delayed, or proceed." If denied, expect to be arrested. If delayed, you may case a provisional vote, which might be counted later.
Steps C, D & E are universal to exercise your right to purchase brand new arms, (the "keep" part of 2A) in all jurisdictions of the US. Steps A and B are common in many, but not all jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions flat out prohibit all of the above, but let's leave that aside, for now.
Sadly, that isn't even yet the full extent of it.
What about the "bear" part of the explicitly listed right of arms?
Well, we continue:
To "bear" arms, you'll definitely have to do parts A & B, above.
F) You will have to attend a mandatory class for a certain number of hours, taught only at certain times by certain certified instructors. In the voting scenario, I'd suppose that this class would be a compressed form of Civics 101: how our Republic works.
F.5) There will be a fee for this, ranging from $150 to $750.
G) There will be a written test of comprehension of the material.
H) There will also be a timed, practical test, wherein you must demonstrate your proficiency in your ability to cause the the voting machines to record your desired vote. After all, voting is dangerous, and we can't have unqualified people getting confused with the levers and voting for the wrong people, now, can we?
I) You will need to recertify periodically, repaying the fees. In some jurisdictions, the fees will be discounted somewhat for return customers.
It is widely and vehemently contended by the left that poll taxes, literacy tests, or even checking IDs at the door is sufficient to disenfranchise people from exercising their civil right of voting, and yet they would gleefully pile all that and more upon the person who seeks to exercise their constitutional right of arms.
I think the experience of NJ which throws all of the above obstructions at the gunowner, and effectively denies the "bear" part of RKBA, tends to prove out that contention. After 50 years of the FID, gun ownership is way down to 12%.
*I, for one, am of the opinion that driving is a right, not a privilege, and that the precedents that establish it as a privilege never should have been accepted by the shortsighted public, who back in the day thought autos a trivial fad for rich people. Sadly, that ship sailed long ago. |
