Two gun control laws were passed, both expanding gun rights. However, he did sign 23 executive actions. Guess how many restrict gun ownership?
We *desperately *need better citizenry.
Number seven in that list: Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
The nerve of that man!
And the answer to your question is None of them.
By the way, your post makes it seem Obama only signed 23 executive actions, all of which restricted gun ownership. Reality is that he signed a lot more, they’re not legal binding actions, and your cite specifically lists only the 23 that are in response to gun violence.
The website your friend linked to has other important and factual information, too:
Early voting data shows World War I veterans overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton
Gotta watch out for those super-liberal senior citizens. We all know that they vote in the greatest numbers. Especially those in the 120-130 year-old range.
Correct, but the original recipe of this Republic called for the democracy ingredient to come from only reputable suppliers.
We’ve been watering down the product for decades.
So, let us in on it. Who do you think deserves the franchise?
I’m pretty wide open actually. I have but one limiter (aside from the existing age limit), it does not involve race, creed, sex, sexual orientation or education.
If you receive direct government assistance to subsist (not insurance like SS or Medicare) then you are disqualified from voting until you are not receiving it.
So Joe and Bob both work at the same company, both do the same middle class job, both pay their taxes.
But Joe was born with a rare and crippling genetic condition, and a government program helps offset the cost of his medical care.
Bob gets to vote and Joe doesn’t?
(Your plan is also rife with abuses such as both sides arguing over whether a particular government program is “insurance” or “assistance” purely to either enfranchise or disenfranchise blocks of voters.)
Indeed - it uses the example of creationism, which as we’ve discussed before, is largely supported by the question in believers’ minds of “well, if THAT part of the Bible is merely a metaphor, what tells me the part about Jesus saving me is not one as well?”
It involves a holistic system of viewing the world. You just know “They” are seeking to establish a socialistic statist system in which you may only do or say those things “They” have decided are “good for you” and it’s All Or Nothing. So because “They” intend to indeed impose ALL of their agenda on us, that one particular thing does not happen does not matter because we just KNOW “They” are just biding their time.
And it creates a myth that the only reason it did not happen is because they sounded the warning and were on guard.
“rare and crippling genetic”
That’s why I don’t like one size fits all government regulations.
I feel bad for Joe but at least this is a rare situation and will bee kept to a minimum for the good of all.
As far as the rest, I’d love to abolish SS and all those other programs so that those arguments go away.
Excellent point. But, shouldn’t we dig a little bit deeper in terms of the education comparison? A millennial that graduated within the last 10 years and a Gen X that graduated 30-40 years ago count the same? Is the quality and relevance of those two educations the same? What about the amount of information retained? Memories are fragile after all but diplomas are conserved if you put them in a frame.
I actually have that book. :eek: I found it at a thrift store, and I’m guessing that whoever put it out on the shelf had no idea what it was.
Still haven’t read it.
Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many millions of people this would disqualify - most of them “deserving”, whatever that means?
Let’s be clear about this. We have “watered down” the democracy by allowing non-property owners, women, and non-white people to vote. You are wishing for a return to a time when only affluent white men were participants on democracy.
By any chance are you a member of any group that your scheme would deny the right to vote?
Or does your scheme amount to legitimizing the political voice of an elite who are likely to agree with you on most things?
I’m sure they can eat cake. /s
This isn’t an impediment to some. Ann Coulter thinks it was a mistake to let women vote because they just vote for nanny state Democrats…
So anyone who receives welfare checks, food stamps, WIC money for infants and pregnant women, heating assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, federal Medicaid payments, college tuition assistance, or housing subsidies, loses their right as citizens to vote?
Alrightee then.
In addition to all the people who receive tax subsidies (sorry, rebates) for having children or being married, plus everyone in the Fully-Socialized Welfare Force laughably referred to as the US Armed Forces.
Yep. Enlisted personnel especially. I mean, what’s a uniform allowance but a government clothing subsidy?
I’ve already stated that my criteria does not use race, sex, creed.
My criteria is based on the inherit conflict of interest when one is dependent on the government treasury to survive and being able to vote himself more from that same treasury.
To you other question, yes I was once a member of the class that I would exclude. Like everyone I’ve cycled in and out of tough times and at one time I received food stamps.
I thought they called themselves ‘Trumpons’.