@amlam Why In The World Would Anyone Need An Assault Butter Knife! We need more conman sense knife control!

Again, the constition doesn't do that, the populace does

and you're heading into an era where the public, the average American, does not care to protect their rights

We need an actual rapist on the Supreme Court

Then all of this will be solved

This phony rapist, Kavanaugh isn’t cutting the non-consenting mustard

Alrighty bois. I’m going to bed. It’s been real and it’s been fun. But it ain’t been real fun.

Has it been feal run though?

@Beemann You might be confusing the ideal with what we have "allowed", and no its not just the 2A that matters in our constitution, it all matters. Most are not more important then the other (unless we decide to change something, its all important).
Humans have, and will always want to change things "for the better" without understanding the value of what that change will bring about. This means we always have to fight over and over what we hold to be truly beneficial for everyone, not just our own short sighted life. And yes we will lose things, yes we have lost some freedoms, but we have also allowed it to be peaceful. We still have are foundations in place that allows us to either rebuild or keep the ever looming risks of losing more at bay. All that matters is how far people are willing to risk the backlash of encroaching on even more freedoms.

None of the other rights listed in the constitution are worth anything without enforcement. Ultimately, any political power you can wield is force, whether by action or by threat. There is no real way around this. In the United States, the force the government can exert is counteracted by the force the people can exert against it. This counterbalance is enshrined in the core ideals of the nation. Without 2A, there is ultimately no constitution. Without threat of enforcement, the government is free to "reinterpret" your "rights" in whatever way they please. They can, and have, been able to play people's selfish desires against the integrity of the system they claim to serve and uphold. They have managed to do this at a rather alarming rate over the course of the 20th and, so far, the 21st centuries. Your citizen's militia has been undermined, your private conversations surveilled without warrant, and the power of your state has been drained in favour of an ever-growing federal mess. The ability to keep your rights is not being utilized. It likely will continue to not be utilized, given that people are actively supporting the erosion of their freedoms via your electoral process. Not even Trump, Mr Wildcard himself, has truly pushed back against the steady stifling of freedom

So, normal human behavior?

That "normal human behaviour" is the slow death of your rights, m8, but you havent addressed the main (and initial) point

If you were on an island with 5 other people, an administrator and 4 "citizens" and I gave you the option between a piece of paper with your "rights" written on it, and a firearm, which would you consider more important?

If you stack every other right in the constitution against 2A, 2A still wins. Nothing surpasses self defense, as an extension of self ownership. From this, all else is derived

Yes, things are bad, but they are also good. I don't overlook one because of the other. I don't fight for utopia, i fight for what are constitutions upholds even if Humans can fail to live up to them all the time. That doesn't mean i give up on the whole system.

What system am I giving up on?

I didn't say you were, just what i'm arguing.

against who? lol

Well, to be more clear, you were giving up on the constitution earlier, believing citizens shouldn't vote without service. And with your newer post, it seems you want to throw away the systems we have now, because we aren't keeping to it perfectly, but maybe i'm wrong about that.

So, i wonder what we should do instead.

No, my argument is that 2A needs to be upheld, people need to push back against it, but that voting is a privilege with attached responsibility being treated as a right (but only circumstantially, oddly)

The idea behind public service as a precursor to franchise is that ultimately you are weeding out the people who dont actually want it, or the people who dont actually value it might be a better way of explaining it

you're not basing it on IQ, any particular arbitrary set of characteristics, etc

Only on one's willingness to serve the public, and the nation, as should be the purpose of one in public office, and as should be the goal of any system of arbitration based around the nation's continuance

Ya, that goes against the constitution....
Tho i don't disagree with you about holding the 2A (like i uphold every other one).

Then I expect to see you taking steps to bring state powers back, pretty much demolish the NSA as it stands currently, and yeet just about all firearms legislation, because those also go against the constitution. At what point does the pushback happen?
And again, 2A is not like the other ones. It's the most important one

There is a time and place to push back, have we passed it yet? Are we still waiting for it? These are all good questions, we will wait to find out.

If you were determined to uphold the constitution, it's well past the time to push back lol

you dont get to do this "voting is for everyone because the constitution says" and then go all relativist on me for every other constitutional violation over the past ~100 years

I can.
There is a big difference between, not taking someones human rights away (creating a tier system to vote).
And allowing a process that has always happened and will continue to happen till its time to stop it.

Sorry, but if your core source of rights is the constitution, you dont get to ignore violations of the constitution when it suits you

that's not how it works

You can have what you want to happen, and what you are willing to allow to happen before stepping in to change it.

either the constitution is *not* the basis for your rights, in which case, my voting change cannot be met with "but muh constituion" *or* you now have to care about all the violations that have continued to go on

I'm talking about your level of consistency - or rather, your lack thereof

Its wholly consistent to understand what is happening in the world, and make smart choices about what you choose to go to war about.

lol no
Again
You dont get to use the constitution as the basis for what is and isn't allowable, when you dont care about violations of the constitution

I dont get to say "You're restricted to even numbers" and then throw a 7 in there just because I feel like it

You've decided to make an appeal to authority that, evidently, you dont even respect enough for it to be immutable, from a principled standpoint

and yet you ask me to respect it

so no, "muh constitution" is not a valid basis for voting as a right, as evidenced by both of our stated positions. You're going to have to dig a little deeper

I'm not asking you to do anything, you are free to push any system you want. I'm telling you, that what you propose is an awful system, i also didn't just say because of the constitutions, i clearly said it also a horrible tier system of voting.

While it may have usefulness, it will make for an unstable 2nd class system.

You made a blunt assertion with no backing. Hardly a convincing argument

you also live in a country where the system has already been implemented in the inverse - people who do not serve have their voting "rights" taken away

Is that the rule tho?

yes
Depending on the state, a federal offense carries with it the removal of franchise for a period of time. Some states dont have a maximum period - removal is indefinite

not signing up for SS by 26 can get you charged, thereby removing your right to vote temporarily or permanently

what's more, this two tier system specifically targets a section of the population based on arbitrary characteristics

so already my suggestion is an upgrade ;)

No, again, i understand those laws. But those don't change the general rule.

what?

>voting is an immutable right
>except when it isn't

how is that not creating an "unstable second tier"?

Are free citizens allowed to vote? Yes. Are their some instances where this can be taking away? Yes (depending on your actions). Does this change the rule that free citizens are allowed to vote? No.

Unless you believe everything can be perfect.

Sorry, a person who does not sign up for service getting their voting rights taken away is a free citizen?

There are very limited instances of that really happening, but i am also one that would like that rule to be changed. None of that changes the general rule.

So what is the specific general rule then?

what rule allows actual honest disenfranchisement based on an arbitrarily implied duty but is still "for everyone"?

One that was better then the previous one (the draft), but can still be better.

sorry, that doesnt answer the question

what is the general rule for voting

that isnt violated by this decision?

I've already said it many times, being a free citizen of the US, means you have a choice to vote or not. And yes, there are some expecting, but you don't negate the general rule because of outliers.

that's not the rule, as per the other rules that exist

*thinks this should of happened in general, so people could link stuff if they want*

We can move it to any channel you like (or DMs if you'd prefer that. Whatever works). That said, I'm gonna go to sleep, because you're now just insisting that I accept a blatantly contradictory set of statements, while also downplaying things that do happen in favour of critiquing things that *could* happen in a hypothetical situation. I'll check messages in the morning if you have any further responses, linked or otherwise. I'm not about to watch a series of longass videos or read a whole book though (I've had both expectations lumped on me in the past, just covering that base well in advance)
Good night my dude, take care

Catch you later.

wew lads - that was quite the wall of text

Shadows hasn’t said anything contradictory as far as I can tell.

You are proposing a system that compels government service in order to get full rights as a citizen. i.e. the citizen isn’t getting full rights because of government encroaching on their rights. How is this any different than the issue with the 2A? People voluntarily commit felonies to get their voting rights temporarily or permanently suspended, but that doesn’t change the fact that the same people previously had the right to vote because they are citizens. I think shadows point is that it is inconsistent to violate one set of rights to protect another.

Plus, how would compulsory government service actually protect rights? There’s no guarantee that people would just adopt a more libertarian/conservative stance on the 2A. The problem is that the gun control freaks don’t understand what actually causes crime to occur, so they pass nonsense laws that don’t affect public safety at all. It just seems as if the goal of this approach is to restrict who gets to vote based on ideological grounds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43255878

@Salacious Swanky Cat
A right is immutable. If it can be taken away, it was never a right
Further, there's no ideological basis. Service can be public service or military. The only requirement is that the individual makes some form of sacrifice (time+effort) to acquire the ability to leverage force against others within the system.
What's contradictory about @Shadows 's position is that, if the constitution were some immutable document, and a real reason to oppose the shift of voting from a right to an earned privilege, then all other constitutional infractions would also be an issue, to the extent that he would be actively fighting against them, no?
And yet instead he made excuses, as to why those infractions are "not bad enough" or "don't really count"
Something cannot be both the source or exhibition of your principles, and also something you can handwave away as it's undermined. That's the inherent contradiction
As to encroachment of rights, that already occurs with voting, as stated prior. What's more, "gun control freaks" depend on uninformed and lazy voters to get laws passed. They do not depend on people who exhibit traits of valuing their freedoms and the responsibilities that come with them. Instead they play to ignorance and fear. They play to selfishness, and a lack of respect for the society one has been born and raised in

There was an anecdote once, about a debate concerning Heinlein's idea of earned voting, in which the opposition was invariably comprised of people who wouldnt serve, and the people who were for it were invariably comprised of people who would. I don't think this is the case across the board, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was *largely* true. People just seem to want a free ticket to the government force lottery, and it's a bit fucked

@Beemann At no point did i say the constitution is immutable... How could that be, we have changed it many times already, i was talking about rights. So what is required to do so is to follow the document to see if you can make the change you desire. And what you suggested will fail as its not constitutional (but i don't mind exploring ideas). Tho i wasn't talking about what you may believe to be the best as merely flawed because its unconstitutional, but because it creates an unbalanced system of second class people who don't get voice in their governance, any system that employs this falls apart as it creates unrest for those without a say.
As for what you believe to be inconsistency in what i'm talking about when it comes to how the constitution has already been abused, so why i've not called out in fiery each and ever time it happens. Well, for one, i wasn't born 100+ years ago when that started, and i won't be around far into the future to prevent it from occurring again, and as i'm merely one person, i can't fix everything that's been abused about it. But you seem to only see the abuses of the constitution, and yes, i see those as well (and some things we do need to fix), but i also see the bolstering of it as well, as we have strengthen many forms of our individual rights then when that document was first created. So yes are system is set up to allow for some push and pull in these things, as to not create even more bloodshed ever time our actions fail our ideals.

If you, or anyone else would like, this has some good points about the last thing i was saying. Feel free to let me know what he gets wrong.

https://youtu.be/IdkPBbztfUU

1. You stated that rights are immutable, but have stated that things cannot be done "because of the constitution" when neither of those things have historically been the case, which was 1 point of contention
2. The video is moot. It's not actually what we're discussing. If anything, Justicar's comment re: rights being the antithesis of democracy, can arguably be used in my favour
3. It only creates two classes insofar as people choose to allow it. By this logic, anyone who doesn't register to vote is also part of a "second class", as is anyone prevented from voting due to franchise removal
4. If the constitution is the gold standard, it's not a case of some of of needing to be fixed. It's a case of all of it needing to be fixed.
5. What has been bolstered within the last 100 years?

What on earth is the point you two are arguing @Beemann @Shadows

Fun times?

Service Guarantees Citizenship

Which then got a constitutional integrity argument tacked onto it

@Beemann you are saying that if some does a country a service, they get citizenship

Also, I've never seen a Justicar video where he made sense

@Deleted User that’s what I’m wondering lol

It's Heinlein, Starship Troopers. The vote is attached to service - whether public or military. I'm asking for reasons why it's bad

@Beemann I suppose because voting has historically been the right of the citizen?

Basically the rule is that everyone has a right to be able to serve, so long as they're mentally capable of consenting to the contract, and they must find something for you to do

I wouldn't consider a historical trend to be a good argument. All new ideas buck some historical trend. That being said, society in this hypothetical is split into Citizens and Civilians, with the former having done service

I guess I don’t have a problem per se of requiring service for the vote, but I don’t want to deny citizenship to those who don’t serve, because then they would not be protected by the constitution

Are you advocating for required service for citizens, like Israel perhaps?

It's sort of the other way around

You automatically get your usual set of rights, minus voting. Voting is an earned privilege
Ergo, you're not forced into service, but not serving means you also cannot exert government force over others

Beyond rights protection, of course

I’d have to think about it, but on principle I’m not opposed

Although you’d have to provide an alternative to those who are unable to serve in the military

Military service is just the most obvious course. And again, the idea is that service becomes a right. You cannot be denied the opportunity unless you are mentally incapable of signing a contract

For physically disabled people, for example

Oh ok

@Beemann What if we use a tax based system? I had this idea when thinking about the welfare problem.