In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
So married women wouldnt be allowed to vote even if they own land? What does your wife think of this[:D]
quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
So married women wouldnt be allowed to vote even if they own land? What does your wife think of this[:D]
In the true sense of the term "marriage" only one of the two is the head/leader and thus land can only be owned by the one person who is the decision maker. By design it is the man. Thus, co-ownership in the true sense of marriage is nonsensical. And yes, my wife is on board. I know it seems an antiquated notion, but it doesn't mean it's not correct.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
So married women wouldnt be allowed to vote even if they own land? What does your wife think of this[:D]
In the true sense of the term "marriage" only one of the two is the head/leader and thus land can only be owned by the one person who is the decision maker. By design it is the man. Thus, co-ownership in the true sense of marriage is nonsensical. And yes, my wife is on board. I know it seems an antiquated notion, but it doesn't mean it's not correct.Well...alrighty then[:0]
Okay, regarding the 'land ownership necessary to vote' clause, I considered it a sly joke when it was first mentioned here.
Here is a quote regarding voting in colonial times: "The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a "stake in society." Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes."
So it was a joke, referring to the colonial days. Nothing to tear each other apart over.
But under 'bama haven't we had mob rule? He totally ignores the legal (Constitutional) representatives of the people (Congress) and does whatever the radical Left wants.
So I don't think landowners and tax payers exclusively is such a bad idea. Better than having welfare queens, street bums, etc.
quote:Originally posted by popgun
Okay, regarding the 'land ownership necessary to vote' clause, I considered it a sly joke when it was first mentioned here.
Here is a quote regarding voting in colonial times: "The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a "stake in society." Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes."
So it was a joke, referring to the colonial days. Nothing to tear each other apart over.
But under 'bama haven't we had mob rule? He totally ignores the legal (Constitutional) representatives of the people (Congress) and does whatever the radical Left wants.
So I don't think landowners and tax payers exclusively is such a bad idea. Better than having welfare queens, street bums, etc.
So its not a joke?[;)]
It's not to me, but I think it was to the person who first posted it. That's how I took it anyway. [:)]
Obviously, we can't do that - Hell, we won't even be able to ask for a photo ID until we can get the 'rats out the WH, but I wouldn't mind if only taxpayers and landowners could vote. Our country then wouldn't be teetering on the brink of Socialism.
quote:Originally posted by Mark G
Ok. Here is a scenereo.
Last voting cycle I got a call Monday night from my boss to catch a flight early Tuesday morning to a jobsite out of state. I was not in town to vote so I missed this one. What happens to me under Obozos proposal? Do I pay a fine? Go to Jail? Loose my job because I told my boss I couldn't go until I voted?
naaaa, you will have a chip, and vote on your smart phone.
I'd be all for this IF AND ONLY IF they administer a "Pop-Quiz" at the polling place.
If you can't name your State Senators OR your US House Congressional District Representative, you are officially designated an "ignorant dummy" and banned from voting until you grow-up.
quote:Originally posted by popgun
It's not to me, but I think it was to the person who first posted it. That's how I took it anyway. [:)]
Obviously, we can't do that - Hell, we won't even be able to ask for a photo ID until we can get the 'rats out the WH, but I wouldn't mind if only taxpayers and landowners could vote. Our country then wouldn't be teetering on the brink of Socialism.
No, I wasn't joking. When it comes to American (or world) history, I never joke about something since we always repeat our (human) mistakes. Many times I purposely try to pique someones interest with tidbits so they do like you did, look it up.
Just telling a person sometimes doesn't make an impression like them discovering on their own.
Now it's implanted and you will remember it.[:)]
At one time Alabama and a few other states had a literacy test and a poll tax to qualify to vote. Both were found to be unconstitutional.
I'm not sure how the nine old white men (not the Chicago baseball team) came to that conclusion. The U. S. Constitution is clear about elections. If you have a Constitutional right to vote it's a State Constitutional right, because there is no U. S. Constitutional right to vote.
quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
There is no bar in the U. S. Constitution to any state putting restrictions on who can vote.
One thing I am sure of. If any state tries it, it will be found to be unconstitutional before close of business the next day. [;)] [:D]
No, I wasn't joking. When it comes to American (or world) history, I never joke about something since we always repeat our (human) mistakes. Many times I purposely try to pique someones interest with tidbits so they do like you did, look it up.
Just telling a person sometimes doesn't make an impression like them discovering on their own.
Now it's implanted and you will remember it.[:)]
Look it up? But then we'll find that those 'forefathers' had feet of clay, being the 'elite' of their times creates suspicion that they had self serving reasons to want only land owning gentry to vote. Jefferson, carousing with his slave women, Franklin a self proclaimed 'libertine' (dirty old man) wild enough for his actions to be noted by the Parisians of the day.
Would you want your children to emulate those actions?
Or do we pick and choose the ones we admire, and dismiss the rest?
How many times have you saw a sign reading 'George Washington slept here' small wonder he is known as the father of his country. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by minitruck83
Look it up? But then we'll find that those 'forefathers' had feet of clay, being the 'elite' of their times creates suspicion that they had self serving reasons to want only land owning gentry to vote. Jefferson, carousing with his slave women, Franklin a self proclaimed 'libertine' (dirty old man) wild enough for his actions to be noted by the Parisians of the day.
Would you want your children to emulate those actions?
Or do we pick and choose the ones we admire, and dismiss the rest?
How many times have you saw a sign reading 'George Washington slept here' small wonder he is known as the father of his country. [;)]
Dirty old men or not they came up with a better Constitution than I could have written. I'm willing to use it.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by minitruck83
Look it up? But then we'll find that those 'forefathers' had feet of clay, being the 'elite' of their times creates suspicion that they had self serving reasons to want only land owning gentry to vote. Jefferson, carousing with his slave women, Franklin a self proclaimed 'libertine' (dirty old man) wild enough for his actions to be noted by the Parisians of the day.
Would you want your children to emulate those actions?
Or do we pick and choose the ones we admire, and dismiss the rest?
How many times have you saw a sign reading 'George Washington slept here' small wonder he is known as the father of his country. [;)]
Dirty old men or not they came up with a better Constitution than I could have written. I'm willing to use it.
Yes they did!
(I was just stirring the coprolites.)
Comments
Let everyone vote, but force them to pay 100 bucks at the poll.
That concept ended back in 1964
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
So married women wouldnt be allowed to vote even if they own land? What does your wife think of this[:D]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
So married women wouldnt be allowed to vote even if they own land? What does your wife think of this[:D]
In the true sense of the term "marriage" only one of the two is the head/leader and thus land can only be owned by the one person who is the decision maker. By design it is the man. Thus, co-ownership in the true sense of marriage is nonsensical. And yes, my wife is on board. I know it seems an antiquated notion, but it doesn't mean it's not correct.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by medic07
Let me ask a question...what would you consider a land owner?
A male that owns land, or an unmarried female that owns land.
So married women wouldnt be allowed to vote even if they own land? What does your wife think of this[:D]
In the true sense of the term "marriage" only one of the two is the head/leader and thus land can only be owned by the one person who is the decision maker. By design it is the man. Thus, co-ownership in the true sense of marriage is nonsensical. And yes, my wife is on board. I know it seems an antiquated notion, but it doesn't mean it's not correct.Well...alrighty then[:0]
I know many professionals who have chosen to not own property and live in nice apartment complexes. They have never been on the welfare rolls.
Why would they not be allowed to vote?
Here is a quote regarding voting in colonial times: "The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a "stake in society." Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes."
So it was a joke, referring to the colonial days. Nothing to tear each other apart over.
But under 'bama haven't we had mob rule? He totally ignores the legal (Constitutional) representatives of the people (Congress) and does whatever the radical Left wants.
So I don't think landowners and tax payers exclusively is such a bad idea. Better than having welfare queens, street bums, etc.
Okay, regarding the 'land ownership necessary to vote' clause, I considered it a sly joke when it was first mentioned here.
Here is a quote regarding voting in colonial times: "The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a "stake in society." Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes."
So it was a joke, referring to the colonial days. Nothing to tear each other apart over.
But under 'bama haven't we had mob rule? He totally ignores the legal (Constitutional) representatives of the people (Congress) and does whatever the radical Left wants.
So I don't think landowners and tax payers exclusively is such a bad idea. Better than having welfare queens, street bums, etc.
So its not a joke?[;)]
Obviously, we can't do that - Hell, we won't even be able to ask for a photo ID until we can get the 'rats out the WH, but I wouldn't mind if only taxpayers and landowners could vote. Our country then wouldn't be teetering on the brink of Socialism.
Ok. Here is a scenereo.
Last voting cycle I got a call Monday night from my boss to catch a flight early Tuesday morning to a jobsite out of state. I was not in town to vote so I missed this one. What happens to me under Obozos proposal? Do I pay a fine? Go to Jail? Loose my job because I told my boss I couldn't go until I voted?
naaaa, you will have a chip, and vote on your smart phone.
If you can't name your State Senators OR your US House Congressional District Representative, you are officially designated an "ignorant dummy" and banned from voting until you grow-up.
It's not to me, but I think it was to the person who first posted it. That's how I took it anyway. [:)]
Obviously, we can't do that - Hell, we won't even be able to ask for a photo ID until we can get the 'rats out the WH, but I wouldn't mind if only taxpayers and landowners could vote. Our country then wouldn't be teetering on the brink of Socialism.
No, I wasn't joking. When it comes to American (or world) history, I never joke about something since we always repeat our (human) mistakes. Many times I purposely try to pique someones interest with tidbits so they do like you did, look it up.
Just telling a person sometimes doesn't make an impression like them discovering on their own.
Now it's implanted and you will remember it.[:)]
I'm not sure how the nine old white men (not the Chicago baseball team) came to that conclusion. The U. S. Constitution is clear about elections. If you have a Constitutional right to vote it's a State Constitutional right, because there is no U. S. Constitutional right to vote.
quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
There is no bar in the U. S. Constitution to any state putting restrictions on who can vote.
One thing I am sure of. If any state tries it, it will be found to be unconstitutional before close of business the next day. [;)] [:D]
We are no longer a Constitutional Republic. [:(]
No, I wasn't joking. When it comes to American (or world) history, I never joke about something since we always repeat our (human) mistakes. Many times I purposely try to pique someones interest with tidbits so they do like you did, look it up.
Just telling a person sometimes doesn't make an impression like them discovering on their own.
Now it's implanted and you will remember it.[:)]
Look it up? But then we'll find that those 'forefathers' had feet of clay, being the 'elite' of their times creates suspicion that they had self serving reasons to want only land owning gentry to vote. Jefferson, carousing with his slave women, Franklin a self proclaimed 'libertine' (dirty old man) wild enough for his actions to be noted by the Parisians of the day.
Would you want your children to emulate those actions?
Or do we pick and choose the ones we admire, and dismiss the rest?
How many times have you saw a sign reading 'George Washington slept here' small wonder he is known as the father of his country. [;)]
Rack Ops rules for voting:
Must be 18
Must have paid income taxes in the past year (if your "return" is more than you paid in, you don't vote)
If you received public assistance in the last year, no vote.
Look it up? But then we'll find that those 'forefathers' had feet of clay, being the 'elite' of their times creates suspicion that they had self serving reasons to want only land owning gentry to vote. Jefferson, carousing with his slave women, Franklin a self proclaimed 'libertine' (dirty old man) wild enough for his actions to be noted by the Parisians of the day.
Would you want your children to emulate those actions?
Or do we pick and choose the ones we admire, and dismiss the rest?
How many times have you saw a sign reading 'George Washington slept here' small wonder he is known as the father of his country. [;)]
Dirty old men or not they came up with a better Constitution than I could have written. I'm willing to use it.
quote:Originally posted by minitruck83
Look it up? But then we'll find that those 'forefathers' had feet of clay, being the 'elite' of their times creates suspicion that they had self serving reasons to want only land owning gentry to vote. Jefferson, carousing with his slave women, Franklin a self proclaimed 'libertine' (dirty old man) wild enough for his actions to be noted by the Parisians of the day.
Would you want your children to emulate those actions?
Or do we pick and choose the ones we admire, and dismiss the rest?
How many times have you saw a sign reading 'George Washington slept here' small wonder he is known as the father of his country. [;)]
Dirty old men or not they came up with a better Constitution than I could have written. I'm willing to use it.
Yes they did!
(I was just stirring the coprolites.)
quote:Originally posted by 96harley
What do you do with a mad dog?
Demorats drink it
You got me. I just had to laugh. Thanks