Homer Simpson Hmmmm

Just replace the candy house in Hansel and Greta with a DMV. . .

No problem getting em in Chicago
imgflip.com/i/5kql5o

Upvoted. Excellent meming.

Waiting 4 hours for the DMV to close B4 you get your number called to renew your expired ID, to be told make a appointment 6 months out, while everyone in line doesn't speak english.

Maybe cause they had ID and where able to vote because they where citizens

Oh, you're getting soooo close. Keep thinking about it. How could it be possible for so many illegals to vote yet not be found out?

If it’s so insignificant,Then why are you so worried voting laws that prohibit them or make it more difficult to vote?

Bluessol, this may come as a shock to you but we already have laws that make it illegal for non-citizens to vote. If they're willing to flaunt the law now, why would making it extra-double-super illegal stop them?

There is no point in making it easier to cheat. Thats what democrats want and provide direction to do. Let’s make it a capital offense then, since it doesn’t happen anyway.

So more gun control laws actually do work then?

Why would that be? Gun control only deprives citizens of their rights. Criminals don’t care. The difference is one is denying a constitutional right and one is trying to allow violation. Sorry you don’t comprehend that difference.

"Criminals don’t care."

Exactly. Thank you for spotlighting the flaw in your argument, the reason why more gun control laws, voter regulation laws are essentially pointless exercises in security theater. I'm rather astounded that you don't comprehend there is no difference.

The point is voter id laws aren’t about punishment it’s about making it harder for them vote than it is now. Simple enough.

Gun control on the other hand seeks to criminalize aspects of gun ownership in violation of the 2nd amendment. Not the same. And gun control laws are very effective at denying rights of citizens.

Ah, I see the problem; you're mistaking your opinion about gun control laws for facts concerning said same.

So let's dissect your viewpoint in light of the 2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"gun control... ...seeks to criminalize aspects of gun ownership in violation of the 2nd amendment."

regulate (verb) -to control something by means of rules

Can a private citizen legally own a nuclear, chemical, biological weapon? No. Why? Because *regulating* facets of the Right to Bear Arms is not violative of the Second Amendment.

But let's not stop there, no... let's talk paperwork. For pretty much everything but the aforementioned weaponry, there is renewable, revocable licensing, restriction based on due process of law. Likewise, for the Right of Sufferage, there is regulation, paperwork, and revocable access to the ballot box based on due process of law. Ergo, in order for your opinion to align with fact, regulation of firearms and sufferage must be equally violative of Constitutional Right.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The militia refers to regulation of the militia, not the arms. The second amendment is right behind the first amendment . You don’t need a license to exercise your right to free speech. Why would the 2nd amendment require licensing and limitation.

Your whole argument is in error. Suffrage is about citizens access to the ballot box not illegal aliens access. So no, not the same as illegal aliens have no constitutional right to vote.

Because your speech can't kill anyone with a pull of a finger. Also because normally when crazy people say something they can't hurt anyone but when a crazy person gets a gun they can kill hundreds.

At no point did I say illegal aliens have the right to vote so I'm not sure why you're trying to interject that into the discussion unless your imagination told you I said something I didn't.

Anyway, good effort but still a losing argument. Why? Well first off, firearms don't wield themselves. And also because:

mi·li·tia -noun
1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in
2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular
historical
3. (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.

Pay particular attention to #3. If that's not enough for you, let's take a look at federal law:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of *all* able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

If the gun control law applies to the citizen and the citizen is, by default, part of the militia then the law regulating the citizen's possession of arms regulates the militia. Now, granted there's a potential gray area concerning those 45 or older but that's addressed by the Equal Protection Clause.

XiaoJia0 ups, 2d
“At no point did I say illegal aliens have the right to vote so I'm not sure why you're trying to interject that into the discussion unless your imagination told you I said something I didn't.“

You didn’t have to say it, you inferred it by comparison. You tried to equate voter ID with gun control. A false equivalency is the basis of your argument.

"You didn’t have to say it, you inferred it by comparison."

First off, that's a word salad sentence if ever there was one. Second, given that you've demonstrated you don't comprehend the simple difference between "imply" and "infer," it follows that you're not intellectually, informationally qualified to participate in this conversation.

"A false equivalency is the basis of your argument."

Nope. Like you said "criminals don't care." And if criminals don't care about laws, then passing more laws has no impact on criminals regardless of whether those laws concern firearms or voting. It's hilarious that you demonstratedly can't see the foundational flaw in your argument. 🤣

"Every non criminal citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, period."

“(^^That's another oopsie; you just indirectly confirmed the part about "shall not be infringed" isn't absolute. You're not exactly batting 1.000 today, Blues 😏)”

Right another oopsie on your part. Criminals convicted of certain crimes or people found to be insane or incompetent can lose certain rights and even their freedom based on their convictions. So with those exception citizens “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s not a privilege granted by politicians or petty tyrants from the left. It’s an inalienable right same as free speech. There are rare exceptions to that as well. Do we have to list each one as well. I would have thought you being the genius of yourself you would already know.

First you say that rights can be lost, then you say rights are inalienable. Pick a lane, bro. 🤣

"A false equivalency is the basis of your argument."

“Nope. Like you said "criminals don't care." And if criminals don't care about laws, then passing more laws has no impact on criminals regardless of whether those laws concern firearms or voting. It's hilarious that you demonstratedly can't see the foundational flaw in your argument. 🤣”

Can’t see what’s not there. Namely a flaw, because there is only one and that is your ability or more correctly your inability to articulate a coherent argument.

Your false equivalency is equating illegal aliens standing with a citizens. Not regulatory laws. Nice try at the flim flam. The basis of your argument is a false equivalency. Try a new distraction, this one’s not working.

Nice try, but again, at no point did I say anything about illegal aliens being equal in standing with the citizen's. I asked a question -specifically "So more gun control laws actually do work then?" Everything after that is the product of your assumptive imaginings. 😏

XiaoJia0 ups, 13h
"You didn’t have to say it, you inferred it by comparison."

“First off, that's a word salad sentence if ever there was one. Second, given that you've demonstrated you don't comprehend the simple difference between "imply" and "infer," it follows that you're not intellectually, informationally qualified to participate in this conversation.“

😂 word salad? Maybe for a troglodyte or the Geico caveman. You have a very bad case of the leftist false superiority complex. Usually compensating for low IQ and feelings of inadequacy, but hey you do you. You inferred there was equivalency when there wasn’t. So even though your inference was based on false conclusions it still qualifies as an erroneous conclusion inferred by you.

LOL!!! I inferred nothing; the question was "So more gun control laws actually do work then?" Every comment I made after that was simply a examinative dissection of your answers.

Oh, also, I see you're correctly employing the word "infer" now. If I'm suffering "a very bad case of the leftist false superiority complex" then it stands to reason I can't know or have a greater understanding than you of anything. And yet here we are, in the afterglow of me teaching you.

“If the gun control law applies to the citizen and the citizen is, by default, part of the militia then the law regulating the citizen's possession of arms regulates the militia.”

That is a wildly flawed and incorrect interpretation. Regulation of the militia does not include limiting arms. It could require specific arms for military exigencies like similar caliber ammunition for supply purposes. It however, absolutely does not include prohibition or limitation of other arms. It only regulates the militias requirements and not the citizens rights. Every non criminal citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, period.

"That is a wildly flawed and incorrect interpretation. Regulation of the militia does not include limiting arms."

You're mistaking your opinion for fact again, Blues, and you're evidently fully aware of it -as demonstrated by following your assertion with "could" rather than "does." To wit:

"It *could* require specific arms for military exigencies like similar caliber ammunition for supply purposes."

Aaand you just nut-punched your own argument again; a regulation specifying type(s) of firearm for use by the militia but not others -regardless of reason- is a de facto firearms ban. Oopsie.

In any case, 10 U.S. Code § 246 says what it says and it's pretty clear you spent the last three days trying to find an angle which would allow you to take the high ground(<<See that? That's *inferrence* based on situation, time-scale. Grok the directional relationship between who implies and who infers yet?). Sorry, but you didn't get there.

"It however, absolutely does not include prohibition or limitation of other arms."

Well now that sentence is a direct conflict of its predecessor.

"Every non criminal citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, period."

(^^That's another oopsie; you just indirectly confirmed the part about "shall not be infringed" isn't absolute. You're not exactly batting 1.000 today, Blues 😏)

Yes, as does every convicted felon. And, per the prerogatives of the several legislatures, that right is reasonably curtailed by law -typically in regards to firearm possession but sometimes including things like crossbows and bladed arms. Also, as you're likely bristling and having knee-jerk thoughts of "but muh due process" as you read this, don't forget: the due process clause ends in "of law" with said process coming in myriad forms.

“ Aaand you just nut-punched your own argument again; a regulation specifying type(s) of firearm for use by the militia but not others -regardless of reason- is a de facto firearms ban. Oopsie.”

Oopsie is right that is a ooooof size oopsie on your part. How does a regulation stating a certain caliber of firearm when called up by the militia become a ban on all other types? 😂 it doesn’t because what you are required to provide for militia service has nothing whatsoever to do with what other firearms you own. You are so desperately seeking to tie the militia to gun control rather than service regulations. I’m sure you never served or would but jeez your desperation is showing.

It's hilarious how you're scrambling to create a narrative of desperation. Look up the word "ban" and think about it. 🤣

We've gone over this before. What does it take to be registered to vote in your state? It's not just "magic and wishes" there's a specific process that verifies your identity.

If undocumented immigrants are sophisticated enough to circumvent that existing verification system, they can handle forging a few more documents to the super double extra laws.

Like the SAVE act requirements. It will disenfranchise around 70% of American women. Because their birth certificate doesn't have the same last name as their ID.

The current system is basically if you have an id or drivers license you can register to vote on a simple declaration that you are a citizen. Check the box is all it takes. They are voting in elections and the democratic super majority are n California doesn’t care to enforce any voting prohibitions for illegals. Thats the democratic model for the country.

More fear mongering about married woman being denied the right to vote from the left isn’t surprising.

Ahh yes the very few blue democrat states or cities hiding all these illegals that are still seemingly all over the country.

Uhh because blue democrat cities are harboring the millions apon millions of them that there are. In 2 cities and they can't be found duhhh

Remember red republican states are less populated and require more working illegals and immigrants that have outstayed their welcome because of animal agriculture moguls behind the operation of their states, which most of their leaders were never originally born in, and run hedge fund companies.

That's true the farms complain about Immigrants taking the jobs. Then complain they aren't doing the jobs like pick one

I grew up in a very white Mexican and very few black community. Fast forward to 16 years now we have individual from every country living in the cities, and obviously not involved in agriculture. It's like they are being flown in and paying the city to harbor them. And I'm in a republican state. Just crazy ridiculous when the Native American and the Pioneer are the new minority.

I'm not anti immigrants, but the problem is immigrants need to follow the law, and our government can't just allow millions and billions of people to immigrate. We had immigration quota laws for a reason. Before the natives were driven out of their lands, the would have fought to the death to prevent the land from being overran. But they wouldn't have survived to tell the tail so they agreed with treaties. For some reason today our leaders forget that we can't just allow everyone who can get a airplane ticket the ability to fly in and get lost in America. We can't allow everyone who doesn't like their country to flee it and live in America. It continues to disrupt our country every time the immigration office approves another million applications. 380 million people in America is crazy compared to the 308+ million people in the US 2010 census.

I agree but that should come with due process. We all can agree deporting someone because of were they came Is no good reason and even if they did commit a crime or something they deserve the same process I get.

You're right everyone that can get a ticket shouldn't come in the cartel can buy hundred of tickets
But not everyone that looks or sounds like an immigrant should be thrown out for existing

The history of immigration in America is a interesting one. Ellis Island is a great place to start learning about it. Of course America had a history of turning away immigrants in the past. If someone was to sick, or lacked work skills, or other various reasons which were sometimes racist, or biased would be sent back to their country of origin. Then somewhere in the progression of time the government made quota laws, and began to expand them. Laws on refugees and laws on handling illegal immigrants. And if you remember the Patriot act, nobody was immune from that.