Voter records machine switching vote to democratic choice
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
I don't want to start another thread, but I have a question for the folks that live in Alabama. It is about the proposed amendment 3 that will be on the ballot Tuesday.
Statewide Amendment 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms and that any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny; and to provide that no international treaty or law shall prohibit, limit, or otherwise interfere with a citizen's fundamental right to bear arms. (Proposed by Act 2013-267)
I've read websites and heard on radio that we are to vote no. Others are saying vote yes. It sounds good on the surface, but they are saying it takes away the God-given natural right to bear arms and makes it a fundamental right. Need some help on this one, please.
Statewide Amendment 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms and that any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny; and to provide that no international treaty or law shall prohibit, limit, or otherwise interfere with a citizen's fundamental right to bear arms. (Proposed by Act 2013-267)
I've read websites and heard on radio that we are to vote no. Others are saying vote yes. It sounds good on the surface, but they are saying it takes away the God-given natural right to bear arms and makes it a fundamental right. Need some help on this one, please.
Last edited:
I dont know how common this is but it happened in MD and was blamed on "calibration".
http://watchdog.org/179372/calibration-issues-maryland/
Legally (or legislatively) what is the difference between a "God-given" right and a "fundamental" right? Honestly, other than retoric, I don't know what a "God-given" right means from a legal perspective. Depending on your outlook, it could apply to either side of almost anything. As examples you could have a God-given right to an abortion (reproductive rights/control over your own body) or a God-given right to kill abortion doctors.
Try this link. It explains a little about amendment 3. http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/proposed_statewide_amendment_3.html
If it was done on purpose its more likely some local hacks rather than the billionaires.
Wonder why computer errors always seem to turn Republican votes into Democrat ones? Seems odd.
Some of the links on that web page were interesting.
The run of the mill "Common Core is messed up" story.
The "epic gun fails" video is pretty funny.
In regards to J4B's Post (forgot to quote):
I live in Alabama, and this is exactly why I am voting against the incumbents Tuesday. We don't need stronger protections than the Second Amendment, and, unless you're an atheist and a moron, there is no way any right takes precedence over a "God -given" one as defined by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It's a waste of time and (our) money. I guess Alabama has no more pressing issues to deal with. But they'll dang sure funnel our money to their privately-owned businesses via state no-bid contracts and go after the Creeks in Atmore. Sweet Home Alabama....
I live in Alabama, and this is exactly why I am voting against the incumbents Tuesday. We don't need stronger protections than the Second Amendment, and, unless you're an atheist and a moron, there is no way any right takes precedence over a "God -given" one as defined by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It's a waste of time and (our) money. I guess Alabama has no more pressing issues to deal with. But they'll dang sure funnel our money to their privately-owned businesses via state no-bid contracts and go after the Creeks in Atmore. Sweet Home Alabama....
I do not like "subject to strict scrutiny."
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is enough. I will vote no.
The difference as I see it is that "God-given" rights cannot be taken away by man, where "Fundamental" rights are assumed given by some government entity. What is given by government can be taken by government. We should all realize by now that whatever the government takes away is rarely, if ever, returned. No, I don't want the government determining my rights.
As a gun owner and carrier, I plan to vote "no." For one thing, we already have a state statute forbidding local restrictions, other than ordinances about discharging a firearm in the restricting locality. The "scrutiny" wording bothers me. It seems to me that it changes Alabama from a "must issue" state to a state where local sheriffs are going to seize upon that wording to claim authority to capriciously refuse to grant permits, which used to be the case...
The part I've never understood is why anyone tries to argue we have "God given rights."
And I say that as an evangelical.
It SOUNDS good, yeah. But is it true? The Scriptures don't really go into "rights" so much as they go into "responsibilities" we have towards one another. Assuming my position for just a moment - God didn't give suggestions and he didn't say "these are your rights;" He said, "don't do this, do that."
That has bothered me since I was a kid, which is why you don't see me here arguing for rights from the Bible perspective. I may be wrong, I'm just saying.
And I say that as an evangelical.
It SOUNDS good, yeah. But is it true? The Scriptures don't really go into "rights" so much as they go into "responsibilities" we have towards one another. Assuming my position for just a moment - God didn't give suggestions and he didn't say "these are your rights;" He said, "don't do this, do that."
That has bothered me since I was a kid, which is why you don't see me here arguing for rights from the Bible perspective. I may be wrong, I'm just saying.
That sounds like a reasonable concern given the wording. Admittedly, I don't know all the ins and outs of this ammendment. But, it seems to me like something that might be aimed at firing up and mobilizing the crowd who worries about things like Agenda 21 and Obama concentration camps.
I agree with you on that. I'm a Christian, but I separate my religious beliefs from my outlook on government and laws. Mixing the two, regardless of the religion, hasn't generally worked out well historically.
I've always took the "God-given rights" to mean an entity other than mankind. So if an entity other than mankind gave you those rights, then mankind cannot take those rights away from you.
Regardless, it has never worked. Government is still going to government and they'll give and take whatever rights the populace allows them to take. Sadly, we've given up a lot over the years.
Regardless, it has never worked. Government is still going to government and they'll give and take whatever rights the populace allows them to take. Sadly, we've given up a lot over the years.
I totally agree. It's a slogan without any real meaning. It's important to remember that slave owners in the pre-Civil War South took references to slaves in the Bible to justify their God-given right to own slaves. There are a lot more references to slaves in the Bible than to guns...
But I look at that all both ways. In all seriousness - who are WE to go tell an Arab country how to treat their women (just for example)? We talk about the expansion of "human rights," but whoever decided these were "rights" and needed to be expanded?
I've always viewed "rights" for the most part as symbolic myths. The "right" you have today may or may not exist tomorrow. I've always thought one of the most amusing things is to listen to the SCOTUS nomination fights. The right argues so-called strict constructionism (e.g. original intent) which gets amusing regarding issues that didn't exist in the 18th century; the left screams hysterical about "respecting precedent," but they only apply that to one case, Roe v Wade. (If we actually respected precedent, we'd still have slaves and separate but equal schools to name just two things that were changed later).
As far as slavery......well, most other societies were built in large part on slavery although it was a bit different situation; a lot of the "slavery" referenced in the Bible was during agrarian times and was more of an employment arrangement than anything else (so to even apply it to the USA in the 19th century was somewhat misguided).
I've always viewed "rights" for the most part as symbolic myths. The "right" you have today may or may not exist tomorrow. I've always thought one of the most amusing things is to listen to the SCOTUS nomination fights. The right argues so-called strict constructionism (e.g. original intent) which gets amusing regarding issues that didn't exist in the 18th century; the left screams hysterical about "respecting precedent," but they only apply that to one case, Roe v Wade. (If we actually respected precedent, we'd still have slaves and separate but equal schools to name just two things that were changed later).
As far as slavery......well, most other societies were built in large part on slavery although it was a bit different situation; a lot of the "slavery" referenced in the Bible was during agrarian times and was more of an employment arrangement than anything else (so to even apply it to the USA in the 19th century was somewhat misguided).
Why don't you close this thread and start one on whatever the heck it is that's going on in Alabama. This thread is about voter machines not some law change in Bama.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 21
-