Re: Biden Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

If I have to show identification to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights, it's
hardly an unreasonable imposition to require ID to exercise voting rights.

Is it an unreasonable imposition to require ID to freely exercise
religion or peaceably to assemble or to petition the government?

Your analogy sucks.

Roger Fortson, an airman on active duty, was exercising his 2nd
Amendment rights. He was in his own home. What does ID have to do with
anything? Police shot him anyway as he had brought a gun with him to
see who was unexpectedly at his front door in the afternoon.

After he was shot, he was ordered to drop the gun. He would die later.

Was this good policing or bad policing?

. . .

Hell, I don't know how it's even legal to require a driver license to drive a
car.

Because at some point a judge upheld the state on the privilege versus
right argument in enforcing the law of drunk driving.

There's no constitutional right to drive a car

This is an excellent example of the right to travel is an unenumerated
right, and Thomas and Alito are wrong for claiming that unenumerated
rights cannot be expanded beyond those in existence at the time of the
Founding, whatever the hell those were. The amendment itself is written
in expansive language so clearly that's not Madison's intent.

but if the government is
going to make a privilege available to the citizens, it can't do it on
racially discriminatory basis and if getting to the DMV and obtaining a
license has a disparate impact on blacks as the 'progressives' keep telling
us, then the driver license requirement should be illegal on its face, too.

Of course that's absurd. We all know that, including the progs. Basically,
what they want us to believe is that blacks ONLY mysteriously have a hard time
getting ID to vote. Getting the *same* ID for any other purpose is a piece of
cake for them.

The old Stevens opinion is still the law. Why is it still being
discussed?