User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:16:43 PM EDT
[#1]
If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this
 But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:19:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Alaska has a minimum one year residency requirement to be considered for residency hunting.
“No amendment is absolute.” - FJB |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:21:26 PM EDT
[#3]
we cant expect lefty to follow the constitution if we dont ourselves.
nope. dissolve the union |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:21:54 PM EDT
[#4]
OP should move to Calif to help change their election results.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:23:03 PM EDT
[#5]
I’d prefer residency granted only after verification of voting history.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:24:20 PM EDT
[#6]
We aren't voting our way out of this, no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:24:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Arfcom should enact a 10 year moratorium for new accounts to post in GD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:26:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. As long it’s not, “THAT’S NOT HOW WE DID IT BACK IN JOOOOIIIISEY!” |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:27:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Arfcom should enact a 10 year moratorium for new accounts to post in GD.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:27:27 PM EDT
[#10]
I have always thought that being an ACTUAL tax payer (property, FIT, etc. NOT general sales tax)... should be a prerequisite to vote. Being able to use your vote to take other peoples tax dollars is worse than being a thief/armed robber. At least they are taking a risk to get my money :(
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:27:28 PM EDT
[#11]
SCOTUS pretty much already said cant do that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:28:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Yep, checkpoints at the borders with soldiers saying, "Papers please."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:33:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Arfcom should enact a 10 year moratorium for new accounts to post in GD. Better yet - only allow those that have US citizenship to post here. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:35:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. Nope - you move to a new state from another state - before you get to change it you must live there and except how it is before you can change it. You gotta pay to play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:36:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP should move to Calif to help change their election results. You first 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:37:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Except what?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:38:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: That would at least slow the bleeding of progressive transplants that are fleeting liberal shitholes from voting to destroy red states as fast as they are... Would be glorious. I bet we only have about 10 years left in UT before we’re overran.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:39:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Any other pipe dreams? How about we form an organization to provide free one way airfare tickets of their choice to places like Africa, Mexico, Middle East, Central America, or Asia for folks that don't want to assimilate too, while you're at it. LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:41:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP should move to Calif to help change their election results. What people don’t understand about California is that it doesn’t matter how people vote here. The commies have been playing the voter fraud game here long before 2020. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:43:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCOTUS pretty much already said cant do that. I'm not sure they ever addressed this, but either way, there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. They'd have to base their rulings on past judicial activism, or come up with their own activist nonsense, to rule otherwise. And even with the current court composition, they almost certainly would. Any substantial residency qualification would be a bridge too far for this court. That said, 10 years is quite excessive. 1-2 years, maybe a bit more, is much more reasonable. 5 years would really be straddling the line on acceptability. I'd support such a qualification, but it is not enough by itself. A much more thoroughly qualified franchise is essential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:43:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Most of the folks on welfare are Democrat voters and that is a huge huge part of the Democrat's voter base. So if the bar is - "If I pay taxes I should be able to vote" - I don't disagree with that at all provided that only those who actually pay taxes can vote. If that was law nation wide then entire blue states like New York and California would flip red over night. And the country would be better off for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:43:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would be glorious. I bet we only have about 10 years left in UT before we’re overran. I feel for you - at least yo uhave 10 years. FL just missed getting screwed in the last governor's race - we lucked out and didn't get a gay crackwhore, but it was too close for comfort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:44:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCOTUS pretty much already said cant do that. I'm not sure they ever addressed this, but either way, there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. They'd have to base their rulings on past judicial activism, or come up with their own activist nonsense, to rule otherwise. And even with the current court composition, they almost certainly would. Any substantial residency qualification would be a bridge too far for this court. That said, 10 years is quite excessive. 1-2 years, maybe a bit more, is much more reasonable. 5 years would really be straddling the line on acceptability. I'd support such a qualification, but it is not enough by itself. A much more thoroughly qualified franchise is essential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:47:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I feel for you - at least yo uhave 10 years. FL just missed getting screwed in the last governor's race - we lucked out and didn't get a gay crackwhore, but it was too close for comfort. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Would be glorious. I bet we only have about 10 years left in UT before we’re overran. I feel for you - at least yo uhave 10 years. FL just missed getting screwed in the last governor's race - we lucked out and didn't get a gay crackwhore, but it was too close for comfort. The Dems are busy paying off the court fees for the 2 million ex cons in Florida though, so moving forward it might not be close anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:49:58 PM EDT
[#25]
I've been saying for years that anyone who moves into Texas should be barred from voting, and pay a 40% State income tax for 4 generations.
Don't like it, don't move here. Never going to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:50:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure they ever addressed this, but either way, there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. They'd have to base their rulings on past judicial activism, or come up with their own activist nonsense, to rule otherwise. And even with the current court composition, they almost certainly would. Any substantial residency qualification would be a bridge too far for this court. That said, 10 years is quite excessive. 1-2 years, maybe a bit more, is much more reasonable. 5 years would really be straddling the line on acceptability. I'd support such a qualification, but it is not enough by itself. A much more thoroughly qualified franchise is essential. Needs to be at least ten years of they are from NY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:51:32 PM EDT
[#27]
How about a regressive income and real estate tax?
The first five years you're new to the state you pay 200% of the full citizen's rate, for the next five years you pay 150% ... whatever strikes your fancy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:52:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been saying for years that anyone who moves into Texas should be barred from voting, and pay a 40% State income tax for 4 generations. Don't like it, don't move here. Never going to happen. I feel the same way about water signs voting as you do non-Texans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:53:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Just moved from a Red State (TX) to a Blue State (GA). I brought my vote.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:57:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. So a 16 year old with a job should be able to vote? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 5:59:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. You don't at present if you own property somewhere besides your permanent residence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:00:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope - you move to a new state from another state - before you get to change it you must live there and except how it is before you can change it. You gotta pay to play. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. Nope - you move to a new state from another state - before you get to change it you must live there and except how it is before you can change it. You gotta pay to play. I haven't lived in one place for 10 years since reaching voting age, but I pay a shit ton of taxes and vote. So, I'll reject your fantasy and continue with the reality in which I have a say at each stop along the way 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:01:17 PM EDT
[#33]
They are moving in here in droves. Buying any place thats for sale.
Good news !- our property value increased 65% this year ! Bad news- our property TAX went up 10%. It's capped at 10% per year BTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:01:23 PM EDT
[#34]
I am retiring to Arizona. I am more conservative then YOU, Florida Man.
Don't paint everyone that relocates, with a broad brush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:01:46 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure they ever addressed this, but either way, there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. They'd have to base their rulings on past judicial activism, or come up with their own activist nonsense, to rule otherwise. And even with the current court composition, they almost certainly would. Any substantial residency qualification would be a bridge too far for this court. That said, 10 years is quite excessive. 1-2 years, maybe a bit more, is much more reasonable. 5 years would really be straddling the line on acceptability. I'd support such a qualification, but it is not enough by itself. A much more thoroughly qualified franchise is essential. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SCOTUS pretty much already said cant do that. I'm not sure they ever addressed this, but either way, there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. They'd have to base their rulings on past judicial activism, or come up with their own activist nonsense, to rule otherwise. And even with the current court composition, they almost certainly would. Any substantial residency qualification would be a bridge too far for this court. That said, 10 years is quite excessive. 1-2 years, maybe a bit more, is much more reasonable. 5 years would really be straddling the line on acceptability. I'd support such a qualification, but it is not enough by itself. A much more thoroughly qualified franchise is essential. There is a case called Dunn v. Blumstein that deals with this. One year residency requirements for voting have been regarded as an indirect burden on that right, at least according to the Supreme Court. Basically, it comes down to the "right to travel" doctrine, which has limited textual support but is typically challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Not all durational requirements (for other things besides voting) have been struck down, and Dunn was decided in 1972, so who knows how a modern case would shake out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:04:40 PM EDT
[#36]
I like it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:05:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: That would at least slow the bleeding of progressive transplants that are fleeting liberal shitholes from voting to destroy red states as fast as they are... Isn't this the number one thing GD tells people to do if they don't like the politics of an area? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:08:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What people don’t understand about California is that it doesn’t matter how people vote here. The commies have been playing the voter fraud game here long before 2020. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: OP should move to Calif to help change their election results. What people don’t understand about California is that it doesn’t matter how people vote here. The commies have been playing the voter fraud game here long before 2020. They don't need and haven't needed it outside of the occasional local race and the like for a long time. The demographic shift is genuine, as were changes to our laws, some forced by the courts, including SCOTUS (Reynolds v. Sims), that make it easier for Democrats to win at all levels and to have total control of the State government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:10:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Agreed...sorry but the occasional arfcommer moving to freedom isnt offsetting the communist moving to free states
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:10:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not to piss on your well thought out point sir, but i would gander that allot of the transplants leaving blue states is because they are conservatives that have had enough. Isn't this the number one thing GD tells people to do if they don't like the politics of an area? That's what we're doing soon. But if you want to wait ten years for us to continue voting conservative........ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:13:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't at present if you own property somewhere besides your permanent residence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. You don't at present if you own property somewhere besides your permanent residence. For damned sure. We, (a group of local businesses), tried like hell to prevent a school from building a new stadium when they had an awesome one already but all we could do was get together and buy ads to oppose it. We couldn't vote because we didn't live in the school district. We damned sure had to pay the higher taxes when it finally passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:16:25 PM EDT
[#42]
"We should take away people's right to vote because I disagree with them"
 WTF, OP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:17:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alaska has a minimum one year residency requirement to be considered for residency hunting. "No amendment is absolute." - FJB Indeed... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:19:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have always thought that being an ACTUAL tax payer (property, FIT, etc. NOT general sales tax)... should be a prerequisite to vote. Being able to use your vote to take other peoples tax dollars is worse than being a thief/armed robber. At least they are taking a risk to get my money :( The retread has an excellent point... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:19:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is a case called Dunn v. Blumstein that deals with this. One year residency requirements for voting have been regarded as an indirect burden on that right, at least according to the Supreme Court. Basically, it comes down to the "right to travel" doctrine, which has limited textual support but is typically challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Not all durational requirements (for other things besides voting) have been struck down, and Dunn was decided in 1972, so who knows how a modern case would shake out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: SCOTUS pretty much already said cant do that. I'm not sure they ever addressed this, but either way, there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. They'd have to base their rulings on past judicial activism, or come up with their own activist nonsense, to rule otherwise. And even with the current court composition, they almost certainly would. Any substantial residency qualification would be a bridge too far for this court. That said, 10 years is quite excessive. 1-2 years, maybe a bit more, is much more reasonable. 5 years would really be straddling the line on acceptability. I'd support such a qualification, but it is not enough by itself. A much more thoroughly qualified franchise is essential. There is a case called Dunn v. Blumstein that deals with this. One year residency requirements for voting have been regarded as an indirect burden on that right, at least according to the Supreme Court. Basically, it comes down to the "right to travel" doctrine, which has limited textual support but is typically challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Not all durational requirements (for other things besides voting) have been struck down, and Dunn was decided in 1972, so who knows how a modern case would shake out. EPC is one of the most heavily abused parts of the Constitution on the part of the activists. It went from something understood to have limited meaning (basically meant that where the laws, and its executors, served protective functions, that people had to be treated equally, i.e. you can't allow one class access to courts but not another, or you can't punish murder of group X but not group Y, or you can't offer more protections to one class under the law than another. It was not originally understood to have anything substantial to do with voting (at least not as it might pertain to things like qualifications, weight of votes, etc.). In modern times, you get outrageous rulings or sets of rulings like the Reapportionment Cases . 1972 was not too long after the Warren Court, which was responsible for the latter rulings, so the court would have still been very progressive (and also the court which ruled in Roe v. Wade, which is a pretty good indicator of the nature of the court at the time). When it comes down to it, the Constitution does not recognize a general or absolute right to vote, and only prohibits the States from enacting a limited set of types of qualifications (based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, age if 18 or older, or failure to pay taxes). It does encourage a universal franchise (as it would have been understood in the 1860s, i.e. all male citizens 21 years old or older, and not criminals, could vote) by penalizing its opposite during reapportionment, but does not mandate it. That the courts have gone way beyond this I suppose just goes to show how little respect the document has had among the judiciary over the last several decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:19:58 PM EDT
[#46]
They should also ban fat chicks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:20:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "We should take away people's right to vote because I disagree with them" WTF, OP? Communist arent people |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:21:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What people don’t understand about California is that it doesn’t matter how people vote here. The commies have been playing the voter fraud game here long before 2020. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: OP should move to Calif to help change their election results. What people don’t understand about California is that it doesn’t matter how people vote here. The commies have been playing the voter fraud game here long before 2020. Looooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnng before 2020... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:23:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it comes with not paying state taxes for 10 years I could be agreeable to this But if you're taking my dollars, I get a say in how they are used. Ridiculous, or do you think children should vote if they buy things (sales and excise taxes), get a job as teenagers, inherit property and thus be liable for property taxes, and such, too? Should taxpaying non-citizens vote? Being taxed is not and never should be viewed as an entitlement to vote. Now, requiring someone to not be a net tax recipient, or be subsidized or effectively a ward of the state (such as by taking welfare, and yes, SS and the like is welfare), in order to vote, or having property requirements, make a lot more sense. So would raising the age to vote, frankly (sadly, enjoined by our constitution now). 21 or even 23 would not be a bad idea, maybe even 25 for the most important stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2021 6:30:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We aren't voting our way out of this, no matter what. lol at the people that think voting will fix this "VOTE HARDUUURR!" |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
