Caught part of the questioning yesterday, on the radio– and I can’t figure out how on earth the questioner is that jacked up.
It had to do with the second amendment vs voting rights, and the removal of one vs the other. Judge Barrett wrote an opinion against removing gun rights from non-violent felons, and the questioner wanted to compare that to suspension of voting rights until restitution had been made.
The question assumed that the only relevant consideration was how “important” the rights were– and didn’t even do a good job of that, looking at the purpose of the rights. Second Amendment: self defense and, in extreme instances, bear arms to defend and restore the Republic. Voting rights: guide the path of the republic.
Nope, all a stupid status game, so not dying is less important than voting, and you don’t have a right to not be killed but gosh you sure can cast that vote!
No wonder they aren’t worried about vote fraud. Nevermind if the right is rendered useless because Mickey Mouse’s vote was counted more times than yours, gosh, you got to vote! Your right has been given its respect! Meanwhile, of course, dang near nobody is supposed to have access to the single biggest leveler when facing violent threat, firearms. That’s only for professionals. Being beaten to death by psychotic, arson-drunk mob is totally not a violation of your rights….