> So you'ld like to disenfranchise a good percentage of the elderly and disabled, anyone who takes ill on Election Day, anyone schedule for surgery on Election Day, anyone working during the hours the polls are open, and anyone traveling over Election Day?

Yes I'm completely fine with that. All of those things happen to people of all ages, of all political dispositions, and all racial and ethnic backgrounds. It's completely uniform.

Or go entirely in the opposite direction and eliminate all forms of voting outside of showing up in person on election day with a valid form of ID. No mail-ins, not absentee. Zero.

Plus it'd save a ton of money and be environmentally friendly as we wouldn't have to print any mail-in ballots.

> Shall we throw that ballot out?

Yes we should because:

1. That's the law of the land.
2. It's the only course of action that can be uniformly applied.
3. That voter is an idiot if she can't even follow basic instructions and the commonwealth is better off without her input in the elections.

Opening the door to officials "correcting" ballots by adding missing fields is one hell of a can of worms.

Either follow the instructions to the letter or simply go vote in person.

Mail-in ballots can be left at ballot specific drop boxes and at the local board of elections. Neither of those involves USPS actually delivering the ballot so there is no date stamp.

What a dumb take on constitutional rights.

> Well, from past experience and recent conversations it's obvious I will not change your mind, and you won't be changing mine. I could continue to copy pasta your rebuttals and give what I would argue are comparable replies. In the end, we'll never see eye to eye. Not sure if you'd be surprised or not to find out that I too own several guns. So I'm not anti 2nd amendment, just view it differently. > > The only 2 things I'll say is that 1- I just don't live in fear like you do.

The only fear I have is of a foolish super majority selling out their own rights.

> And 2- I would love if people put as much effort and passion into helping your fellow man as you do worshiping guns.

Claiming someone is worshiping a tool simply because they verbally defend their rights to keep them is insulting. That's just as stupid as claiming someone who argues for being pro choice worshiping baby killing.

> The world would be a better place.

That's highly debatable as the only people who would be disarmed are the law abiding.

> Take care though. Unlike the guy who was afraid to converse with me, you took the time and explained your argument. I can respect that.

Cheers and have a great day!

You should give up your right to free speech online as well. Maybe stick to a quill and parchment.

> Interesting take. So, your're saying the Founding Fathers made owning assault weapons a right back when there weren't any assault weapons to have a right to own?

Interesting take. Since computers were not invented then your right to free speech would never extend into anything digital right?

> There is absolutely no right, enumerated or not, that gives anyone a right to own assault weapons.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Have fun defining "assault weapon" too. It's a made up term with no actual definition except, "Scary looking gun that makes people with no knowledge of firearms uneasy".

> You 2nd amendment worshipers always take it much further than the amendment actually called for.

Those that give up freedom for what they think is security will end up with neither.

> Where is the right to have semi automatic rifles? Specifically the 2a doesn't specify which arms one could reasonably argue there can be restrictions.

The part that says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A law saying you cannot have a semi-auto would clearly be infringing on that right.

> Unless you're the national guard but I know you guys like to ignore the whole milita bit

The line referencing the militia does not say that you must be a member of a militia. It's an example of one reason why the right has been enumerated.

It'd be like a line saying, "*A well educated populace being necessary to the industrial base, the rights of the people to attend public school..." being just one example of why education should be provided to children. It doesn't mean that working in a factory would be the only reason you would have a right to an education.

> Please, do tell, what rights have been taken from you?

Fetterman and just about every Democrat has said they support an "Assault Weapon Ban" which in practice means banning any semi-automatic rifle. That's an actual enumerated right in the US Constitution. Not a made up one like being able to kill an unborn child in the womb. And he wants to take it away.

Many would love too. Too bad his handlers won't even let him actually talk to anyone.

Probably scared that he'll just start drooling and not be able to form a complete sentence due to the stroke.

> then not want to touch Fetterman with a ten foot pole.

Maybe they're scared that whatever is growing on the back of his neck is contagious.

When he registered to run for Senate, did Fetterman have to fill out a second application for the grapefruit sized lump on the back of his neck as well?

How much did it pay per hour as an employee and how much as a contractor? And what was your deductible for your health insurance while you were an employee?

Probably too busy smoking weed and worrying about that gigantic watermelon sized tumor on the back of his neck.