I'm running for office in YOUR state!

In what states do you believe you can be elected, taking the position that so long as a citizen can (eventually) own a gun, no restriction placed on that ownership.qualifies as an infringement?

Why do you believe a 60-day wait and a $10,000 tax does not qualify as an infringement?

 

Most states. An infringement is denying access, what I support is a process to go through. My number one issue is jobs and job security, so I think most people would feel that is more important even if they disagree with my approach to gun violence.

 

Why do you believe that the people of mist states will elect you, having taking that position?

Do you believe that a $500 permit to have an abortion and a $1000 tax on the procedure infringes on the right to same?

 

I don't support a $10,000 tax, but I do support a waiting/training period, as well as the other processes I mentioned. Like I said, an infringement is a flat denial of a right. My policy would be an added safety measure to be sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands.

- - - Updated - - -

Because of what I just said, if your number one issue is unfettered access to guns, I'm not your candidate. No, I don't believe that would be an infringement on abortion rights, though as I mentioned I am not someone who support monetary compensation for access to guns, abortion, etc.

 

Why do you believe a $10,000 tax is not an infringement?
Why do you believe a 60-day wait is not an infringement?

- - - Updated - - -

In what states do you think you could get elected after taking the position that $500 permit and $1000 tax on abortion does not infringe on the right to same?
Why?

 

You quoted my answer. I don't support monetary means of ensuring gun safety. A 60 day waiting/training period is to ensure the gun owner understands how to use, maintain, and properly keep safe their weapon.

 

Because one is still able to access their right after going through a process. Restrictions are not infringements, however if the restriction is deemed overbearing by a court, that could change at a local level. I'm running for US Senate, so my job is to support sensible restrictions to help decrease gun violence at the federal level.

 

I do not vote 3rd party candidates unless they have I like them and they have a real chance of winning, otherwise is a wasted vote

- - - Updated - - -

I thought you supported restrictions on gun ownership for something as simple as having a valid prescription card?

 

How is this an answer to the question?
The fact that you do not support implementing these things in no way explains how they do not qualify as infringements - you argue that NO restriction qualifies an an infringement so long as the citizen can eventually exercise his right.
So...
Why do you believe a $10,000 tax is not an infringement?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Sorry you feel that way. The two party system is destroying this country, and right now we are not a democracy, we are an oligarchy. You don't have a voice right now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

doesn't work that way, you split the vote of one party and then the other party wins.... I should say in most case that would be the case

.

 

I answered your question. It is not an infringement because that citizen, bearing they pass the exams, can access a gun. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

In a congressional race, all any third party candidate needs is 33.4%. I believe that is definitely achievable.

 

sorry for what, that I wont risk spiting the vote of the lesser evil unless the independent I like has a real chance of winning?

.

 

the voters are mostly split 50\50, most independents can not steal half the vote from BOTH parties

 

You won't win. Neither party cares what you think or want from them. The study I shared with you proves that, so I'm sorry if you will continue to vote for politicians who are using you, then ignoring you.

 

You are also apparently willing to apply this standard across other rights as well.

As soon as you state you believe a $10000 tax on the purchase of a gun, having an abortion, attending church and releasing a news story does not infringe upon the rights to do so, you will lose your election in a landslide, regardless of where it is held.

You do, at least, admit this position; most candidates on the left hold a position similar to yours but will not make such an admission.

 

Not true, an Independent or other third party can win around this message....jobs in America, for Americans. Both parties want to ship jobs overseas through "trade" agreements, driving wages down drastically.

 

I disagree, I do not agree with either party 100%, but there is definitely a lesser evil among the two candidates

- - - Updated - - -

now I see where you stand on supporting the 2nd Amendment.....

 

I said I do not support monetary compensation. For guns, a training/education course, mental exam and a domestic abuse clearance will suffice. For abortions, that is a decision made by a doctor so I don't believe any additional requirements are needed there. I like how you just threw in "attending church and releasing a news story" in there, that doesn't even make sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Seeing how both parties support "free" trade which is destroying American jobs, there is no lesser evil. Neither party will represent you per the study I shared, so you will just choose an evil to vote for? Or maybe you can vote for the greater good instead!

 

Irrelevant -- you do not believe the $10,000 tax violates the constitutional protections afforded to these rights.
As such, you will lose in a landslide, regardless of state.

 

both parties seem to want to address free trade, the problem is, prices will increase and the other party will attack them for the increases, so it's a tough one, will the people take the pain of a increase for long term security of this nation, the people have to want it

 

I disagree even on domestic abuse, if a women slaps a man for cheating on her, should she lose her right to protect her home and family with a gun, I think not

.

 

Not irrelevant, I would not support a monetary tax like that as a restriction. Common sense restrictions on gun permits are supported by nearly all people in all states, so I won't have as much problem with that particular issue. People are more sensible than you give them credit for

- - - Updated - - -

A slap for cheating is not domestic abuse.

Obama has been pushing TPP more than his own healthcare bill. Democrats support TPP in their party platform. Republicans have been pushing free trade since the 90s, so no, neither party is interested in stopping it. The working people of this country do not want free trade, because it isn't free for them.

 

BUT you stated, openly, that you do not believe the $10,000 tax violates the constitutional protections afforded to these rights.
No one will vote for someone who takes such a position, regardless of your advocacy for those taxes, because of the threat you posed -- actual, or that your opponents and their allies will create.

All of these lines from anti-ND commercials will be true:
"ND does not believe your right to an abortion can be violated, so long as you can eventually have one..."
"ND does not believe your right to to go church can be violated, so long as you can eventually attend one..."
"ND does not believe your right to own a gun can be violated, so long as you can eventually buy one..."
"ND does not believe your right to vote can be violated, so long as you can eventually cast a ballot..."

You're headed for a landslide loss.

 

Haha, it's not an infringement. An infringement means you cannot access the right. The tax in my view is an undue burden, not an infringement. The only way you could call it an infringement is if you are openly denied a right. Process' aren't denials of rights, they're processes.

Haha, politics is a dishonest sport. I'm an honest person. All of those commercials are technically accurate, though nobody in the country has a right to vote. I'd also support changing that and make it a reality. My commercials would expose major party politicians for the corrupt shills they are