By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American
As a matter of civic duty, the means by which a liberty loving people determine the course their government will take, it’s natural to have this discussion come up from time to time. It’s to be expected after a horrific event such as claimed the lives of 17 young people when a crazed gunman mowed them down with a semi-automatic rifle, a rifle which uniformed (intentionally misinformed) individuals refer to as an Assault Rifle.
Matt Walsh shared his views regarding raising or lowering the age required to vote in a recent article, Should Raise It. Here’s Why .
“In recent days, the Left has renewed its push to lower the voting age to 16. They claim that the “civic engagement” of the kids from Parkland, Florida proves that high school students should have the right to vote.”
Walsh went on to say, and this part struck me as more important…
“There is a general misconception common among Americans on both sides of the political aisle. We believe that voting is the divine destiny of all citizens and the fewest possible restrictions should be placed on the practice.”
Rather than being overly concerned with how old an individual might be in order to vote wouldn’t it be in our country’s best interest to use some other form of qualification, a means of establishing adulthood based on something other than age?
That brings up the topic of maturity, proving the ability to act and behave as an adult. (that just about destroys it for anyone in elected office…)
Mature individuals as a rule have figured out how to manage a budget, live within their means, avoid criminal pursuits and in general are a positive addition to the society they associate with. They don’t go about tearing their communities down; rather they figure out ways to make it better for themselves and their neighbors.
If you consider this as a measuring stick, a litmus test of maturity, then determining some basic requirements for eligible voters can be established without worrying about age, race, gender or religious leanings. It would; however, eliminate about 20% of the population from voter eligibility, free loaders who’ve been dependent on redistributed wealth of from others.
Here’s the point, should folks running for elected office pander for votes from those expecting handouts or entitlements or would our communities be better served if those seeking office were held responsible to those actually supporting their communities? That sure sounds cold; but mature individuals have to make these kinds of decisions.
If some teenaged kid creates a company that rivals that of any adult then he’s contributing to the community much more than some welfare queen with six children from six different baby daddies; or am I being too blunt? Young men serving in the military are risking their lives in defense of our nation and yet some would deny them their 2nd Amendment rights upon returning home to civilian life without Due Process.
I mentioned the intentional misrepresentation of certain weapons, those defined as “Assault Rifles/Assault Weapons” that somehow are supposed to be exactly the same as fully automatic machine guns and rifles issued by the military…gotta’ take a deep breath, in and out…that’s better…
The term Assault Rifle/Assault Weapon is a made-up term, a fabrication by anti-gun leftists created to scare low information individuals. The New York Times admitted this after pushing the lie for over 30 years. There’s no such thing as an Assault Rifle being sold to the general public; machine guns are illegal to purchase without spending a fortune for a special tax stamp that isn’t available without considerable effort. In short, any responsible citizen, regardless of age, should be able to enjoy his/her 2nd Amendment right until such time as a court of law determines otherwise.
What are the qualifications we might discuss prior to letting one of our fellow citizens vote? Voting isn’t a right; it’s earned upon becoming a mature contributor to society. We have gone down the road to socialism by giving the vote, willy-nilly, to those who’ve been sucking our treasury dry and have given nothing in return.
How about we start with something simple, something easy to identify? To be eligible to vote an individual must a U.S. citizen…and not be accepting Welfare, Food Stamps or in general be on the government dole.
Before anyone jumps on the “racism” horse, it might be an eye opener to find whose been accepting welfare. Here’s an accounting taken from back in 2012; but it would be similar in most any year following.
“In 2009, 18.6% of the population was participating in at least one means-tested benefit program. That number was up to 21.3% in 2012.” (which included those accepting SSI benefits from disability and individuals who couldn’t work. It did not denote whether individuals who’d paid into the SSI program and become vested were considered recipients of welfare)
“Forty-three percent of people had been receiving benefits for 37 to 48 months”
“In 2012, an average of 41.6% of African Americans received means-tested benefits each month. About 18% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 13% of whites received benefits each month. Thirty-six percent of Hispanics of any race received government assistance.”
Here’s my question, what difference in the mindset of those seeking election would be observed if they understood that only responsible voters would decide who got elected? Wouldn’t we see a shift toward more responsible government?
Let’s set the bar; to be eligible to vote an individual can’t have been receiving welfare in the 2 years prior to election day. Non-citizens have no say in how we run our government.
I’ll give folks on the left a chance to go by the garbage bin where they can obtain Free rotten produce, a chance to hurl their kind thoughts my way. They certainly couldn’t be expected to pay, not for useless waste; that’s what conservatives are expected to pay for.