Gun Control

[One Brow]

Should not the same criteria be applied to someone trying to vote? Why should one right be heavily monitored and the other a free for all?

Collateral damage. No kids has killed themself with their parents vote. No one dies in a drive-by voting. People don't go to crowed places and shoots votes into the crowd. NO one think that putting up a list of registered voters makes their homes targets for theives seeking votes.

 

[fishonjazz]

Collateral damage. No kids has killed themself with their parents vote. No one dies in a drive-by voting. People don't go to crowed places and shoots votes into the crowd. NO one think that putting up a list of registered voters makes their homes targets for theives seeking votes.

Lol.... i love it.

I would also add that when playing call of duty nobody is wishing they had a piece of paper with a box to check and a pencil as a weapon instead of an assault rifle.... I can just see a player out there checking off voting ballets and throwing the ballot at other players, while getting shot at with guns.

 

[DutchJazzer]

it takes about an avg of 5 seconds to call 911.
it takes a minute of 2 for cops to show up.

time to draw and fire 2 shots(depending on training) takes less than a second.

 

[babe]

Collateral damage. No kids has killed themself with their parents vote. No one dies in a drive-by voting. People don't go to crowed places and shoots votes into the crowd. NO one think that putting up a list of registered voters makes their homes targets for theives seeking votes.

We should not accept "collateral damage" all that easily.

I don't think we can control our government today with small arms, and the issue really has gone to the voting places.

We do need to take measures to prevent voting fraud, either by organizations or individuals. Checking ID is the least we can do. We should have competent processes for verifying the vote count, preventing individuals from voting more than once, and keeping the count verifiable by the public.

incarcerated persons generally should keep their voting rights, as well as people in any sort of custody under any pretext by government.

The "reasonable accommodation" brownnotes was alluding to, that supposedly is recognized by Obama, is not further regulation of guns, but effective protection of our voting rights.

That means not allowing people who come into our country without going through the legal immigration process to vote, until they submit to those laws and demonstrate that they indeed want to be citizens of our country, and will uphold our laws and national independence.

Failing to do that is tantamount to denigrating our rights to "responsive" or "representative" government.

 

[Scat]

Collateral damage. No kids has killed themself with their parents vote. No one dies in a drive-by voting. People don't go to crowed places and shoots votes into the crowd. NO one think that putting up a list of registered voters makes their homes targets for theives seeking votes.

With enough votes for particular candidates or party members, policies can be put in place with far reaching ramifications for both current and future generations that will affect many more people than what are shot each year.

While the effects may not be as immediate as a shooting, policy may be much more far reaching and harmful.

I love how the left tries to pretend that letting people vote willy-nilly is harmless.

 

[One Brow]

We do need to take measures to prevent voting fraud, either by organizations or individuals. Checking ID is the least we can do.

Shouldn't there be an issue with fraudulent voting before we enforce Voter IDs? None of the actual voting issues in this country are soved by Voter ID. It's a solution in search of a problem.

 

[One Brow]

I love how the left tries to pretend that letting people vote willy-nilly is harmless.

I love how whenever look under the populist right-wing rhetoric stone, you can reliably find an elitist crawling out from it.

 

[NUMBERICA]

With enough votes for particular candidates or party members, policies can be put in place with far reaching ramifications for both current and future generations that will affect many more people than what are shot each year.

While the effects may not be as immediate as a shooting, policy may be much more far reaching and harmful.

I love how the left tries to pretend that letting people vote willy-nilly is harmless.

It's telling but nonetheless disconcerting that you apparently believe that policy is always harmful.

 

[Scat]

It's telling but nonetheless disconcerting that you apparently believe that policy is always harmful.

I never said that policy is always harmful. Just that some policies are or in the future may be.

 

[fishonjazz]

With enough votes for particular candidates or party members, policies can be put in place with far reaching ramifications for both current and future generations that will affect many more people than what are shot each year.

While the effects may not be as immediate as a shooting, policy may be much more far reaching and harmful.

I love how the left tries to pretend that letting people vote willy-nilly is harmless.

I dont think that anyone was saying that votes dont have power or that they are harmless.... just saying that guns and votes are 2 different things and comparing them is stupid...... therefore the way that they are handled should be looked at separately.

 

[Scat]

I dont think that anyone was saying that votes dont have power or that they are harmless.... just saying that guns and votes are 2 different things and comparing them is stupid...... therefore the way that they are handled should be looked at separately.

The point I was trying to make is that there are a number of people here that have argued there should absolutely no rules, regulations, ID checks or any other such infringement on a person's right to vote because it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. No questions asked. Anybody can vote, period. Asking for ID is voter suppression and infringing on Constitutional rights, i.e. voter ID is unconstitutional.

These same people are the ones that think there should be numerous rules, regulations, background checks, mental checks, etc. for someone to purchase a gun even though owning a gun is also a Constitutional right.

You can't have it both ways. Either Constitutional rights are subject to rules and regulation or they aren't.

 

[fishonjazz]

The point I was trying to make is that there are a number of people here that have argued there should absolutely no rules, regulations, ID checks or any other such infringement on a person's right to vote because it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. No questions asked. Anybody can vote, period. Asking for ID is voter suppression and infringing on Constitutional rights, i.e. voter ID is unconstitutional.

These same people are the ones that think there should be numerous rules, regulations, background checks, mental checks, etc. for someone to purchase a gun even though owning a gun is also a Constitutional right.

You can't have it both ways. Either Constitutional rights are subject to rules and regulation or they aren't.

Oh i see now.... fair enough and sorry if seemed i was on the attack.

 

[SaltyDawg]

The point I was trying to make is that there are a number of people here that have argued there should absolutely no rules, regulations, ID checks or any other such infringement on a person's right to vote because it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. No questions asked. Anybody can vote, period. Asking for ID is voter suppression and infringing on Constitutional rights, i.e. voter ID is unconstitutional.

These same people are the ones that think there should be numerous rules, regulations, background checks, mental checks, etc. for someone to purchase a gun even though owning a gun is also a Constitutional right.

You can't have it both ways. Either Constitutional rights are subject to rules and regulation or they aren't.

Not all of those "same people" are lumped into that group. I've been pretty consistent against restrictions on both rights.

 

[Scat]

Not all of those "same people" are lumped into that group. I've been pretty consistent against restrictions on both rights.

I'll give you this.

 

[Scat]

This will put a few people here into a tailspin...

https://townhall.com/news/politics-...up-offers-training-for-utah-teachers-n1474577

Utah is among a few states that let people carry licensed concealed weapons into public schools without exception, the National Conference of State Legislatures says in a 2012 compendium of state gun laws.

 

[babe]

Shouldn't there be an issue with fraudulent voting before we enforce Voter IDs? None of the actual voting issues in this country are soved by Voter ID. It's a solution in search of a problem.

There are plenty of laws against voter fraud around, but not nearly as many as there are in regard to guns. Use of guns in commission of assault or other crimes already racks up extra penalties under the law. That's why shooter nutjobs acting out wanton killings in no-gun zones do it with the plan to shoot themselves before being taken down by anyone. and that's why no laws or regulations can effectively address this problem. . . .

on the other hand, enforcing voter laws to ensure fraudulent actions will always get punished is essential to the idea of representative government.

Too bad both the Republican and Democratic national party organizations do not believe in "representative government" in fact, and do in fact have a sort of pac to divide the spoils of their various types of tactics, including not taking fraud to the courts. . .. recounts is as far as it goes.. . . .

I could do a pretty long bit on this, but it's truly useless to try to educate the folks who are committed to their blindness.

 

[babe]

I love how whenever look under the populist right-wing rhetoric stone, you can reliably find an elitist crawling out from it.

Here's a site without the "populist right-wing rhetoric" where a lot of elitists snicker up their sleeves at the masses who are just not quite as special as they are. . . .

https://www.cfr.org/about/membership/

 

[One Brow]

The point I was trying to make is that there are a number of people here that have argued there should absolutely no rules, regulations, ID checks or any other such infringement on a person's right to vote because it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. No questions asked. Anybody can vote, period. Asking for ID is voter suppression and infringing on Constitutional rights, i.e. voter ID is unconstitutional.

In what universe is "Voter ID does not solve any actual issue with voting" the same as "there should absolutely no rules, regulations, ID checks or any other such infringement"? I'm a firm believer that registration verification is important, that ballots need to be secured, that the voting process needs to be as simple and unconfusing as possible. That requires rules, regulations, ID checks to confirm registrations, and some other infringements. Voter ID, though, does nothing to address the real voting problems in this coutry. It just makes it more difficult to vote. It's a solution in search of a problem.

You can't have it both ways. Either Constitutional rights are subject to rules and regulation or they aren't.

Every Constitutional right is subject to rules and regulations. However, since they are Constitutional rights, the rules and regulations need to be as small as possible in order to acheive the stated goal.

Also, in the case of guns laws, what you have are competing Constitutional rights (broadly, self-defense vs. security against threats). Not all guns should be banned, but you can accomplish self-defense without a gun that has a magazine of 30 bullets and can fire them in 15 seconds.

 

[One Brow]

on the other hand, enforcing voter laws to ensure fraudulent actions will always get punished is essential to the idea of representative government.

I agree. My only disagreement is that Voter ID laws, in particular, do not punish actual fraudulent acitons because they address the types of fraudulent actions that are seldom seen in reality.

 

[One Brow]

Here's a site without the "populist right-wing rhetoric" where a lot of elitists snicker up their sleeves at the masses who are just not quite as special as they are. . . .

I don't know enough about the CFR to have an informed opinion. Your wording makes me suspicious that your are engaging in the the common confusion between believing in elitism and believing in expertise, but it's a suspicion only.