2016 Presidential Candidate

[sol]

Honestly, how would you know?

Google voter fraud research and see for yourself.  Something like 20 reported cases nationwide, less than half of which were confirmed, and none of which would have actually been prevented by the voter ID laws now being proposed by republicans.  Voter ID laws would not solve voter fraud, if voter fraud were actually happening.

[MoonShadow]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

Because of actual facts.  Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence.  But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.

Facts are funny things...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

[MoonShadow]

Honestly, how would you know?

Google voter fraud research and see for yourself.  Something like 20 reported cases nationwide, less than half of which were confirmed, and none of which would have actually been prevented by the voter ID laws now being proposed by republicans.  Voter ID laws would not solve voter fraud, if voter fraud were actually happening.

Google isn't the answer for all questions.  My question is this, if photo ID's are not required to vote, how would you know if there is voter fraud?  There would be no evidence of it, if it were to occur.  I can't possibly know if requiring IDs would prevent voter fraud or not, because we can't know if it's happening now.  Also, just about every other representative democracy on Earth requires some form of legal ID to vote.  Why are we special in this regard?  Are the poor class in this country so destitute that they can't be expected to pursue and ID, while Canada disenfranchises their poor class?  Germany?  This is the same American "poor" class wherein 80% have central air conditioning, and the majority have a television and a cell phone.

[beltim]

I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.

I don't believe you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

You're free to believe whatever you'd like, but providing links that don't support your disbelief don't really do anything.  There's nothing in that link that says you need to produce ID to open a savings account.  Nor is there in the link from that site to the US laws.  And in a few seconds of googling I found several sites that don't require a copy of, or information from, an ID to open a savings account:  American Express & GE Bank

[sol]

Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.

I live in Washington.  I inherited guns from people in Arkansas, who either built them or bought them on the private market without any paper trail in a variety of other states.  I'm sure the serial numbers have somebody's name on them from an original purchaser, but there is no record of transfer from that person to anyone in my family.  Family lore is that some of them were bartered.

I contacted my local PD about this and was assured that it was legal to own them, legal to transport them across state lines, and did not require that I notify anybody about the transfer or ownership.

[FoundPeace]

Don't get me wrong, I understand that these issues are very different. I agree that more gun regulation is a good thing. I am also in favor of education before using a weapon. I think I even alluded to this in my original post...

What MDM posted is more along the lines of what I was thinking.

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?

One can also ask the similar question: "Why is it that Republicans are for voting ID cards but against tightening down gun laws significantly?"

Both sides pretty much use these as scare tactics.  Democrats wave the "they're trying to take your vote away" flag, while Republicans wave the "they're trying to take your guns away" flag.

On the flip side, some Republicans are legitimately concerned about voter fraud and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a voter ID is not onerous.  And some Democrats are legitimately concerned about illegal gun ownership and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a gun owner ID is not onerous.

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?

Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why.  Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not.  The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes.  The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.

In these two cases, more regulation of one thing makes the world a better place and more regulation of the other makes the world a worse place.  You can't pick a position that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.

Obviously one of these things is much more dangerous than the other.

Did you really just imply that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad? I don't think things are quite as straightforward as you would like them to be.

You can't pick a position party that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.

As to the statement that:

voter fraud is not a problem.

Do you really think that people driven to positions of power as strongly as say Trump, Clinton, Bush or as committed to his stance as Sanders is or pretty much anyone who wants to be President of the USA (or someone who wants them to be) wouldn't be willing to commit fraud to get them into that position?

I think that if someone wanted to commit voter fraud there would be ways to get around voter ID card requirements (Wikipedia has a pretty decent list that includes some of these). Maybe voter IDs aren't the answer, but I think some regulation here would be a good idea. There needs to be some way to verify the validity of votes.

Edited to fix some quote problems

[Jack]

But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud?  I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.

The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.

It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.

[FoundPeace]

But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud?  I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.

The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.

It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.

I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused (why those same people are against gun regulation, I don' know. That is part of the reason I broached this topic).

[MoonShadow]

Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.

I live in Washington.  I inherited guns from people in Arkansas, who either built them or bought them on the private market without any paper trail in a variety of other states.  I'm sure the serial numbers have somebody's name on them from an original purchaser, but there is no record of transfer from that person to anyone in my family.  Family lore is that some of them were bartered.

I contacted my local PD about this and was assured that it was legal to own them, legal to transport them across state lines, and did not require that I notify anybody about the transfer or ownership.

You were given bad legal advice.  You are also a felon under Washington State law...

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...

"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."

I did peruse that page for an exception, but I don't think it's there, because section 3 is pretty specific...

"(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:"

Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another.  Which, honestly, I find to be strange...

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-private-sales-of-guns/

So while you might have a legal argument to cover you, if you owned all those guns before moving to Washington State, I'd say it's still in your interests to get your weapons recorded.

[MoonShadow]

But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud?  I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.

The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.

It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.

I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused (why those same people are against gun regulation, I don' know. That is part of the reason I broached this topic).

Have you read anything I've posted over the past two hours?

[beltim]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...

"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another.  Which, honestly, I find to be strange...

I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's.  It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.

[sol]

Did you really just imply that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad?

In general, no.  I tried to imply that republicans would rather accept real gun murder today than risk some future politician infringing on their right to own any type of gun without restriction, and accept real voter discrimination today than risk some occurrence of voter fraud.

Whether you think those are good or bad is up to you, I suppose, but I suggested that democrats think avoiding bad certainties is preferable to risking bad maybes.  They think they are making the world a better place. I guess you could argue that republicans also think they are making the world a better place by ensuring more murders to protect their gun liberties and more discrimination to protect against possible fraud, if you think liberty and discrimination are preferable to lower murder rates and more representative democracy.

[MoonShadow]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...

"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another.  Which, honestly, I find to be strange...

I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's.  It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.

Well, then.  Work on those states that remain.  I don't know how many there are, and I suspect that neither does anyone else on this forum.  So if this kind of actually sensible gun regulation means something to you, find out how it works in your state.  If it's broken, lobby to fix it like so many other pro-gun states have already done. 

[MoonShadow]

Did you really just imply that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad?

In general, no.  I tried to imply that republicans would rather accept real gun murder today than risk some future politician infringing on their right to own any type of gun without restriction, and accept real voter discrimination today than risk some occurrence of voter fraud.

Whether you think those are good or bad is up to you, I suppose, but I suggested that democrats think avoiding bad certainties is preferable to risking bad maybes.  They think they are making the world a better place. I guess you could argue that republicans also think they are making the world a better place by ensuring more murders to protect their gun liberties and more discrimination to protect against possible fraud, if you think liberty and discrimination are preferable to lower murder rates and more representative democracy.

So, in general, yes; that is what you implied.

[MoonShadow]

I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.

I don't believe you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

You're free to believe whatever you'd like, but providing links that don't support your disbelief don't really do anything.  There's nothing in that link that says you need to produce ID to open a savings account.  Nor is there in the link from that site to the US laws.  And in a few seconds of googling I found several sites that don't require a copy of, or information from, an ID to open a savings account:  American Express & GE Bank

Well, it's true enough that the KYC laws don't require an ID per se.  They require that financial companies of all sorts know who their actual customers are, and take steps to ensure that they are being honest about their identity.  There are other ways of doing so, particularly online, but a physical ID is the easiest way to do so in meatspace.  I have always been asked for an ID when opening a new bank account, going back decades; but I never asked if a SS card or birth cert would suffice.

[sol]

So while you might have a legal argument to cover you, if you owned all those guns before moving to Washington State, I'd say it's still in your interests to get your weapons recorded.

I didn't live in Washington when the transfers took place.  The laws may have changed since the transfers took place.  The inherited guns were exempted from licensing because of the generational skipping exemption, which allowed unrestricted transfer from grandparent to grandchild, but not father to son. They apparently weren't registered to my grandpa anyway, being privately acquired in times and places without such requirements.

But all of that is just secondary noise.  The point is that your assertion that all guns have an easy to follow paper trail is demonstrably false, as any single anecdote like mine can illustrate.  As a nation, I think we would benefit from closing some of these loopholes that allow undocumented transfers of lethal weapons.

[beltim]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...

"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another.  Which, honestly, I find to be strange...

I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's.  It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.

Well, then.  Work on those states that remain.  I don't know how many there are, and I suspect that neither does anyone else on this forum.  So if this kind of actually sensible gun regulation means something to you, find out how it works in your state.  If it's broken, lobby to fix it like so many other pro-gun states have already done.

The link you provided earlier says 33 states don't require background checks for private sales.  Thank you for that link, by the way - it's a good one with good information.

[MoonShadow]

They should just make shooting people illegal.

What a strange notion!  Do you think it would work?

[MoonShadow]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...

"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another.  Which, honestly, I find to be strange...

I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's.  It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.

Well, then.  Work on those states that remain.  I don't know how many there are, and I suspect that neither does anyone else on this forum.  So if this kind of actually sensible gun regulation means something to you, find out how it works in your state.  If it's broken, lobby to fix it like so many other pro-gun states have already done.

The link you provided earlier says 33 states don't require background checks for private sales.  Thank you for that link, by the way - it's a good one with good information.

Interestingly, Washington State doesn't require background checks for private sales either, but everyone gets them, because federal law requires that licensed dealers do at least an "instant" check through the federal background system regardless of what the state requires.  So the end result is that, because Washington state requires private sales to be brokered by a licensed dealer, at least the buyer gets a new background check.  So that number is going to be less than 33, in practical terms.

[FoundPeace]

MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.

Sol- Do you not see the problem with what you are saying? You really believe that roughly of the US population is in favor of murders? I think most people in favor minimizing gun regulation argue that they want more guns available to minimize violence. One thing is clear though, there is no overwhelming statistical evidence pointing for or against regulation. This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.

[sol]

They should just make shooting people illegal.

What a strange notion!  Do you think it would work?

Using this rationale, we could save 35 thousand auto deaths per year by making it illegal to crash your car.

I think I prefer the current alternative, which is to require training and licensing to use a car.  I'd even be okay with making a firearms endorsement part of your vehicle licensing, if you had to pass some kind of test and demonstrate knowledge of basic safe operation and relevant laws.

 Imagine what the roads would look like if the only requirement to drive was to pass a background check when buying a new car, but nothing for a used one.  That's the current status of gun laws in America.

[MoonShadow]

So while you might have a legal argument to cover you, if you owned all those guns before moving to Washington State, I'd say it's still in your interests to get your weapons recorded.

I didn't live in Washington when the transfers took place.  The laws may have changed since the transfers took place.  The inherited guns were exempted from licensing because of the generational skipping exemption, which allowed unrestricted transfer from grandparent to grandchild, but not father to son. They apparently weren't registered to my grandpa anyway, being privately acquired in times and places without such requirements.

But all of that is just secondary noise.  The point is that your assertion that all guns have an easy to follow paper trail is demonstrably false, as any single anecdote like mine can illustrate.  As a nation, I think we would benefit from closing some of these loopholes that allow undocumented transfers of lethal weapons.

I never said all guns, I said quite openly that the system wasn't perfect.  I understand now why you are so absolute in the manner in which you communicate.  That's how you think of the world, or at least your opposition.  Black and white, just like your photo. 

What I did say was that real police work has many tricks that permit the vast majority of previously registered firearms to be tracked.  Perhaps that system can be improved, and I can imagine several ways to do so without impacting legitimate gun owners, but a national registry is never going to work.

[Jack]

But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud?  I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.

The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.

It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.

I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused

Maybe a Republican exists somewhere that wants voter ID laws for non-racist reasons, but I've never met one. And I've met a lot of Republicans.

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.

And my point was that neither absolute position is either ideal, nor the current state of public policy.  In both cases, a little bit of practical regulation is the sweet spot.  But the only people who seem to be in the debate at all are extremists from someone's perspectives.

This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.

Indeed.

[sol]

You really believe that roughly of the US population is in favor of murders? I

No one is in favor of murder any more than anyone is in favor of voter fraud.  But lots of people happily accept the risk of a higher gun murder rate because they want to preserve the unrestricted right to own guns, just like some people accept the risk of voter fraud in order to protect minorities' right to vote.

[Jeremy E.]

You really believe that roughly of the US population is in favor of murders? I

No one is in favor of murder any more than anyone is in favor of voter fraud.  But lots of people happily accept the risk of a higher gun murder rate because they want to preserve the unrestricted right to own guns, just like some people accept the risk of voter fraud in order to protect minorities' right to vote.

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

[FoundPeace]

MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.

And my point was that neither absolute position is either ideal, nor the current state of public policy.  In both cases, a little bit of practical regulation is the sweet spot.  But the only people who seem to be in the debate at all are extremists from someone's perspectives.

This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.

Indeed.

I agree that there is a sweet spot for regulation. The only problem is that I don't think this is politically possible in the current political landscape. That may require both sides to make concessions.

Sol-That sounds about right. But do you also accept the risk (if there were tight gun control laws) of a poor (black, Hispanic, etc.) person getting killed because it is too difficult to get a gun and can't defend themselves from someone who steals a gun from someone who forgot to register their gun(s) (or perhaps it was a person who forgot) after the new regulations are made law?

[MoonShadow]

But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud?  I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.

The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.

It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.

I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused

Maybe a Republican exists somewhere that wants voter ID laws for non-racist reasons, but I've never met one. And I've met a lot of Republicans.

Is that so?

You reminded me of a story.  Some years ago, while bike & bus commuting, I met a young guy from New York City.  He was a professional chef who worked for the same company that I do, but in the marketing research department.  Why they needed a chef is not important for the story.  He is black, which is relevant to this story.  We were riding the bus toward home after work, and the topic of how safe the city is came up, which led to the topic of concealed carry firearms.  I informed him just how common gun ownership was in this city, and he seemed so shocked.  He said something along the lines of rednecks & guns in an urban environment, and how scary that would be for a black man.  I then asked him, "Since you have moved to this city, have you ever met an unarmed white man?"  There were five people on this bus at the late hour, and they could all hear us talking.  The driver and myself were obviously white enough to claim the description.  The driver just laughed.  My friend looked straight at me for a few seconds as the idea sunk in, and then slowly turned to look at the black couple sitting behind us.  They both just smiled and shrugged.  Kentucky law prohibts me from deliberately displaying my weapon, or even mentioning that I'm armed unless asked by a police officer, because it could be interpreted as a threat.  He had known me for about 6 months, talked to me just about every day, and until that moment never realized I was armed.  His mental picture of what a typical gun owner looks and acts like was likely shaken at that moment.  After about ten seconds of silence, he looks up at the notice above the driver that says, "No weapons" and points to it.  I said, out loud, "that's there so the driver has an excuse to kick me off the bus if he wants to" and the driver laughs again.

I suspect that you know more conservatives than you ever suspected.

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.

And my point was that neither absolute position is either ideal, nor the current state of public policy.  In both cases, a little bit of practical regulation is the sweet spot.  But the only people who seem to be in the debate at all are extremists from someone's perspectives.

This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.

Indeed.

I agree that there is a sweet spot for regulation. The only problem is that I don't think this is politically possible in the current political landscape. That may require both sides to make concessions.

Unfortunately, I don't think either side is particularly interested in negotiations.

[zoltani]

Can we please keep arguing about issues that other countries have already figured out and forgotten about?.

[MoonShadow]

Can we please keep arguing about issues that other countries have already figured out and forgotten about?.

Obviously we can.

[Cressida]

I understand now why you are so absolute in the manner in which you communicate. That's how you think of the world, or at least your opposition.  Black and white, just like your photo.

So what's *your* excuse?

[Gin1984]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

Because of actual facts.  Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence.  But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.

Facts are funny things...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

They are when you are posting lies.  :)  Try again

[Glenstache]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

Because of actual facts.  Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence.  But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.

Facts are funny things...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

They are when you are posting lies.  :)  Try again

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

[MoonShadow]

I understand now why you are so absolute in the manner in which you communicate. That's how you think of the world, or at least your opposition.  Black and white, just like your photo.

So what's *your* excuse?

In this case, I have several hardened liberals arguing for nonsense, and I feel compelled to respond to nonsense.  I don't particularly like defending republicans, but some of the membership on this forum would be okay with a witchhunt, but only if she was suspected of having an opinion that can't be found on the 5 x7 inch index card of acceptable & liberal opinions.

[MoonShadow]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

Because of actual facts.  Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence.  But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.

Facts are funny things...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

They are when you are posting lies.  :)  Try again

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

I stand corrected.

[forummm]

If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me.  They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around.  Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.

I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited. 

I'm a little tired of you continuing to say this. You've said it at least twice prior to this on this forum in the past week or two, and both times I reported that my friend in GA got a gun at a gun show with no ID. And others chimed in that it's totally legal to do that in 37 states IIRC and provided links to demonstrate this. Please update your memory with this new information.

[forummm]

some Republicans are legitimately concerned about voter fraud

I don't think concerns about in-person voter fraud are legitimate. For a lot of reasons. One being that in-person voter fraud is nearly nonexistent. While there are certainly uninformed and delusional legislators out there, the stats about the almost non-existence of the supposed problem are routinely cited in legislative debates. Any honest legislator would have to admit that they are solving a problem that does not really exist.

But on the other hand, several legislators have slipped up and admitted that they are simply trying to keep Democrats from voting. And the widespread pattern of Republican officials reducing polling locations in Democratic precincts, eliminating or reducing early voting, and enacting restrictions to voting in general. It's just another form of poll tax.

Even if you thought the Republicans were being honest actors here, why would there be such a large wave of Republicans passing these measures in so many states all of the sudden, urged on by conservative interest groups? And if it were at all legitimate, why wouldn't at least some Democrats go along with it?

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/

[sol]

I stand corrected.

So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.

It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.

Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?

Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.  We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out).  Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns.  The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law.  I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.

[Cressida]

In this case, I have several hardened liberals arguing for nonsense, and I feel compelled to respond to nonsense.  I don't particularly like defending republicans, but some of the membership on this forum would be okay with a witchhunt, but only if she was suspected of having an opinion that can't be found on the 5 x7 inch index card of acceptable & liberal opinions.

Yes, we can tell you really hate it.

[MoonShadow]

If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me.  They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around.  Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.

I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited. 

I'm a little tired of you continuing to say this. You've said it at least twice prior to this on this forum in the past week or two, and both times I reported that my friend in GA got a gun at a gun show with no ID.

I remember telling you I didn't believe it, and I still don't.  I don't believe that he legally bought a firearm at a gun show without a background check.  I don't, and won't, until you can produce evidence.  And just because Georgia may not require a background check, doesn't mean that he could buy one legally without one at a gun show.  As I noted above, background checks are not required for transfers between individuals in many states, but other requirements still end up requiring them, and an ID is a fundamental need there.  Such individual transfers are technically legal in Kentucky, except not really.  I can't go to a gun show and buy most gun without an instant check, but my valid CC license qualifies for some things.

 And others chimed in that it's totally legal to do that in 37 states IIRC and provided links to demonstrate this. Please update your memory with this new information.

Again, this is not so.  First, it's 33 states that do not require a background check for an individual to individual transfer, not 37.  Second, the real number is less than that, because I have already pointed out at least 2 that compel background checks in a round-about fashion.  I don't know how easy or not easy it may be to buy a gun privately in most of these states, and neither do you.

[MDM]

I don't think concerns about in-person voter fraud are legitimate. For a lot of reasons. One being that in-person voter fraud is nearly nonexistent.

Maybe, maybe not.  The anti-ID folks are in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative and answer questions such as "how do you know for sure?"  There are other types of vote fraud beyond the "voter impersonation" type.  E.g., voting in multiple places (one reason college IDs may not be accepted), and then there's potential electronic fraud (see http://americablog.com/2015/08/mathematician-actual-voter-fraud-kansas-republicans.html) that could be ascribed to Republicans or Democrats.  Some of those would be limited due to voter ID, some not.

Yes, there are likely some cases in which it would be significantly more onerous for a person to obtain voter ID than to cast a vote.  The "every fifth Wednesday" example is a good one.  But overall, given the ubiquity of ID requirements for so many other things, it really seems the anti-ID folks doth protest too much.

[MoonShadow]

I stand corrected.

So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.

It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.

I acknowledge that I was misinformed about the murder rate in Australia.  I went to the trouble of going to check the data from the government of Australia itself, and I learned something new, and I have adjusted my worldview accordingly. 

Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?

Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.

Wait, are you paraphrasing me, to me?  You do realize that both sides of this particular issue do this, right? 

 We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out).  Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns.  The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.

Oh, it's not your stated position above that makes you a radical lefty fruitcake.  I do believe that the above position is quite balanced and reasonable.  I wasn't really thinking of you, Sol, when I made that comment; although you do like to argue.  (I suppose I can be faulted there as well)  The radical lefty fruitcakes that I am referring to have stated that 1)democrats just want to make the world a better place and 2) that republicans are racist and obstructionists with no capacity for reasoned thought.  In this thread and a few similar ones.  If you are interested in whom I speak of, in particular, I'm willing to discuss that in PM; because I'm unwilling to denigrate a particular person by name.

To be fair, I understand that the liberals on this forum, as well as generally, really do mean well and that they really would like to make the world a better place.  Most of them, anyway.  What I have a problem with is their analysis and chosen methods.  I, admittedly, have a different worldview than you do, Sol.  And I'm okay with that.  If this were a right leaning forum, you'd see me argue against hardened neo-cons just as vehemently; and you'd likely argue right there by my side.  I'm very well conditioned to being in the minority.

[Jeremy E.]

I think it indeed was Sol who said "democrats want to make the world a better place".

[MoonShadow]

I think it indeed was Sol who said "democrats want to make the world a better place".

Yes, he did say something similar above in this thread.  But I don't believe he has said both.  Taken alone, the statement "democrats want to make the world a better place" is true; but so is "republicans just want to make the world a better place".  The disconnect is that what each side believes will actually achieve that goal are often contradictory.

[marty998]

Just heard on the news that Al Gore is entering the race....

I stand corrected.

So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.

It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.

Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?

Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.  We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out).  Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns.  The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law.  I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.

Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?

In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that. What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?

[Gin1984]

I stand corrected.

So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.

It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.

I acknowledge that I was misinformed about the murder rate in Australia.  I went to the trouble of going to check the data from the government of Australia itself, and I learned something new, and I have adjusted my worldview accordingly. 

Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?

Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.

Wait, are you paraphrasing me, to me?  You do realize that both sides of this particular issue do this, right? 

 We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out).  Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns.  The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.

Oh, it's not your stated position above that makes you a radical lefty fruitcake.  I do believe that the above position is quite balanced and reasonable.  I wasn't really thinking of you, Sol, when I made that comment; although you do like to argue.  (I suppose I can be faulted there as well)  The radical lefty fruitcakes that I am referring to have stated that 1)democrats just want to make the world a better place and 2) that republicans are racist and obstructionists with no capacity for reasoned thought.  In this thread and a few similar ones.  If you are interested in whom I speak of, in particular, I'm willing to discuss that in PM; because I'm unwilling to denigrate a particular person by name.

To be fair, I understand that the liberals on this forum, as well as generally, really do mean well and that they really would like to make the world a better place.  Most of them, anyway.  What I have a problem with is their analysis and chosen methods.  I, admittedly, have a different worldview than you do, Sol.  And I'm okay with that.  If this were a right leaning forum, you'd see me argue against hardened neo-cons just as vehemently; and you'd likely argue right there by my side.  I'm very well conditioned to being in the minority.

Seriously, "their methods and analysis"?  You are the one posting such biased articles that boil down to conspiracy and falsehoods. 

[MoonShadow]

Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?

It's not an easy license to obtain.

In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that.

Need? No.

What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?

Mostly just for fun, like a stupidly expensive version of a fire-cracker.  Come visit me and we could go here...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=machine+gun+shoot&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

And no, you can't hear the music while in the crowd.  I don't know why they bother.

[MoonShadow]

Seriously, "their methods and analysis"?  You are the one posting such biased articles that boil down to conspiracy and falsehoods.

Only occasionally.

[marty998]

Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?

It's not an easy license to obtain.

In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that.

Need? No.

What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?

Mostly just for fun, like a stupidly expensive version of a fire-cracker.  Come visit me and we could go here...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=machine+gun+shoot&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

And no, you can't here the music while in the crowd.  I don't know why they bother.

Ha well I suppose I over reacted a bit when I saw that line in sol's post.

Probably typical of the debate that is going on - see a red flag and charge.