Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Except... you know... one happened, one didn't.

Texas pretty shamelessly made their voter ID laws so restrictive that it would have prevented married women from voting if they had registered to vote with their maiden names.

Out of curiousity, do any of these claims that voter ID laws unfairly punish minorities actually show their logic, or is it just based on the idea that minorities are more common among the lower economic classes and the ID laws unfairly punish the poor (as opposed to specifically minorities)?

Either way, you are very misguided in thinking that it's "one happened, one didn't", either you count these laws for Voter ID as happening, and also count all the multitude of firearm restrictions that various states have passed, or you count none of them. Voter ID laws are successfully challenged constitutionally, as are firearm restrictions. (And as agreed, none of the Voter ID laws are federal, vs the multitude of federal gun laws that exist.)

- - - Updated - - -

Its really not made up, and has been linked multiple times. Gun owners tend to be less educated than non owners. Sorry if it is a shock.

Nope, made up. Go ahead and link something that shows who owns firearms and how many based on yearly income and education levels.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no right to drive a car. There is a constitutional right to own guns.

That doesn't really matter, if the only reason you can say something is a right is because it's a right, then who cares? I find it easy enough to believe that someone can give up their rights through their actions, just as they can lose privileges because of the same. And again, they can regain said rights once they have proven themselves.

[Cthulhu 2020]

What laws should be set based on this information? None? Ok then.

People suggesting that they'd like voting to be based off intelligence.

[Mahourai]

People suggesting that they'd like voting to be based off intelligence.

Who is suggesting that?

[TITAN308]

You should go up to random people having conversations and scream "Mind your own damn business nanny state hippies!" and see if they stop having conversations ever again. You apparently believe that works.

You repeating this scenario doesn't magically make what you are saying any less retarded.

I'm not sure why you willfully keep disregarding what "mind your own business" refers to.

Most people like you stop acting like this once they get punched in the eyeball one time. Most.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Voter ID laws are successfully challenged constitutionally,

Only if they supply the ID to the voters free of charge. And yet despite this known restriction, many states tried to implement the good old unabashed highly restrictive voter ID laws aimed at disenfranchising low income voters, which were then ruled unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

You repeating this scenario doesn't magically make what you are saying any less retarded.

I'm not sure why you willfully keep disregarding what "mind your own business" refers to.

Most people like you stop acting like this once they get punched in the eyeball one time. Most.

If you think of your outbursts is a punch, you should probably work out some. It's more like a mosquito buzzing around my head. Screaming that others need to mind their own business when you continually inject yourself into conversations, adorable.

[Svifnymr]

Only if they supply the ID to the voters free of charge. And yet despite this known restriction, many states tried to implement the good old unabashed highly restrictive voter ID laws aimed at disenfranchising low income voters, which were then ruled unconstitutional.

"successfully challenged" meaning the voter-id law was overturned, as some gun laws have been, though a lot fewer than the voter id laws I'd think.

Anyway, so whenever they say "disenfranchising minorities", they really just mean to say "disenfranchising the poor", right?

[TITAN308]

Screaming that others need to mind their own business when you continually inject yourself into conversations, adorable.

/facepalm 1 2 3

[Twotonsteak]

Except... you know... one happened, one didn't.

Texas pretty shamelessly made their voter ID laws so restrictive that it would have prevented married women from voting if they had registered to vote with their maiden names.

So I don't live in TX. I live in PA. And I've never had to deal with the issue you describe. My mother, however, remarried a few years ago. The following is based on her experience...

If a woman marries, and takes her husbands name, she HAS to have the information (such as her name) changed on all of her ID's...such as drivers license, SS card, ect, as they are no longer considered "valid" forms of ID.

Now consider that you need a valid form of ID for everything. Want to open a bank account? Need a valid ID. Want to get a job? Need a valid ID. Want to join the military? Need a valid ID. Want to fly? Need a valid ID. Want/need to collect food stamps, unemployment, or any other sort of assistance? You need a valid ID. Did you get healthcare as mandated by federal law? Need a valid ID.

Now consider that the above covers all economic levels as well as Governmental levels.

Does this mean that the Obama Administration "shamelessly" made the healthcare law so restrictive that you can't get insurance if your ID's don't match your actual name?

I always hear about how "unfair" voter ID laws are. And yet those same laws have been in effect, for government assistance, for years. And no one seems to think it's too hard to get food stamps.

__________________________________________________________________________

[lockedout]

People are demonstrating perfectly why they aren't qualified to own a gun.

I am an american citizen with no criminal record=qualified. Even you were qualified enough to own 2 guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Illogical thinking, heavy bias, science and fact denial... I wouldn't trust people like that with a gun.

Yet the entire police force is armed.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly I don't trust that most people are intelligent enough to vote, but they still get the right to vote anyway.

What do you mean there is a big "D" or "R" on the ballot what else do you need?

[Cthulhu 2020]

So I don't live in TX. I live in PA. And I've never had to deal with the issue you describe. My mother, however, remarried a few years ago. The following is based on her experience...

If a woman marries, and takes her husbands name, she HAS to have the information (such as her name) changed on all of her ID's...such as drivers license, SS card, ect, as they are no longer considered "valid" forms of ID.

Now consider that you need a valid form of ID for everything. Want to open a bank account? Need a valid ID. Want to get a job? Need a valid ID. Want to join the military? Need a valid ID. Want to fly? Need a valid ID. Want/need to collect food stamps, unemployment, or any other sort of assistance? You need a valid ID. Did you get healthcare as mandated by federal law? Need a valid ID.

Now consider that the above covers all economic levels as well as Governmental levels.

Does this mean that the Obama Administration "shamelessly" made the healthcare law so restrictive that you can't get insurance if your ID's don't match your actual name?

I always hear about how "unfair" voter ID laws are. And yet those same laws have been in effect, for government assistance, for years. And no one seems to think it's too hard to get food stamps.

__________________________________________________________________________

I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the 24th amendment for the answer to your question.

[lockedout]

Has there even been a single legislative control measure at the Federal level, never mind aggressive, since Newtown?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...mmet-under-ob/

Obama talks tough about gun control, but prosecutions plummet on his watch.
While President Obama decries gun violence and presses for more laws to restrict ownership, his Justice Department has prosecuted 25 percent fewer cases referred by the main law enforcement agency charged with reducing firearms violence across the country, a computer analysis of U.S. prosecution data shows.
Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with 6,791 during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2008, according to data obtained from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.
SEE ALSO: ATF, U.S. Attorneys blame sequestration, staffing woes for drop in gun prosecutions
The 2013 totals represent a 42 percent decline from the record number of 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under Mr. Bush, according to the data.

[Twotonsteak]

so we´re comparing the right to own guns to the right to vote? great, sure why not, that´s obviously in the same category

You're right. They aren't the same.

The Right to Bear Arms was part of the original Bill of Rights. The Right to Vote was never expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights and was only granted to white males who owned land or paid taxes. The "Right to Vote" as we recognize it today wasn't finalized until 1920, when women were granted the right at a Federal level. (Prior to that it was a state-by-state decision.)

So, no, they aren't the same.

____________________________________________________

http://www.timesherald.com/general-n...darby-hospital

This just happened outside of Philadelphia, PA. A man killed one person and injured another at an out-patient building next to a hospital. Updates have suggested that the shooter may have been in possession of his gun illegally. He was stopped by a doctor who also had a gun.

[lockedout]

He was stopped by a doctor who also had a gun.

Science and math says that never happens.

[Twotonsteak]

I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the 24th amendment for the answer to your question.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Still not sure where the "tax" comes in. They aren't being charged to vote. Hell, PA offered FREE photo ID's to people who (somehow) didn't have one and couldn't afford one. So, no, this isn't an issue over a "tax."

And my question stands...how do you argue it's fair to require an ID for any number of things that are required to live, but it's somehow unfair to require them to vote?

EDIT with the actual text of the amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yet the entire police force is armed.

Cop hate, how specious of you.

- - - Updated - - -

Courts have ruled the requiring a form of ID to vote without providing one free of charge is a poll tax. Despite this, many states even recently have tried to implement laws requiring just that. History isn't complicated folks.

[Svifnymr]

Still not sure where the "tax" comes in. They aren't being charged to vote. Hell, PA offered FREE photo ID's to people who (somehow) didn't have one and couldn't afford one. So, no, this isn't an issue over a "tax."

Generally from previous discussions it comes down to, even if the ID itself is free, the person must still travel to get it and/or provide satisfactory means of identifying him/herself. So it's a tax paid via time or whatnot. There may be other arguments too, that's just the one I've seen around here. It's similar to some of the convoluted methods the Fed uses to legislate things under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

All the while insisting that various restrictions are not actually infringements.

- - - Updated - - -

Courts have ruled the requiring a form of ID to vote without providing one free of charge is a poll tax. Despite this, many states even recently have tried to implement laws requiring just that. History isn't complicated folks.

I'm not claiming you've said it, but I've seen plenty of folks claim even a free ID is a tax on the People.

[TITAN308]

I'd rather live in a world where every dumb person has a gun than every dumb person votes.

One is vastly more dangerous than the other.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'd rather live in a world where every dumb person has a gun than every dumb person votes.

One is vastly more dangerous than the other.

The funny part is, you believe it's the one where people have a voice.

[Roxinius]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...spital-killer/

i'll just leave this here because you know the good guy with the gun never stops the bad guy with the gun right?

[Eroginous]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...spital-killer/

i'll just leave this here because you know the good guy with the gun never stops the bad guy with the gun right?

Now you're just making things up!

I don't see any math or science in your link, so obviously your post is irrelevant and should be ignored.