It seems to me that empowering people to MURDER/KILL (choose the word you want) is far more devastating to a country and its people than empowering them to vote. Agree/dis/why?
I can't wait to see some of those arguments against background checks. I have been asking this very same question and have never got a good reply. I bet you don't either
There is substantial overlap in the Venn Diagram of "People who Like To Buy Guns because it pisses off TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ" and "People who don't want TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ voting." Hence, the double standard.
A short test should be given before voting I'll bet most liberals would fail. Obama has Sharpton come in for advise DUH.
@TT -- Thank you for proving my thesis. You just don't want TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ voting. It has nothing to do with fairness or electoral integrity.
At least you admit the liberals are stupid.
Now if you could come around and admit that most of those now called "liberals" are actually totalitarian leftists - and they're not stupid; just evil.
Cue the ugly cat.
Happy 4th
@MO -- I admit no such thing. I think it's fairly clear that right wing authortarian f***tards REGARD anyone politically to the left of them (and members of the Reality-Based Community) as TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ, and since so many of their "arguments" (such as Mr. Thumb's proposed restrictions on voting) distill down to, "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!" I have few qualms in lampooning that behavior.
Now, if you want to offer empirical evidence and logical argument as to why the social/political/philosophical framework which has produced the world's most prosperous economies and happiest people is stupid and evil, you are welcome to try.
But since your intellectual ability seems to top out with name-calling ("TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!"), I am skeptical that you're up to the challenge...;-D....
The voter ID requirement validates that a person is legally entitled to vote in the voting district in which they're attempting to cast a ballot, nothing more; so far as I know. They also like to know if the perspective voter is actually alive. Perhaps you have different information?
And as to background checks to purchase a firearm . . .what, exactly, does a "background check" do?
(I've had to submit to some form of background check every time I purchased a firearm although I have no idea as to what was actually "checked".)
i think they should do background checks for people that buy guns
It's impossible to speak for all, but I'll speak for myself.
I believe that voter ID laws are intended to serve their stated purpose, which is simple : ensure that those voting in a particular precinct actually live in that precinct.
If I believed that background checks for firearms purchase only had the purpose of ensuring criminals don't buy guns legally (imagine a criminal being stopped by a law) then I wouldn't be cynical as to the purpose of these laws.
As I've already mentioned, passing laws to effect a change in behaviour by those who disobey more basic laws (murder, assault) is so silly that even the most delusional politician can't honestly believe that infringing on the law-abiding will make a bit of difference. Criminals do and will continue to buy firearms through means that are already illegal.
Second - as of today, there are understandable and objective reasons why one who attempts to buy legally may be stopped. There are also some very subjective circumstances by which one might find him/herself unable to buy a firearm through legal means - with no reasonably priced protocol in place by which they might challenge the state's reasoning. With that as a backdrop, it's not some wild conspiracy theory to believe that additional, more subjective judgement will be employed to deny someone the right to buy.
If you doubt that, just look at how the TSA's "No Fly" list is compiled. There are people on that list who don't deserve to be there, and every suggestion that due-process be employed when an innocent person protests has been summarily dismissed. As you should know by now, there are those who'd like to expand the reach of that list to those seeking to buy firearms. If you think that sort of apparatus can't be used to punish political/ideological opponents then you haven't been paying attention.
I repeat myself; no one - not even the laws' proponents - expects that these laws will have more than minimal effect on gun violence statistics.
So the laws themselves are designed to fail.
To give plausible reason for even more restrictions? I wouldn't put it past some of these people.
The ink wasn't even dry on the '94 assault weapons ban when they began talking about bolt-action game rifles - calling them "sniper rifles" - so the precedent is there.
Well said.
...and your own intellectual ability seems limited to branding your political opponents as lisping, illiterate morons... and f***tards.
Your assertion that what the political left has enacted and proposes has produced the world's most prosperous economies stands on shaky ground.
I bid that powerful civilizations have become powerful and prosperous in spite of the parasitical effects of the left, which were allowed to exist by cause of the the right's own decency.
Eventually the parasites overwhelm the hosts while calling the hosts f***tards and illiterate morons.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a test to ensure voters have a basic working knowledge of our system of government and constitution.
One thing I'd forgotten in my own answer is the increasing likelihood that though background check information - your name, address, SS# and information about the firearm being purchased - isn't supposed to be retained longer than needed to complete the check, it IS being retained and will be used in mass confiscation efforts.
Part 1, I think it's obvious why we need to prove we belong in the US. and not have illegals voting, part 2, I'm one that firmly believes in background checks for the purpose of buying a gun. The people that don't like background checks are those that probably can't pass, good!!! Anyone with nothing on their record to hide should be pro-background check.
You mean substantive/logical/believable reasons why background checks are not a good idea? You are absolutely correct GJ. You know why? Because there are no such reasons. Thank you for your reply and Happy July 4th Monday! :)
It hurts my head OS. So much nonsense that passes for necessary protection against fraud at the voting booth. How many ACTUAL times that has happened is unknown to me. Another red herring. Mahalo for your reply! :)
