Obama the Liar at it again... [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

scottw

04-13-2014, 08:40 PM

the GOP is trying to hurt voters that historically support their opponents and the Democrats are working to counter it

-spence

which "GOP" in Rhode Island is perpetrating this horrible crime?

"Rhode Island passed a voter ID law in 2011, and it is the only state with a Democratic-controlled legislature to do so."

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

"Poll workers will ask you to show a current and valid photo ID when you vote at your polling place. Voter ID strengthens the public’s faith in the integrity of our elections by enabling poll workers to match a voter’s face to the name they give at the polls."(unless the voter ID legislation is suggested by the "GOP" , in which case it becomes racist, bigoted and intended to harm the poor, elderly, minorities and others who traditionally vote democrat)

How to Obtain a Free Voter ID

You will not need a Voter ID card if you already have a valid and current Photo ID. If you need a Voter ID, we will provide you with a free one. You must provide one of these proofs of identity:

Employee ID card;
ID card provided by a commercial establishment;
Credit or debit card;
Military ID card;
Student ID card;
Health club ID card;
Insurance plan ID card;
Public housing ID card;
If you don’t have one of those proofs of identity, you must bring one of the following documents. It must include your name and be dated since November 6, 2012, unless the document is intended to be of a permanent nature such as a pardon or discharge:
Utility bill;
Bank statement;
Government paycheck;
Document issued by a government agency;
Official elections document issued by a government agency, dated for the election in which the registered voter is providing it as proof of identity;
Voter notification issued by a governmental agency;
Public housing ID card issued by a governmental agency;
Lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency;
Student ID card issued by a governmental institution/agency or non-governmental institution/agency;
Tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency;
Insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a government agency;
Discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the registered voter by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence or other matter;
Public transit authority senior citizen and disabled discount ID card issued by a governmental agency;
ID documents issued by governmental disability agencies;
ID documents issued by homeless shelters and other temporary or transitional facilities;
Drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider;
Property tax statement issued by a governmental agency;
Vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or
Vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency

detbuch

04-13-2014, 08:52 PM

scottw

04-13-2014, 09:04 PM

Do minorities, or poor people need social security? ID requirements:

Identity

We can accept only certain documents as proof of identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your name, identifying information (date of birth or age) and preferably a recent photograph. For example, as proof of identity Social Security must see your:
•U.S. driver’s license;
•State-issued nondriver identification card; or
•U.S. passport.

If you do not have one of these specific documents or you cannot get a replacement for one of them within 10 days, we will ask to see other documents, including:
•Employee ID card;
•School ID card;
•Health insurance card (not a Medicare card); or
• U.S. military ID card.

probably and to sign up for Obamacare you need a social security card and to get that you need what you listed above and Obama stated that healthcare is a "right"...just like voting...soooo.....is Obamacare trying to hurt people seeking medical insurance?

the tangled web they weave when first they practice to......

Jim in CT

04-14-2014, 06:00 AM

I She only got an ID recently because of legal issues surrounding her mother's estate.

-spence

OK. She didn't have an id, and then the government told her that she needed one for probate reasons. What did she do? Did she (a) simply go get an id, or (b) tell Al Sharpton that the probate courts are racist and only require an id to deny poor black people the right to inherit their estates?

You are proving my point exactly Spence - that sometimes you need to know exactly who you are dealing with, and that requiring a photo id in those situations is clearly not an undue burden.

Unbelievable...

Jim in CT

04-14-2014, 06:03 AM

probably and to sign up for Obamacare you need a social security card and to get that you need what you listed above and Obama stated that healthcare is a "right"...just like voting...soooo.....is Obamacare trying to hurt people seeking medical insurance?

the tangled web they weave when first they practice to......

Obama is clearly a racist, whose intent is to deny healthcare to blacks. Is there any other explanation? Not based on what our Dear Leader said to Al Sharpton's group...according to Obama, the requirement of a photo id can only be interpreted as a thinly-veiled attempt to deny that product/service to those from whom you require an id. Right, Spence?

Fishpart

04-14-2014, 07:00 AM

Panem Today, Panem Tomorrow, Panem Forever...

PaulS

04-14-2014, 07:02 AM

i hate C&Ps but....

By Dara Kam and John Lantigua
Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau
A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.
Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
Greer is now under indictment, accused of stealing $200,000 from the party through a phony campaign fundraising operation. He, in turn, has sued the party, saying GOP leaders knew what he was doing and voiced no objection.
“Jim Greer has been accused of criminal acts against this organization and anything he says has to be considered in that light,” says Brian Burgess, Florida GOP spokesman since September.
But Greer’s statements about the motivations for the party’s legislative efforts, implemented by a GOP-majority House and Senate in Tallahassee in 2011, are backed by Crist — also now on the outs with the party — and two veteran GOP campaign consultants.
Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.
“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.
Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.
In 2008 Democrats, especially African-Americans, turned out in unprecedented numbers for President Barack Obama, many of them casting ballots during 14 early voting days. In Palm Beach County, 61.2 percent of all early voting ballots were cast by Democrats that year, compared with 18.7 percent by Republicans.
In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.
Various voter registration organizations, minority coalitions and Democratic office holders are now demanding investigations either by state or federal officials.
On Oct. 26, The Post published a story citing a deposition by Florida GOP General Counsel Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV in litigation between Florida and the U.S. Justice Department over HB 1355. Mitchell described a meeting near New Year’s Day 2011, in which he was approached by GOP staffers and consultants to write the bill that would become HB 1355.
He said the meeting had followed other conversations with those same GOP officials and consultants since the fall of 2010.
Crist said he was asked to curb early voting
Crist said party leaders approached him during his 2007-2011 gubernatorial term about changing early voting, in an effort to suppress Democrat turnout. Crist is now at odds with the GOP, since abandoning the party to run for U.S. Senate as an independent in 2010. He is rumored to be planning another run for governor, as a Democrat.
Crist said in a telephone interview this month that he did not recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black voters “but it looked to me like that was what was being suggested. And I didn’t want them to go there at all.”
About inhibiting minority voters, Greer said:
“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”
But a GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said black voters were a concern.
“I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the black churches organize themselves,” he said.
GOP spokesman Burgess discounted Crist’s statement to The Post.
“Charlie Crist speaks out of both sides of his mouth,” he said.
Former Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a Republican, has spoken favorably about HB 1355, because he believes its 12-hour early voting days — the law previously limited them to eight hours a day — give voters more flexibility to vote before or after work.
“But reducing early voting days does not attack voter fraud and given the longer days, it certainly does not save money,” Browning has said.
In a 2011 deposition in the litigation over HB 1355, Browning said that while he was always concerned with voter fraud, he did not see it as a large problem in the state and that was why he did not include any mention of it in his legislative goals for 2011.
“It wasn’t an issue that rose to the level to place it in our package,” Browning said.
Greer told The Post that people who attended the GOP’s behind-the-scenes meetings on early voting included: Andy Palmer, former state GOP executive director, now a Tallahassee political consultant; Bret Prater, head of party development; Randy Enwright of Enwright Consulting, a veteran Tallahassee political consultant; Jim Rimes, former state GOP executive director and now a consultant with Enwright; Kirk Pepper, a former top aide to House Speaker Dean Cannon; and Rich Heffley, a former top aide to Crist.
The Post contacted all of them. GOP spokesman Burgess responded for Palmer and Prater and also for Frank Terraferma, director of state House campaigns, who had been named in the Bucky Mitchell deposition as attending the meeting about the drafting of 1355.
“If what Greer said had happened, that would be wrong and he should have fired those men,” Burgess said. “Why didn’t he fire them? They said they were never in any meeting with Jim Greer of that kind. They never had meetings of that kind.”
The other four did not respond.
Ex-House speaker:
Law meant to curb fraud
Cannon, who took over as House speaker in 2010, said he had no conversations about early voting with GOP strategists and that he believed HB 1355 was aimed at voter fraud.
“I don’t recall anybody talking about some tactical advantage or need to curtail early voting,” said Cannon, who has launched a lobbying business in Tallahassee since his term as a state representative ended this month.
But Crist, who extended early voting hours in 2008 by executive order to address long lines during that presidential election, said he was approached about early voting but told the GOP consultants and staffers that he would veto any proposed legislative changes that would reduce early voting.
“The people that worked in Tallahassee felt that early voting was bad, ” Crist said. “And I heard about it after I signed the executive order expanding it. I heard from Republicans around the state who were bold enough to share it with me that, ‘You just gave the election to Barack Obama.’”
It wasn’t until Gov. Rick Scott took office in January 2011 that the idea went anywhere. It passed the legislature that session and Scott signed it into law.
“I assume they decided, ‘It’s 2011, Crist is gone, let’s give it a shot,’” Crist said. “And that’s exactly what they did. And it is exactly what it turned out to be.”
Before signing the law, Scott said he wanted to make voting easier and to eliminate voter fraud. Recently, he asked Secretary of State Ken Detzner to look into problems with the November election and to recommend changes if necessary.
Purging of non-citizens
off voter rolls discussed
Besides early voting, Greer said other issues discussed at the behind-the-scenes meetings were voter registration organizations, attempts to have Florida Supreme Court judges defeated at the polls and the purging of voters on the rolls who might not be U.S. citizens.
“There is absolutely nothing with their absolute obsession with retaining power that they wouldn’t do — changing the election laws to reduce early voting, to keep organizations like the League of Women Voters from registering people, going after the Supreme Court justices,” Greer said of his former colleagues.
HB 1355 greatly reduced the time voter registration organizations had to hand in registration applications and imposed hefty fines for any violation of the time guidelines, which forced the largest voter registration organizations to suspend activities, afraid they might incur fines they couldn’t afford. The League of Women Voters suspended its activities in Florida for the first time in nine decades.
A federal judge subsequently struck down those parts of 1355 and registration organizations resumed their activities over the summer of 2012.
The Division of Elections under Scott also issued purge lists for non-citizen voters, which several county elections supervisors have criticized as being filled with errors. The attempted voter purge resulted in several lawsuits against Scott’s administration, and nearly all of the state’s elections supervisors abandoned the effort in the months leading up to the presidential election.
And the Republican Party of Florida waged a campaign to defeat three Supreme Court justices this fall. Voters chose to retain all three.
Staff researcher Michelle Quigley and staff writer Christine Stapleton contributed to this story.
________________________________________
Key dates
• 2006: Jim Greer becomes chairman of Florida Republican Party.
• 2007: Republican Charlie Crist takes office as governor of Florida.
• November 2008 — President Barack Obama wins Florida, in part due to Democratic majority in early voting.
• 2009 — GOP staffers and consultants begin talking about ways to inhibit early voting, according to Greer. Crist and two GOP consultants confirm.
• January 2010 — Greer, accused of stealing from GOP, resigns as chairman. Arrested six months later. Greer then sues party, saying it owed him money. Both cases are pending.
• Fall 2010 — Conversation begins between GOP staffers and consultants and Florida GOP General Counsel Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV about drafting legislation to reduce early-voting days, what would eventually become HB 1355.
• November 2010 — Republican Rick Scott elected governor.
• May 2011 — Scott signs HB 1355 passed by GOP-majority legislature. Parts of law later overturned by federal judge, but reduced days of early voting remain.
• November 2012 – Despite long lines at early voting sites, Obama re-elected president, Democrats pick up seven seats in Florida Legislature.

PaulS

04-14-2014, 07:03 AM

Another one.... sorry

Judge in Landmark Case Disavows Support for Voter ID
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/judge-in-landmark-case-disavows-support-for-voter-id.html?ref=us

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: October 15, 2013
It is the kind of thought that rarely passes the lips of a member of the federal judiciary: I was wrong.
Nathan Weber for The New York Times
Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit said effects were not clear in 2007.
But there was Richard A. Posner, one of the most distinguished judges in the land and a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, saying he was mistaken in one of the most contentious issues in American politics and jurisprudence: laws that require people to show identification before they can vote.
Proponents of voter identification laws, who tend to be Republican, say the measures are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents, who tend to be Democrats, assert that the amount of fraud at polling places is tiny, and that the burdens of the laws are enough to suppress voting, especially among poor and minority Americans.
One of the landmark cases in which such requirements were affirmed, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided at the Seventh Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Posner in 2007 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Judge Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, extended his remarks in a video interview with The Huffington Post on Friday.
Asked whether the court had gotten its ruling wrong, Judge Posner responded: “Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.” The member of the three-judge panel who dissented from the majority decision, Terence T. Evans, “was right,” Judge Posner said.
The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Judge Posner noted that the primary opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the law had been written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “who is, of course, very liberal.” The outcome of the case goes to show, he said, that oftentimes, “judges aren’t given the facts that they need to make a sound decision.”
“We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters’ rights, he added.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert on election law, said an admission of error by a judge is unusual, and “gives to Democrats an ‘I-told-you-so’ ” argument on voter identification issues.
More significant, he said, it reflects what he called a recent shift. Previously, cases were decided largely along party lines, but then “you started seeing both Democratic- and Republican-leaning judges” reining in voter identification requirements.
Judge Posner seemed surprised that his comments had caused a stir, and said much had changed since Crawford. “There’s always been strong competition between the parties, but it hadn’t reached the peak of ferocity that it’s since achieved,” he said in the interview. “One wasn’t alert to this kind of trickery, even though it’s age old in the democratic process.”

spence

04-14-2014, 07:23 AM

sorry, it's very hard to believe..and it's hardly an argument against requiring an id to vote..sounds like she was able to get one when she needed to

Yes, I'm lying about my mother...sweet jesus.

The point is you said "name one" and I did...just be a man and admit when you're wrong.

-spence

Jim in CT

04-14-2014, 07:25 AM

Paul, there's nothing wrong with C&P's, I don't think, as long as they are relevant. The first post had to do with the GOP's rules regarding early hours for voting and such. I'll happily concede that both parties do things (like drawing district lines) to maximize winning probabilities. We need to keep them from doing that. I don't think either side has a monopoly on that kind of corruption, do you? Ask any fair-minded CT voter how Malloy got elected governor in a very close race - due to "irregularities", the voting booths in one town - Bridgeport - were kept open far later than scheduled. Guess which candidate 99% of the Bridgeport voters supported in that election?

As to the second...you have a former judge (appointed by Reagan), who is now a professor at the University of Chicago Law School (one of the most liberal places on Earth) telling a story. I don't know this man's politics, I have no idea if he has an agenda. But nowhere in there did it say (unless I missed it) WHY voters get disenfranchised when they are required to show an id. Why? What's the big deal? We have to show photo id's all the time in our every day lives. Can someone try to articulate why any meaningful number of people would be discouraged to vote by having to show an id?

For many years, Connecticut (also one of the most liberal places on Earth) had some of the toughest voting registration requirements - you had to register months and months ahead of time to vote. I don't recall anyone saying that the CT legislature was trying to keep poor blacks from voting.

Lots of liberals claim the photo id requirement is designed to suppress turnout. Liberals say it. I'm sure they believe it. But I haven't heard one support that theory.

Spence says his mother did not have an id. She needed one for probate purposes. Did she throw her arms up in the air and become disenfranchised? No. She went out and got an id. End of story.

What is the big deal about requiring an id? I just don't see it...I cannot believe it's a controversial topic.

spence

04-14-2014, 07:31 AM

You are proving my point exactly Spence - that sometimes you need to know exactly who you are dealing with, and that requiring a photo id in those situations is clearly not an undue burden.
That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case.

What you're saying is that you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution.

According to Detbuch's other thread you're supporting liberal policy.

-spence

spence

04-14-2014, 07:32 AM

Do minorities, or poor people need social security? ID requirements:
Well, isn't this to receive a monetary or some other in kind benefit?

-spence

detbuch

04-14-2014, 07:46 AM

Well, isn't this to receive a monetary or some other in kind benefit?

-spence

So . . . ? Anyway, in order to vote, isn't it required that you have to register and ID is necessary for registration?

Fly Rod

04-14-2014, 08:02 AM

spence

04-14-2014, 08:11 AM

Poor excuse for using the handicap for an example....I'm handicapped and walk into the police station to get my high capacity pistol permit....walk into post office... city hall...takes some time but I get there and I walk in to vote...ETC:

So please Spence ...do not use the handicap

I'm not *using* the handicapped, I simply cited an example I knew was true.

It also illustrates that some without government ID may not necessarily be a minority or poor. How much of a hardship the requirement would place on the individual would be case by case, but should the Federal Government be making them do it if there's no real evidence the integrity of the process is at risk?

-spence

Jim in CT

04-14-2014, 08:15 AM

That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case.

What you're saying is that you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution.

According to Detbuch's other thread you're supporting liberal policy.

-spence

"That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case. "

We have all seen sporadic cases of voter fraud, small scale stuff. Since you are the one who is saying that probate and voter fraud are sufficiently difefrent that one should require proof of id and one should not, where is your proof that there is large-scale indntity theft when it comes to claiming inheritances?

"you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution."

Requiring an id is unconstitutional? Please explain that?

spence

04-14-2014, 08:18 AM

We have all seen sporadic cases of voter fraud, small scale stuff.
I think you've answered your own question.

Requiring an id is unconstitutional? Please explain that?
I haven't found it and I've read through several times, perhaps it's next to that Obamacare prescription drug ID mandate :jump1:

-spence

detbuch

04-14-2014, 08:48 AM

That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case.

Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse. That there is dispute along party lines as how to effect those safeguards, or even if they're necessary, is not unusual. There have been bitter disputes over smaller matters. Each party accuses the other of either suppressing the vote to gain electoral advantage, or fostering fraud to gain electoral advantage. There may be some truth, or even documentation, for both in certain cases. The overall argument is "ripe" with accusations of litigation to gain advantage either way. Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives. The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

What you're saying is that you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution.

How so? Are voting regulations not in the constitutional purview of government?

According to Detbuch's other thread you're supporting liberal policy.

-spence

If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

PaulS

04-14-2014, 08:57 AM

Jim in CT

04-14-2014, 09:26 AM

Jim, I don't have a problem with photo Ids and have said so in the past. However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting. I have a problem with the limiting of voting hours. It clearly is intended to limit minority voting. The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots. I believe that the law (atleast in CT) allows people to vote if they were in line when the booths close.

There is no harm in extending the # of days people can vote.

"However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting."

But why? Why is it harder, or more burdensome, for minorities to get a photo id? Is there a faster, "whites only" line at the Dept Of Motor Vehicles that nobody told me about?

"The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots"

Ah. If the polls ran out of ballots, let's say, and 50 people were in line, and they got 50 more ballots for those people, I would have no issue with that. That's not what happened. What happened was, while they were waiting for more ballots, the political operatives in Bridgeport sounded the alarm that the race was going to be close, and they rounded up more voters to go get in line to vote late. Lots of people were able to vote who were not in line when the polls closed. A topic for another day, however...

PaulS

04-14-2014, 01:48 PM

"However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting."

But why? Why is it harder, or more burdensome, for minorities to get a photo id? Is there a faster, "whites only" line at the Dept Of Motor Vehicles that nobody told me about?

My ID is my drivers license and passport. If i didn't drive, I don't know what I would use. Many minorities live in cities and don't drive so I would suspect that has something to do with it. Why the constant big push for photo ids if there is no fraud?

"The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots"

Ah. If the polls ran out of ballots, let's say, and 50 people were in line, and they got 50 more ballots for those people, I would have no issue with that. That's not what happened. What happened was, while they were waiting for more ballots, the political operatives in Bridgeport sounded the alarm that the race was going to be close, and they rounded up more voters to go get in line to vote late. Lots of people were able to vote who were not in line when the polls closed. A topic for another day, however...Do you have a link to that b/c I don't remember there being claims people were allowed to get in line after polling hours

What is the harm in extending the voting hours?

buckman

04-14-2014, 02:25 PM

All the more reason to put pictures on EBT cards , unless you want to believe that will hurt the poor too.
I can't imagine any sane person arguing against this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

04-14-2014, 05:55 PM

What is the harm in extending the voting hours?

Paul, lots of seniors don't drive, lots of people in big cities don't drive. In these cases, in every state, non-drivers can get a photo id from the government, something which is not a drivers license. These id's are available to people of all colors. So again, why is this more burdensome for non-whites?

Aren't polls open from 6 AM until 8 PM? Again, how does that make it harder for minorities to vote?

I have no issue with extending hours, but it should be limited to one day.

Pete F.

04-14-2014, 06:28 PM

You big city boys have no problem extending voting hours. In a small town like mine where mostly volunteers work at the polling place, they are pretty tired at the end of the day. Then we count the votes by hand, and we don't have problems with chads. After you count votes you'll think twice about writing your buddy or enemy in for some position.��

scottw

04-15-2014, 04:17 AM

Yes, I'm lying about my mother...sweet jesus.

The point is you said "name one" and I did...just be a man and admit when you're wrong.

-spence

I asked you to "name one" and you named your mother and then later admitted that she does, in fact, have an ID...how does that make me wrong?...I'd say you were lying about your mother or at least using her in yet another of your distortions...doesn't seem very "manly"...she should spank you :uhuh:

none of this supports your contention that there are those out there for whom providing an ID when voting would somehow be a burden or a "hardship" ..she has an ID, however recent or not and has always voted according to you, she would not be affected by a requirement to present an ID in order to vote, ....bad example...try again

you would ignore a pretty lengthy list of documented voter fraud incidents and examples and argue something that does not exist, this mythical hardship that is supposedly caused when an adult is asked to provide a form of ID...sweet Jesus:)

Sea Dangles

04-15-2014, 06:22 AM

Jeff obviously has practiced this argument many times with himself. He and Hillary have more in common than meets the eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Piscator

04-15-2014, 08:31 AM

All the more reason to put pictures on EBT cards , unless you want to believe that will hurt the poor too.
I can't imagine any sane person arguing against this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Couldn't agree more...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

justplugit

04-15-2014, 10:34 AM

Paul, lots of seniors don't drive, lots of people in big cities don't drive. In these cases, in every state, non-drivers can get a photo id from the government, something which is not a drivers license. These id's are available to people of all colors. So again, why is this more burdensome for non-whites?

Aren't polls open from 6 AM until 8 PM? Again, how does that make it harder for minorities to vote?

I have no issue with extending hours, but it should be limited to one day.

Bingo. The reason for ID is to prove you are a US citizen who are the only people who can legally vote. In addition there are more modes of transportation in the city than in the suburbs to get an ID.
If a person really wants to vote, they can call either of the two parties and they
will be more than happy to get them to a place for ID.
If you are a civic minded citizen, you'll find a way to get voter ID yourself.
If you are not truly tuned into the issues and base your vote on an intelligent choice, the country is better off without your vote.

spence

04-16-2014, 05:09 PM

I asked you to "name one" and you named your mother and then later admitted that she does, in fact, have an ID...how does that make me wrong?...I'd say you were lying about your mother or at least using her in yet another of your distortions...doesn't seem very "manly"...she should spank you
I said there are people who don't have ID, that she got one for other reasons just recently is irrelevant, that she didn't for quite some time is certainly evidence that some don't.

none of this supports your contention that there are those out there for whom providing an ID when voting would somehow be a burden or a "hardship" ..she has an ID, however recent or not and has always voted according to you, she would not be affected by a requirement to present an ID in order to vote, ....bad example...try again
Having to obtain ID if you don't have one would be a burden for anyone, if it would qualify as a "hardship" would be relative. In the RI example you cited above the State tried to make it easy...but what about states that don't want to make it easy? If a Federal ID law is passed should they also require that states try and make it easy as well? Isn't this more Liberal legislation?

you would ignore a pretty lengthy list of documented voter fraud incidents and examples and argue something that does not exist, this mythical hardship that is supposedly caused when an adult is asked to provide a form of ID...sweet Jesus:)
Post it then, I hope there's some significant items in there.

-spence

buckman

04-16-2014, 06:09 PM

Come on Spence , the government isn't in the business of making anything easy . It's a burden to try to do anything . Your dear leader has made it his mission to make life difficult for Americans. Every department is flush with regulation and bureaucratic nonsense .
Probably the most important thing an American has to do is vote . Having to overcome the burden of acquiring an ID seems kind of insignificant in the scope of things.
You're just sounding silly now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Piscator

04-16-2014, 07:48 PM

Having to obtain ID if you don't have one would be a burden for anyone
-spence

A burden for anyone? Really? It's that much of a burden for anyone?

Come on......cut it out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

04-17-2014, 09:30 AM

I said there are people who don't have ID, that she got one for other reasons just recently is irrelevant, that she didn't for quite some time is certainly evidence that some don't.

Having to obtain ID if you don't have one would be a burden for anyone, if it would qualify as a "hardship" would be relative. In the RI example you cited above the State tried to make it easy...but what about states that don't want to make it easy? If a Federal ID law is passed should they also require that states try and make it easy as well? Isn't this more Liberal legislation?

Post it then, I hope there's some significant items in there.

-spence
Come on, spence. No one likes having to go get an I'd. But even if I agree with your notion that getting an I'd is a burden, you still won't tell us why it's more of a burden for minorities than it is for whites. Because if getting an I'd is an equal burden regardless of color, then requiring am I'd to vote cannot be an effective way of reducing the minority vote. Try making that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-17-2014, 01:06 PM

But even if I agree with your notion that getting an I'd is a burden, you still won't tell us why it's more of a burden for minorities than it is for whites. Because if getting an I'd is an equal burden regardless of color, then requiring am I'd to vote cannot be an effective way of reducing the minority vote. Try making that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This covers the subject well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at _the_polls_.html

-spence

Piscator

04-17-2014, 02:17 PM

spence

04-17-2014, 02:21 PM

Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse.
But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives.
Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.
But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.
Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence

detbuch

04-17-2014, 05:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse.

Quote Spence:
But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

There's that "appear" qualification again. It "appears," however, that many don't believe they are working well enough. And those articles which point out the "relatively" few numbers of voter fraud convictions, leave out the more numerous numbers involved in voter fraud which were documented but ignored (therefor not prosecuted) for various (usually political) reasons and which did have effects or possible effects on the outcome. There is growing suspicion and mistrust of government, much of which is not unfounded, and if the majority of people approve of a safeguard against possible corruption, why do you protest so much against it?

Quote Spence:
Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

It does not occur frequently in all communities. It does, however, "appear" to occur "all too frequently" in some communities which, all too often, "appear" to be poor or minority. Should we burden those communities where murder rarely occurs with laws against it? Or is the possibility of such a crime against a most fundamental right to life enough to create laws to discourage and punish it?

Quote detbuch:
Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives.

Quote Spence:
Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

There is, unfortunately, the very real possibility, especially in "get out the vote" drives in which numbers of folks who normally wouldn't bother to vote are taken to registration sites to register (with who knows what real or manufactured ID) and whose registered name can be used at election by others to vote. Hence, having a valid photo ID at election time would verify that they are the one who is registered. And if the ID was required to register, why would it be an extra burden to show it when voting?

Quote detbuch:
The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

Quote Spence:
But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

Yes, being poor makes most of life a greater burden. That greater burden is the motivating factor which drives the poor to escape poverty. If the burden is artificially removed by government, the motivation to not be poor is lessened, and for many, removed. The constant policy of the progressive state to remove burdens creates a populace which becomes satisfied with its station thus mostly stays in place, and the more natural and evolutionary process of struggling to improve dissipates. The result is most propitious for authoritarian regimes, as the people are mollified and made malleable to whatever dictates the government imposes.

This lack of confidence in people's natural ability to seek and gain improvement in a free society is a hallmark of socialism. It leads to an over-coddling of the poor, which in turn destroys the major motivation for them to improve and creates a reverse motivation in many to not seek improvement, which in turn creates greater numbers of "the poor." Which all, of course, creates a greater need for government coddling. Poverty becomes the economic standard for fiscal policy. A maintenance above some defined quantity of wealth must be provided for all, so must be equitably distributed from those with more to those with less.

And it is assumed, therefor, that it is more difficult for the poor to vote and to present competent ID. That it may be more difficult poses no legal requirement to make it easier, especially if that would lower the barriers to abuse. It also overlooks that it would be easier for many poor to vote than it is for many who are busy improving their life or maintaining a higher economic status. It simply, and erroneously, assumes that it is more difficult for the poor and poverty becomes, once again, the standard for regulation.

Is making things easier for the poor compassionate governance? In some cases it might be so. But when that becomes a standard, a constant factor in policy, is it compassion for the poor, or are the poor a tool to be used for societal transformation? And is poverty so strictly apportioned among minorities that they automatically are assumed to be victims of poverty and in the need for voting assistance? I think it would be more accurate to identify a subset of people, regardless of race, who have some specific handicap that makes it not "difficult" but overburdensome to acquire ID and make it possible for them to get photo Id, not just for voting, but for all the other things necessary in our increasingly complex society.

Quote Spence:
The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

Government, especially overarching, socialistic government, yearly pumps out tens of thousands of pages of new regulations where there are no "problems" except for ones it newly defines, or ones that "appear" to be a problem--and mostly problems which it has created with previous laws and regulations. And it is constantly burdening We The People with solutions that make daily life and business more difficult. Anything We The People can do to make the governmental process less corruptible and more difficult for it to abuse us should be welcomed. You "appear" to have little or nothing to say about massive government intrusion in our lives, yet your all up in a twit about voter ID.

Quote detbuch:
If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

Quote Spence:
Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence

It is not "over" simplified. Did you want him to write a book? You can certainly tell us how it is "over" simplified. If you have time.

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 07:23 AM

This covers the subject well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at _the_polls_.html

-spence

No, it does not cover it well, because it only discusses drivers licenses. As we all know (and if you didn't know before, now you do), in recognition of the fact that people who don't drive still need a photo id for a myriad of purposes, every state allows you to get a photo id that is not a drivers license. You need this to buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, cash a check, pick up a prescription, get a library card, etc...

So Spence, tell me in your own words please, why are minorities less likely to get this id? Why is it harder for blacks who don't drive to get this id, than it is for whites who don't drive?

There is no possible answer to this question, unless you feel blacks are much more disenfranchised from society than whites, and if that's the case, they probably won't vote anyway.

Go ahead. Tell me why blacks are less likely to get this id.

spence

04-18-2014, 07:58 AM

Slate? Ha ha ha, one of the most liberal magazines/websites going.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, more centrist but covering a range of topics beyond politics. They offer positions all over the map…

Try reading it once, some interesting articles at times.

-spence

spence

04-18-2014, 08:10 AM

There is no possible answer to this question, unless you feel blacks are much more disenfranchised from society than whites, and if that's the case, they probably won't vote anyway.

Go ahead. Tell me why blacks are less likely to get this id.
If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID? If you're poor you probably don't need one. Operate on cash, don't frequent liquor stores that check.

Doesn't mean you still don't vote.

A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised…some don't.

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence

buckman

04-18-2014, 08:33 AM

[QUOTE=spence;1039511

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I don't understand you Spence. You've never heard of Acorn, you never heard of the goings-on up in New Hampshire, the bussing in of people to vote .
You saying it never happened over and over again doesn't mean sh$t.
I could google hundreds of instances of voter fraud . On both sides . It happens .
You haven't provided any evidence that the poor would be "disenfranchised " by this. Just that your mom once didn't have an ID

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

04-18-2014, 08:46 AM

I believe there is a need for this and I believe there is a reason people are against this . Spence has already come out and said lies are fine if it's for his idea of the better good . Useless laws that don't fix anything , gun control comes to mind , are ok to liberals . They thrive on feel good legislation . All it takes is one occurrence and it becomes a crisis, and a law is legislated .
Spence ,your hypocrisy has no match buddy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 09:10 AM

If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID? If you're poor you probably don't need one. Operate on cash, don't frequent liquor stores that check.

Doesn't mean you still don't vote.

A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised…some don't.

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence

"If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID?"

We have covered this, and you know that. There are lots of needs for a photo id besides driving. For God's sake, you yourself said that even though your mom didn't drive, eventually she needed a photo id. And what did she do? She went and got one. No big deal, right?

You refuse to answer my question. Why does the requirement of a photo id suppress more black votes than white votes? Because that is necessarily what liberals believe here, right?

There are only 2 possible answers. Either (1) the government makes it easier for whites to get the ids than it is for blacks (and no one is saying that), or (2) you think blacks are more likely to be too lazy to get the id, than whites. That is necessarily the foundation of the liberal notion that conservatives are trying to suppress minority votes here, and that's racist.

"A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised" If that's true, and I concede it is, then it stands to reason that those disenfranchised citizens, who can't be bothered to get an id, will not likely vote either way. So there's no suppression.

Here's another thing. Many states have recently passed the voter id requirements. If the requirement is a blatant attempt to suppress the minority vote, then there must be ample data in those states to support that. Where is the data to show that after those states started requiring ids, that minority voting decreased by a larger amount than white voting?

I have never, not once, seen someone opposed to the id requirement, provide such data. I presume that no such data exists. Therefore, the liberal notion that conservatives are out to bring back Jim Crow laws, is BS designed to demonize the political opposition. Why? Because those Dems in the know, realize that they are in serious trouble in 2014. They are truly desperate. So instead of trying to honestly explain to us why their ideas are actually better, they play the race card. One day, that may blow up in their faces.

You, specifically, are utterly embarrassing yourself on this thread. You claim your Mom got an id for her own needs, and then you ask why anyone who doesn't drive would ever need an id? Anything, ANYTHING (even contradicting what you said earlier) to avoid having to admit that I'm right, and that your side is engaging in the ugliest kind of political smear tactics.

Bill Clinton is in favor of photo ids to vote. You're telling me that he wants to suppress the minority vote?

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 09:19 AM

You haven't provided any evidence that the poor would be "disenfranchised " by this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he can't. Because the ONLY way to support the notion that blacks would be less likely to get ids than whites, is to believe that blacks are lazier and less willing to obey the rules, than whites. This must be true if liberals are correct that requiring id's would effect blacks more than it effects whites. But they won't say it out loud. because it's racist. This is the common liberal "soft bigotry of lower expectations" of those who aren't as white as you are.

spence

04-18-2014, 12:47 PM

spence

04-18-2014, 12:57 PM

Bill Clinton is in favor of photo ids to vote. You're telling me that he wants to suppress the minority vote?
You should read what Clinton really said rather than what someone wants you to think he said.

-spence

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 01:35 PM

You should read what Clinton really said rather than what someone wants you to think he said.

-spence

From the Washington Times...

Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

Now, since you keep refusing to answer my question, I'll make it a nice fill-in-the-blank.

"Conservatives want to require a photo id to vote. This would apply equally to all, regardless of color. Those who don't drive can get another government-issued id. Blacks and whites will have equal access to these id's. Yet, I, Spence, claim this will disproportionately effect blacks because __________________"

Stop saying that it's a racist plot just because Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz say so. Tell me in your own words, please, where the racism comes into play.

You really, really backed yourself into a corner here.

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 01:40 PM

You're comparing apples and oranges, quite simply there is indeed a serious firearm violence problem in the USA when compared to other industrialized nations.

-spence

True.

It's also true that the problem isn't even the least bit mitigated in places that have enacted tough gun laws. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws.

I'm not a huge fan of guns in the hands of large numbers of citizens. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear.

It's also worth noting that some of those countries, like Canada, have high rates of gun ownership, yet little gun crime. That suggests that the root problem isn't the presence of guns, but a cultural lack of empathy on our part. Your side is the side peddling the bile that if human like is inconvenient, it can be snuffed out. Your side is the side that says "if it feels good do it", and your side are the ones who resort to feral anarchy when they don't get exactly what they want.

spence

04-18-2014, 01:48 PM

From the Washington Times...

Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

Now, since you keep refusing to answer my question, I'll make it a nice fill-in-the-blank.

"Conservatives want to require a photo id to vote. This would apply equally to all, regardless of color. Those who don't drive can get another government-issued id. Blacks and whites will have equal access to these id's. Yet, I, Spence, claim this will disproportionately effect blacks because __________________"

Stop saying that it's a racist plot just because Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz say so. Tell me in your own words, please, where the racism comes into play.

You really, really backed yourself into a corner here.
Actually no, you validated my assumption that you're opinion is based off of what someone else wants you to believe. Let's go to the tape...

“Any time you erect a barrier to political participation that disproportionately affects people based on their race or their physical capacity or their income — or whether they've got a car to drive far enough and can afford the gasoline to get to a place where they can get an approved photo ID — any time you do any of that ... it undermines the sprit of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act,”

Bill Clinton - 9/14

Jim, Clinton was speaking out against voter ID laws, but suggested that a photographic SS card could be a way to ease potential voter suppression caused by state laws.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you.

-spence

spence

04-18-2014, 02:23 PM

True.

It's also true that the problem isn't even the least bit mitigated in places that have enacted tough gun laws. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws.

I'm not a huge fan of guns in the hands of large numbers of citizens. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear.
Clear as mud.

Perhaps that's more indicative of the overwhelming gun culture in the US. We have by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and I believe the highest murder rate of any industrialized nation.

If anything your empirical observations in Chicago and DC may just demonstrate the need for tougher long-term federal laws.

It's also worth noting that some of those countries, like Canada, have high rates of gun ownership, yet little gun crime. That suggests that the root problem isn't the presence of guns, but a cultural lack of empathy on our part.

Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high." Perhaps they're rates of gun crime have more to do with more restrictive ownership laws.

That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms.

Wait, I though more guns was the solution?

-spence

buckman

04-18-2014, 03:17 PM

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 04:11 PM

...

Jim, Clinton was speaking out against voter ID laws, but suggested that a photographic SS card could be a way to ease potential voter suppression caused by state laws.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you.

-spence

You're not "breaking" anything to me. You are confirming what I said - that Clinton supports the notion of requiring a photo id (SS card) to vote. Why is getting a SS card with photo less likely to result in voter suppression, then a state id?

Finally Spence, you are repeatedly and cowardly dodging the only question that matters. Why does the requirement suppress more black votes than white votes.

I presume that you refuse to answer, because despite all your searching on The Huffington Post and The Daily Worker, you can't find anything that any of your fellow World Traveler posted that is on point. So you claim it's a racist policy, but you will offer absolutely zero evidence to support that. That's one hell of a solid position you have, when you have to duck a question as simple as "why do you think that"? Clearly you have given this a lot of thought, and considered both sides of the issue...

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 04:22 PM

Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high."
-spence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

From the Washington Post, gun ownership per capita for 178 countries. Canada was ranked 13th. Spence, the noted statistician, claims that being ranked in the top 8% of a list is "definitely not high."

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 04:54 PM

Clear as mud.

Perhaps that's more indicative of the overwhelming gun culture in the US. We have by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and I believe the highest murder rate of any industrialized nation.

If anything your empirical observations in Chicago and DC may just demonstrate the need for tougher long-term federal laws.

Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high." Perhaps they're rates of gun crime have more to do with more restrictive ownership laws.

That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms.

Wait, I though more guns was the solution?

-spence

"That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms."

The Washington Post data does not support your conclusion (shocker!). Compare the US (which has the highest rate of gun ownership) and Switzerland (which is ranked 3rd). The rate of gun ownership in the US is 94% higher than that of Switzerland.

If what you say is true (that the problem is the guns and not the people), then the gun homicide rate per capita would also be 94% higher in the US than Sweden. But as with almost everything you say, the facts don't back it up. The gun homicide rate in the US (3.2 per 100k) is not 94% higher than Sweden, it is 215% higher than Sweden.

The numbers show that in this country, gun homicides do not increase in proportion with guns, compared to other countries. Other countries can have the gun ownership, without having nearly the gun murder rate that we have. That pretty much means it's not primarily the presence of guns.

I could not make up a more concrete rebuttal of your theory that it's gun ownership. I wonder if you will still spout that theory, despite now knowing that it is demonstrably false?

Guns are obviously part of the problem. But any rational person knows that even if you banned all gun sales today, that does nothing to curb violence for decades, because there are tens of millions of guns out there. The only way gun control can put a meaningful dent in crime is to confiscate the guns out there, and in addition to being unconstitutional, it's not possible.

Put down the Kool Aid and think for 5 seconds.

For whatever reason, our citizenry does not respect life to the same degree as the citizens of other developed nations. Gun control laws do not get to the root of that terrible reality.

The solution from your side seems to be to attack religion and celebrate abortions and free condoms, and to mock the exact family values that might combat whatever psychosis is effecting so many of us.

I'm not sure it helps that our POTUS has rappers, who obviously promote and celebrate the gun violence lifestyle, on speed dial.

Piscator

04-18-2014, 04:56 PM

You clearly have never applied for fire arm permit Spence .
Until you do ,you don't have a right calling anything anybody would have to do to get an ID ,a burden.
And I'll argue that the ID will prevent voter fraud whereas the gun permits have never been proved to slow gun violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try getting a Captains license...talk about a burden!! A LTC is nothing compared to a Captains License...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-18-2014, 05:08 PM

You clearly have never applied for fire arm permit Spence .
Until you do ,you don't have a right calling anything anybody would have to do to get an ID ,a burden.
And I'll argue that the ID will prevent voter fraud whereas the gun permits have never been proved to slow gun violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ahhh the old you don't have any right nonsense.

Here's what you're not getting. If you're really hellbent on rigging the vote, the logistics of trying to do it via the individual is going to be nearly impossible...that's the only thing ID would stop.

And that's why it doesn't happen.

-spence

spence

04-18-2014, 05:12 PM

You're not "breaking" anything to me. You are confirming what I said - that Clinton supports the notion of requiring a photo id (SS card) to vote. Why is getting a SS card with photo less likely to result in voter suppression, then a state id?
Ummmm, that's not what he was saying Jim...

Finally Spence, you are repeatedly and cowardly dodging the only question that matters. Why does the requirement suppress more black votes than white votes.
We've covered this many times...it impacts the poor and the poor are disproportionately minority. Please read the earlier posts...

-spence

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 05:30 PM

Ummmm, that's not what he was saying Jim...

We've covered this many times...it impacts the poor and the poor are disproportionately minority. Please read the earlier posts...

-spence

The poor, as non-drivers, would disproportionately need a government issued id. But why can't they just go get the id, like your Mom did? You are all over the place here...

I agree that more poor people would now need to get an id to vote, than rich people (as the rich would have driver's licenses). What you have not addressed, is why large numbers of the poor will refuse to get the photo id.

Jim in CT

04-18-2014, 05:34 PM

Ummmm, that's not what he was saying Jim...

-spence

Here is what he said...

"Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

He explicitly said that a photo id (in the form of an SS card with photo) might be a good way to go, and that it wouldn't be divisive.

I honestly can't follow how you are suggesting that Clinton is not supporting the idea of a photo id to vote. The difference is, his photo id is a SS card.

spence

04-18-2014, 06:40 PM

Here is what he said...

"Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

He explicitly said that a photo id (in the form of an SS card with photo) might be a good way to go, and that it wouldn't be divisive.

I honestly can't follow how you are suggesting that Clinton is not supporting the idea of a photo id to vote. The difference is, his photo id is a SS card.
Do some homework, see what he really said. You're being lazy...

-spence

Jim in CT

04-19-2014, 07:01 AM

Do some homework, see what he really said. You're being lazy...

-spence

Coming from the guy who said that Canada' rate of gun ownership is definitely not high, I'd say your ability to think logically and draw conclusions is a bit askew.

Clinton likes the idea of requiring an id with a photo to vote. His proposition is that the id be a SS card.

We are all truly sorry if Clinton's statement supports the conservative position here. But while you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Raider Ronnie

04-19-2014, 10:00 AM

You're comparing apples and oranges, quite simply there is indeed a serious firearm violence problem in the USA when compared to other industrialized nations.

-spence

Hey Spence
Whats the % of gun crimes committed with legal guns compared to illegal ???
According to most studies 95% crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns.
Gun control is not the problem. People are the problem.

Raven

04-19-2014, 09:19 PM

the thread topic implies that Barry lies on occasion

so that's laughable considering he's a compulsive
schizophrenic pathological liar 100% of the time

RIROCKHOUND

04-20-2014, 06:53 AM

Hey Spence

According to most studies 95% crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns.

I agree that is true.

So, how do we best keep the illegal guns out of criminals hands?

spence

04-20-2014, 08:39 AM

Hey Spence
Whats the % of gun crimes committed with legal guns compared to illegal ???
According to most studies 95% crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns.
Gun control is not the problem. People are the problem.
You're 95% number doesn't tell us very much. So criminals usually use illegal guns...what a freaking revelation that is!

What's the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one anyway? If you have a gigantic surplus of legal guns wouldn't that make it a heck of a lot easier for criminals to get guns which would *instantly* make them illegal guns?

The number of guns in the US is mind boggling...over 270 million which is 6 times higher than any other nation and as many as the next 18 countries COMBINED.

It's no wonder our rate of gun homicide is #1 in the developed world.

But no, it must be all about the people.

-spence

buckman

04-20-2014, 11:02 AM

I agree that is true.

So, how do we best keep the illegal guns out of criminals hands?

Harsh jail time if you commit a crime with a firearm . Enforce the current law instead of plea bargaining them out .
Don't give them free to Mexican cartels where they will be used to kill hundreds including border agents
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

04-20-2014, 11:07 AM

You're 95% number doesn't tell us very much. So criminals usually use illegal guns...what a freaking revelation that is!

What's the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one anyway? If you have a gigantic surplus of legal guns wouldn't that make it a heck of a lot easier for criminals to get guns which would *instantly* make them illegal guns?

The number of guns in the US is mind boggling...over 270 million which is 6 times higher than any other nation and as many as the next 18 countries COMBINED.

It's no wonder our rate of gun homicide is #1 in the developed world.

But no, it must be all about the people.

-spence
It would be interesting to check how many violent gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders . I'm guessing 1/2 would be a good number but I bet it's low .
I would also like to know the number committed by illegal aliens .
Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fly Rod

04-20-2014, 05:31 PM

Spence..U can not compare Canada to the US for gun ownership, 35 million population...2 million legal guns would equal approximately 17% of the population

The US with approximately 317,000,000....55million legal gun owners would be approx. 6% of the population own guns...BUT... with 55 million gun owners U R about correct they own around 300 million guns

That is enough fire power to take on the US goverment if the need ever arose to take on the government in gorilla warfare.

Jim in CT

04-20-2014, 06:17 PM

It's no wonder our rate of gun homicide is #1 in the developed world.

But no, it must be all about the people.

-spence

Spence, I posted the data to show that here in the US, gun homicide rates are not proportional to our gun ownership - our gun murder rates are much higher than what can be explained by an increase in gun ownership. In other words, the presence of guns does not explain our gun homicide rate. The only plausible alternative explanation is the culture. Kudos to the mouthpieces on your side who have been wildly successful at de-valuing life, as well as mocking religion and family values. Also liberal heroes in Hollywood exposing our kids to vile filth. Nah, that can't have anything to do with it.

You absolutely know that you are posting things that are contradicted by the data, yet you continue to spout this because you want it to be true. Incredible.

Jim in CT

04-20-2014, 06:20 PM

It would be interesting to check how many violent gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders . I'm guessing 1/2 would be a good number but I bet it's low .
I would also like to know the number committed by illegal aliens .
Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correct, Liberal are also, as a group (not all of them), soft on crime. Bill Maher went on a rant just this week that our incarceration rates are way too high, given that crime rates are doing down.

Here is a liberal with a talk show, and he can't connect the dots to understand that if you lock up lots of criminal, crime rates should go down. But Maher's solution to crime, apparently, is to empty put prisons.

Pete F.

04-20-2014, 06:52 PM

You guys sound like the Rush and Bernie show. They actually are not on the same show but both Rush Limbaugh and Bernie Sanders find extreme examples that of course any halfwit would find unacceptable. The evil illegal immigrants, maybe you should talk to the smart ones they are here for a self defined amount of time, making multiple times what they could at home and then getting out and going home to live well the rest of their lives. They are too conservative to want to pay for everyone else. We have more people in prisons than anyone else in the world, its not getting better, we need to fix it. The criminals in charge have now fixed our healthcare system, did you know that now if you get health insurance and quit paying, that after three months they cancel your health insurance. The surprising part is that the insurance company gets all the money it paid out back, how come it doesn't work like that for my business.
Notice how your doctor now spends more time looking at his computer than you, the bean counters have decided that it is in your better interest to have all procedures have a 5 digit code so they can better determine our health care needs. It was a 3 digit code but now they need to know if it is the first visit, second or final. Most doctors used to say try this, if it doesn't work come back and see me.

The Dad Fisherman

04-21-2014, 04:55 AM

That must be that Fuzzy math I've always heard about :hihi:

You might want to re-check those numbers...you have them flipped.

Canada 5.7%
U.S. 17.6 %

Spence..U can not compare Canada to the US for gun ownership, 35 million population...2 million legal guns would equal approximately 17% of the population

The US with approximately 317,000,000....55million legal gun owners would be approx. 6% of the population own guns...BUT... with 55 million gun owners U R about correct they own around 300 million guns

That is enough fire power to take on the US goverment if the need ever arose to take on the government in gorilla warfare.

Fly Rod

04-21-2014, 09:05 AM

Fuzzy Math....hmmmmm.

If ya take the 35million people divide by 2million gun owners I get the 17...lol

spence

04-21-2014, 09:33 AM

It would be interesting to check how many violent gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders . I'm guessing 1/2 would be a good number but I bet it's low .
I would also like to know the number committed by illegal aliens .
Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are the repeat offenders repeating with the same guns?

Do the illegals cross the border with weapons or do they get them here?

Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that.

-spence

buckman

04-21-2014, 09:49 AM

Are the repeat offenders repeating with the same guns?

Do the illegals cross the border with weapons or do they get them here?

Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that.

-spence

It's not the guns that are repeat offenders .....WTF??
. That's pathetic Spence but typical . If you want an honest debate you have to aknowledge all possible reasons for gun violence . Abolishing the 2nd amendment won't work . Sorry to disappoint you .
And why would you think illegals are not crossing the border with weapons? Because they don't want to do something illegal ?
I don't know when the last time you bought a weapon was, but I suggest you look into it. It is a lot harder than you would like to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Piscator

04-21-2014, 10:34 AM

Are the repeat offenders repeating with the same guns?

Do the illegals cross the border with weapons or do they get them here?

Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that.

-spence

Do drunks drivers repeat with the the same booze or cars...lets get rid if booze, vehicles and while we are at it cell phones. Texting is the number one cause of auto accidents these days. It's not the people, it's the guns, booze, cars and cell phones that do all the killing...lets ban them all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-21-2014, 11:11 AM

It's not the guns that are repeat offenders .....WTF??
. That's pathetic Spence but typical . If you want an honest debate you have to aknowledge all possible reasons for gun violence . Abolishing the 2nd amendment won't work . Sorry to disappoint you .
I never said such a thing nor have I ever called for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

There are many reasons for gun violence. If you're so open to an honest debate and are willing to acknowledge all possible reasons for gun violence I'd think you could connect the dots between proliferation and outcome.

And why would you think illegals are not crossing the border with weapons? Because they don't want to do something illegal ?
I don't know when the last time you bought a weapon was, but I suggest you look into it. It is a lot harder than you would like to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm sure some do but the flow of arms is generally from the US where there's plentiful supply to Mexico where there's a high demand.

-spence

justplugit

04-21-2014, 11:37 AM

Do drunks drivers repeat with the the same booze or cars...lets get rid if booze, vehicles and while we are at it cell phones. Texting is the number one cause of auto accidents these days. It's not the people, it's the guns, booze, cars and cell phones that do all the killing...lets ban them all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Piscator, you forgot the US Census figures on knife homicides, ranging from 15.3% to 28.6% with around 20% in most states. They didn't include blunt instruments either.
Time to ban knifes, bats and fishing rods that could be made into sharp instruments too.

Fly Rod

04-21-2014, 01:44 PM

not to mention breast implants...them taut nipples R causing an epidemic of blindness due to poked eyes....LOL...:)

spence

04-21-2014, 02:41 PM

Piscator, you forgot the US Census figures on knife homicides, ranging from 15.3% to 28.6% with around 20% in most states. They didn't include blunt instruments either.
Time to ban knifes, bats and fishing rods that could be made into sharp instruments too.

According to the FBI:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

Mind the gap.

-spence

Pete F.

04-21-2014, 03:35 PM

Do you think that it is just because we can have firearms?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
We should have the highest intentional homicide rate then, shouldn't we?

buckman

04-21-2014, 04:11 PM

According to the FBI:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

Mind the gap.

-spence

It's an interesting link Spence. Minorities are involved in the majority of homicides . There is an interesting number of justifiable homicides. Translation ...life's saved . I was looking for a link to repeat offenders but I didn't find one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-21-2014, 05:02 PM

It's an interesting link Spence. Minorities are involved in the majority of homicides . There is an interesting number of justifiable homicides. Translation ...life's saved . I was looking for a link to repeat offenders but I didn't find one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
His link?

What's interesting is why we're a bit of an abnormality among developed nations. Some of this could be due to sheer size, but the preponderance of weapons is something that can't be ignored.

I've looked into justified homicides before and while it certainly does happen it's still quite rare and often in the home. There of course are equally rare situations where good intentions go awry.

My assumption on repeat offenders is that if you commit a crime with a gun and are caught, you'll need to get another gun to repeat.

-spence

detbuch

04-21-2014, 07:17 PM

His link?

What's interesting is why we're a bit of an abnormality among developed nations. Some of this could be due to sheer size, but the preponderance of weapons is something that can't be ignored.

I've looked into justified homicides before and while it certainly does happen it's still quite rare and often in the home. There of course are equally rare situations where good intentions go awry.

My assumption on repeat offenders is that if you commit a crime with a gun and are caught, you'll need to get another gun to repeat.

-spence

Defensive use of guns is not rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

And:
http://www.examiner.com/article/detroit-police-chief-backs-vigilante-justice-citizens-should-arm-themselves

And:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/detroit-homeowner-shooting-intruder_n_5128271.html

Jim in CT

04-22-2014, 08:07 AM

His link?

the preponderance of weapons is something that can't be ignored.

-spence

No, it can't be ignored. But we can't fanatically obsess with it, to the exclusion of other possibilities, either.

One last time. See if you can follow. Check out this link, which lists gun ownership rates and gun murder rates by state...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

From this link, you can see some things that suggest that your conclusion, that proliferation of guns is the core issue, is false.

Wyoming is ranked #1 in gun ownership at 59.7% of the residents. Spence, do you therefore presume that Wyoming has a problem with gun violence? Really? According to that data, Wyoming had the 9th lowest gun murder rate in the nation.

Flip side, let's look at DC. DC has the lowest gun ownership rate in the country, the absolute lowest, at 3.6%. Spence, based on your logic, gun crime in DC shuold be low, right? In fact, DC has the very highest gun murder rate in the nation. Are you going to tell me that the murders in DC are committed by tourists from Wyoming who come into DC with their guns blazing?

Therefore, while I agree that gun crime cannot occur if guns don't exist, you have to concede that there is not a great correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. The data could not be much more clear on this.

Why can the people of Wyoming own so many guns, yet be so less likely to use them on each other? Family values and religion, the very things that many on your side spend a lot of resources mocking. Your side likes to tell people, especially people who live in places like DC and Chicago, that religion and family values have no place in the modern world.

Stop saying that it's all about guns. Spence, if you owned 50 guns, would you be more likely to murder anybody with them, than you are today? Of course not.

We need to deal with the attitude so many have, that the only thing that matters is the self. The guns are out there, and that is fact. The most effective thing we can do, is restore in our citizenry, a minimal amount of empathy for others.

I'm not a big fan of guns, and I think that requiring the chip on the trigger that verifies the fingerprint of the owner (so that nobody else can fire the gun) is a good idea. But what's scarier to me than guns, is the willingness of so many Americans to do God-awful things to each other.

spence

04-23-2014, 07:19 AM

No, it can't be ignored. But we can't fanatically obsess with it, to the exclusion of other possibilities, either.

One last time. See if you can follow. Check out this link, which lists gun ownership rates and gun murder rates by state...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

From this link, you can see some things that suggest that your conclusion, that proliferation of guns is the core issue, is false.

Wyoming is ranked #1 in gun ownership at 59.7% of the residents. Spence, do you therefore presume that Wyoming has a problem with gun violence? Really? According to that data, Wyoming had the 9th lowest gun murder rate in the nation.

Flip side, let's look at DC. DC has the lowest gun ownership rate in the country, the absolute lowest, at 3.6%. Spence, based on your logic, gun crime in DC shuold be low, right? In fact, DC has the very highest gun murder rate in the nation. Are you going to tell me that the murders in DC are committed by tourists from Wyoming who come into DC with their guns blazing?

Therefore, while I agree that gun crime cannot occur if guns don't exist, you have to concede that there is not a great correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. The data could not be much more clear on this.

Why can the people of Wyoming own so many guns, yet be so less likely to use them on each other? Family values and religion, the very things that many on your side spend a lot of resources mocking. Your side likes to tell people, especially people who live in places like DC and Chicago, that religion and family values have no place in the modern world.

Stop saying that it's all about guns. Spence, if you owned 50 guns, would you be more likely to murder anybody with them, than you are today? Of course not.

We need to deal with the attitude so many have, that the only thing that matters is the self. The guns are out there, and that is fact. The most effective thing we can do, is restore in our citizenry, a minimal amount of empathy for others.

I'm not a big fan of guns, and I think that requiring the chip on the trigger that verifies the fingerprint of the owner (so that nobody else can fire the gun) is a good idea. But what's scarier to me than guns, is the willingness of so many Americans to do God-awful things to each other.
I love it, comparing Wyoming with Washington DC. Brilliant analysis...

This issue actually has been studied.

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/

Remember that in areas like DC or Chicago with tough gun laws and yet ample crime that the crime generally was present before the gun laws were passed...that's why they have tough gun laws, to aid with prosecution. Given the easy availability of firearms outside of restricted areas I don't think you can assume a localized law will have a depressing impact on behavior...although that's what the NRA would like you to believe.

The reason so many gun control advocates want Federal legislation is precisely because localized efforts are challenged by short-termism and open state borders.

Very few in this country want to ban weapons entirely, but the opposing position -- that more guns is always the answer -- is just as faulty.

-spence

RIROCKHOUND

04-23-2014, 07:26 AM

Harsh jail time if you commit a crime with a firearm . Enforce the current law instead of plea bargaining them out .Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great. Stops a potential second offense. I don't disagree.

How do so many guns get into criminals hands in the first place, if there are no loop-holes or other talking points that the advocate side or the NRA side use.... are they all stolen? Is it shell buyers? how do we attack that part of the problem...?

I'm all good with people owning weapons for sport, hunting and self defense, but the sheer volume that seems accessible to criminals is very disconcerting...

buckman

04-23-2014, 07:34 AM

Great. Stops a potential second offense. I don't disagree.

How do so many guns get into criminals hands in the first place, if there are no loop-holes or other talking points that the advocate side or the NRA side use.... are they all stolen? Is it shell buyers? how do we attack that part of the problem...?

I'm all good with people owning weapons for sport, hunting and self defense, but the sheer volume that seems accessible to criminals is very disconcerting...

Harsh punishment for firearm crimes also prevents first offenses.
We ban plenty of things that get into the hands of criminals. illegal drugs are directly related to many gun crimes. To blame the firearm is illogical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RIROCKHOUND

04-23-2014, 08:55 AM

Harsh punishment for firearm crimes also prevents first offenses.
We ban plenty of things that get into the hands of criminals. illegal drugs are directly related to many gun crimes. To blame the firearm is illogical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't blame the guns, but the seemingly high accessibility of firearms puts them into the hands of people who shouldn't get them.

If it isn't some loophole, how do they get the guns? I don't know the answer, either....

spence

04-23-2014, 09:10 AM

How do so many guns get into criminals hands in the first place, if there are no loop-holes or other talking points that the advocate side or the NRA side use.... are they all stolen? Is it shell buyers? how do we attack that part of the problem...?

I'm all good with people owning weapons for sport, hunting and self defense, but the sheer volume that seems accessible to criminals is very disconcerting...
As I said before, there's really no difference between a legal gun and an illegal one.

The big problem here is the NRA, not the members mind you but the leadership who work tirelessly to whip everybody into a panic by pushing conspiracy theories that enrich themselves and their benefactors.

There's a lot of rational legislation the NRA leadership opposes simply because it would slow the free flow of firearms...

-spence

Jim in CT

04-23-2014, 09:27 AM

I love it, comparing Wyoming with Washington DC. Brilliant analysis...

This issue actually has been studied.

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/

Remember that in areas like DC or Chicago with tough gun laws and yet ample crime that the crime generally was present before the gun laws were passed...that's why they have tough gun laws, to aid with prosecution. Given the easy availability of firearms outside of restricted areas I don't think you can assume a localized law will have a depressing impact on behavior...although that's what the NRA would like you to believe.

The reason so many gun control advocates want Federal legislation is precisely because localized efforts are challenged by short-termism and open state borders.

Very few in this country want to ban weapons entirely, but the opposing position -- that more guns is always the answer -- is just as faulty.

-spence

"I love it, comparing Wyoming with Washington DC. Brilliant analysis..."

Aha! But it was you, not I, who said that gun crime is driven primarily by gun ownership. If what you said had a shred of validity to it, then the crime rates in DC and Wyoming would be a function of gun ownership. And clearly, that is not the case. My data refutes that as clearly as anything can be refuted.

You are right! The citizens of DC and the citizens of Wyoming are very different. And it is the cultural and socioeconomic differences between the 2 groups, not merely the presence of guns, that is the root cause of gun crime. There is a reason why 50 Cent and Snoop Dog don't do concerts in Wyoming and South Dakota, yet they sell out in places like DC and Chicago (meaning, they sell out in places with high crime rates). Thank you for making my point for me. You don't often hear radical liberals concede that you cannot compare expected behavior between those who live in DC and those who live in Wyoming...

"that's why they have tough gun laws, to aid with prosecution"

There is nothing you won't make up, will you? In the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, liberals were not calling for tough gun laws "to aid with the prosecution" of the gunmen. The liberals were calling for tough gun laws, because they claim it will reduce gun crime and save lives. Can't you go 5 seconds without being so blatantly dishonest?

I'll ask you again...Why can the citizens of Wyoming own so many more guns than the citizens of DC, yet commit so much less crime?

Why can't you answer that? Could it be the fact that there is no answer to that question, which doesn't repudiate your claims here?