Gun Control

[babe]

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

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

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

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

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

[babe]

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

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

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

[One Brow]

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

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

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

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

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

[One Brow]

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

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

[One Brow]

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

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

[Scat]

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

Depends on what you're defending against.

[Scat]

This is more about culture than anything else but the most restrictive gun controls in the country haven't done a lick of good in Chicago...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5456581.story

[babe]

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

The CFR tries to invite selected, influential people into its membership. It has related "committees" of lesser status around the country, around fifty in number, where there are thousands of lesser "committee members". You have to have a member sponsor to get invited, though apparently you can apply yourself. The membership rules on the site that is for public viewing states that selections are made biannually, and that they are not accepting a large number of the candidates, to preserve the elite rank membership has generally.

Important founders included the Rockefeller family and other very "elite" folks, and the "club" has strong ties with the British version of the same idea, including English nobility.

Many of our media, Hollywood, corporate, and political powerhouses are well-represented. They have a rule on "non=attribution" described as a protection of members from the general public opinion in that they can speak freely their opinions within the "club" meetings with no fear of being quoted outside. . . . .

They have excellent publicity professionals managing their press, and they do indeed select many experts from many fields whose views are compatible with their aims, which are very pro-UN and aiming at managing world affairs as well as our own national politics according to their perceived benefit.

In the overall scheme of things, they are not the only game in town, globally speaking, but they are the nerve center of "American" and "British" influence in the world.

And, no, we do not get to vote on who can sit in this council, with it's tremendous influence in our community.

I call it an end run around the public, for the purpose of managing the public without "representative" governance.

[One Brow]

Depends on what you're defending against.

What would your average citizen be defending against, that required such weaponry?

[One Brow]

This is more about culture than anything else but the most restrictive gun controls in the country haven't done a lick of good in Chicago...

You know that because you ran an experiment with a duplicate of Chicago, except for laxer gun control?

[One Brow]

And, no, we do not get to vote on who can sit in this council, with it's tremendous influence in our community.

I call it an end run around the public, for the purpose of managing the public without "representative" governance.

So, you meant they were elitest in their membership. In my earlier comment, I meant the implicit support that some people had votes not worthy of counting, and that is what I meant by elitest. I don't think the two notions are directly comparable.

[Gameface]

What would your average citizen be defending against, that required such weaponry?

I've never used a gun to defend myself. This isn't about the average or common occurrence and allowing us just enough to defend against it. It's about the unusual or extreme occurrence, and being in a position to be able to defend against that. I watched the news during the riots in L.A. after the police who beat Rodney King were acquitted and I saw people defending their homes and their businesses with firearms. In those instances an AR-15 with a large magazine is much more effective against a raging mob than a bolt action rifle or semi-auto with a 5-10rd magazine.

I'm not a doomsday prepper-type, but our right to firearms is linked to our right to defend ourselves. If I had a stash of provisions in a doomsday scenario a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine is the right tool for the job.

For all the non-gun folks. are you aware that in the gun community there is a style (stress the word style) of firearms jokingly referred to as EBR's. EBR stands for Evil Black Rifle. That's because when things Sandy Hook happen there is an outcry to ban rifles based on aesthetic qualities like pistol grips, black paint, protruding magazine, etc. While other semi-automatic rifles that look more like grandpa's old hunting rifle are viewed as acceptable.

Based on this recent tragedy I'm in a softer place as far as my stand for gun rights, but still I look around and don't see any meaningful solutions. All I see are the same attempts to impose arbitrary regulations and reduce the ability of individuals to defend themselves while doing little to nothing to actually reduce the possibility of something like this happening again.

This crazy person chose an AR-15. He could have done pretty much the same thing with a pistol and several magazines, even if those magazines were restricted to 10 or fewer rounds.

[SaltyDawg]

What would your average citizen be defending against, that required such weaponry?

Half the gun control freaks are saying, "What good will your gun do against a tyrannical government in this day and age? The government's weapons are much too powerful."

A good portion of these same people are also saying, "Why would anyone need guns powerful enough for military use?"

And this is without mentioning future possibilities, like a major earthquake/hurricane/tornado/asteroid/volcano/virus/terrorist attack/etc sending a major area into anarchy and chaos.

[One Brow]

In those instances an AR-15 with a large magazine is much more effective against a raging mob than a bolt action rifle or semi-auto with a 5-10rd magazine.

So, you're talking about indicriminantly shooting into a crowd. Since you are talking about the LA riots, do you have any reason to think that people defending themselves with bolt-action rifles or hand- guns were more vunerable to the crowd than those with AR-15s?

This crazy person chose an AR-15. He could have done pretty much the same thing with a pistol and several magazines, even if those magazines were restricted to 10 or fewer rounds.

Then why aren't pistols with magazines good against a crowd? It's not like a mob coordinates its attacks.

[One Brow]

And this is without mentioning future possibilities, like a major earthquake/hurricane/tornado/asteroid/volcano/virus/terrorist attack/etc sending a major area into anarchy and chaos.

You mean like Hurricane Sandy? Were guns that useful in the aftermath? Did people with AR-15s fare better than those with revolvers?