Gun Bans Work?

[Remmus]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

And their reasoning was laughable. Do you have one of your own?

I don't believe it's laughable.  I respect your views, but I also hold my own.  

[tvc184]

And I am not sure how the discussion got off on the tangent of voter ID when this topic is about gun control. 

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, Remmus said:

My issue is it was never about stopping voter fraud, it's about stopping votes.  I'm all for stopping people from voting if they're here illegally.  That's just WRONG and I don't care how long you've lived here.  

But you have not offered a cogent argument of how it suppresses legal votes. If someone is applying for government aid, will the excuse of "I don't want an I.D." be an acceptable position?

[Remmus]

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

No, they didn't. 

North Carolina ...appeals court.  My apologies, wrong court but agree with their decision.

U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson suggested he would strike the entire law if he were not bound by the Supreme Court’s decision that states may use properly written voter-ID laws to guard against voter fraud.

“The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.” The state will appeal both rulings.

[Remmus]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

But you have not offered a cogent argument of how it suppresses legal votes. If someone is applying for government aid, will the excuse of "I don't want an I.D." be an acceptable position?

Nope. 

Here's the deal IMO, we want ALL Americans to vote.  Now some will say they really don't want all Americans to vote.  Lets not do anything that might have the remote chance of keeping people from the polls.

[Englebert]

20 minutes ago, Remmus said:

North Carolina ...appeals court.  My apologies, wrong court but agree with their decision.

U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson suggested he would strike the entire law if he were not bound by the Supreme Court’s decision that states may use properly written voter-ID laws to guard against voter fraud.

“The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.” The state will appeal both rulings.

So basically he is saying he feels the minorities communities are not smart enough to obtain an I.D. that is provided free of charge. Laughable.

[tvc184]

6 minutes ago, Remmus said:

North Carolina ...appeals court.  My apologies, wrong court but agree with their decision.

U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson suggested he would strike the entire law if he were not bound by the Supreme Court’s decision that states may use properly written voter-ID laws to guard against voter fraud.

“The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.” The state will appeal both rulings.

You do realize that what you quoted was not a SCOUTS decision and was a Circuit court. The SCOTUS has already upheld a voter ID law on a 6-3 vote. New cases will get back to the Court, (maybe the one from TX) and the new SCOTUS with a Trump nominee might very well (likely) keep the previous ruling in place. 

[Remmus]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So basically he is saying he feels the minorities communities in are not smart enough to obtain an I.D. that is provided free of charge. Laughable.

I'll agree, but we need to encourage all to vote and make the process EASY.  I respect that others feel that voter fraud trumps the ease of others to vote.  

[tvc184]

Since voter ID is apparently the change in topic, in 2008 the SCOTUS upheld Indiana's voter ID law which is much more restrictive than TX. In the IN law a person without an ID had to vote and then show up in front of a panel within 10 days with an ID or sign an affidavit of not being able to afford one. TX gives them out for free. 

[Remmus]

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

You do realize that what you quoted was not a SCOUTS decision and was a Circuit court. The SCOTUS has already upheld a voter ID law on a 6-3 vote. New cases will get back to the Court, (maybe the one from TX) and the new SCOTUS with a Trump nominee might very well (likely) keep the previous ruling in place. 

Yes I do realize and apologized for stating the incorrect court previously.  

Here's where I need you guys to really think about what's going on with this voter ID thing.  If you think conservatives are going all out just to prevent voter ID fraud, I'd say that's the same mental illness that you some poke fun at the liberals of having.  It's a heist.  And yes, the new conservative leaning supreme court will back the voter id laws.

[baddog]

Back on gun control....it is painfully obvious that gun bans do nothing to deter gun violence. Since Chicago seems to be the best to substantiate this fact and most of the murders are committed by the gang bangers protecting their drug distribution, why isn't there more of a concerted effort against the drug lords? We never hear of any huge drug busts there. Crack cocaine is the scourge of the nation, not guns.

[Englebert]

15 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Nope. 

Here's the deal IMO, we want ALL Americans to vote.  Now some will say they really don't want all Americans to vote.  Lets not do anything that might have the remote chance of keeping people from the polls.

 

9 minutes ago, Remmus said:

I'll agree, but we need to encourage all to vote and make the process EASY.  I respect that others feel that voter fraud trumps the ease of others to vote.  

Who are these people that say they really don't want all Americans to vote? Never heard of these people. Maybe you misinterpreted many peoples position, such as mine. I don't want all Americans to vote. It should be your duty as an American to, at a minimum, give a cursory amount of effort to study the issues and candidates that you are voting for/against. If you fail to do this, you should give the courtesy to your fellow Americans by abstaining from voting on issues/candidates you know nothing about. But I will never try to forcibly restrict your right to vote.

Obtaining an I.D. is easy...and free. No excuse for not getting one to exercise your right to vote.

And why do we want to make it easy for someone to vote but make it so restrictive, complicated and costly to exercise your second amendment right? You know, the one that says "shall not be infringed".

[Remmus]

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Since voter ID is apparently the change in topic, in 2008 the SCOTUS upheld Indiana's voter ID law which is much more restrictive than TX. In the IN law a person without an ID had to vote and then show up in front of a panel within 10 days with an ID or sign an affidavit of not being able to afford one. TX gives them out for free. 

Yeah, and all that requires lazy and "stupid" people to read and make a determined effort to vote.  We know that will happen...lol.  These efforts will cut off the weaklings from making it to the polls.  We can justify it all day because its their fault.  My view is we should be encouraging voting and not putting in laws to protect us from something that everyone involved in the process (including electing Republicans in charge the process in their state) have stated is a minuscule problem.  Why aren't all these fraudulent voters being arrested? 

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Yeah, and all that requires lazy and "stupid" people to read and make a determined effort to vote.  We know that will happen...lol.  These efforts will cut off the weaklings from making it to the polls.  We can justify it all day because its their fault.  My view is we should be encouraging voting and not putting in laws to protect us from something that everyone involved in the process (including electing Republicans in charge the process in their state) have stated is a minuscule problem.  Why aren't all these fraudulent voters being arrested? 

Ok.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. 

[Remmus]

6 minutes ago, baddog said:

Back on gun control....it is painfully obvious that gun bans do nothing to deter gun violence. Since Chicago seems to be the best to substantiate this fact and most of the murders are committed by the gang bangers protecting their drug distribution, why isn't there more of a concerted effort against the drug lords? We never hear of any huge drug busts there. Crack cocaine is the scourge of the nation, not guns.

I agree.   I concede it's more of a societal problem especially in certain areas.  And the drug lords churn all this b.s..  I can throw out several theories as to why we play games with these guys.  I mean, we have the highest incarceration rate in the world (or is that a lefty lie?).  A lot of jobs are supported by the mass prison system ...from cops, judges, lawyers, prison guards.  If we can catch Bin Laden we could go kill off all the drug lords and shut off the supply.

Crack was a scourge in the 80's and 90's.  Today its pills, meth, heroin is back, powder coke, and marijuana.  

[BS Wildcats]

33 minutes ago, Remmus said:

My issue is it was never about stopping voter fraud, it's about stopping votes.  I'm all for stopping people from voting if they're here illegally.  That's just WRONG and I don't care how long you've lived here.  

Narrative of the left

[Remmus]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Ok.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. 

 

11 minutes ago, Englebert said:

 

Who are these people that say they really don't want all Americans to vote? Never heard of these people. Maybe you misinterpreted many peoples position, such as mine. I don't want all Americans to vote. It should be your duty as an American to, at a minimum, give a cursory amount of effort to study the issues and candidates that you are voting for/against. If you fail to do this, you should give the courtesy to your fellow Americans by abstaining from voting on issues/candidates you know nothing about. But I will never try to forcibly restrict your right to vote.

Obtaining an I.D. is easy...and free. No excuse for not getting one to exercise your right to vote.

And why do we want to make it easy for someone to vote but make it so restrictive, complicated and costly to exercise your second amendment right? You know, the one that says "shall not be infringed".

Dude, you're right.  There's no real excuse, but what actually happens is voter turn out is lowered.  We can sit in our ivory tower and give legit reasons for people screwing up their ability to vote.  I'm just of a mind to help those people.

2nd amendment involves a potentially deadly weapon.  Yes, you can find hypocrisy if we turn this into an ethics class.  

[Remmus]

2 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Narrative of the left

You can sum it up that way and I call that Righty mind control.  You trust those guys too much.

[tvc184]

This is one of my favorite videos and shows the insane rants of "evil" guns. Among other things banned is "barrel shrouds" on guns which makes them an "assault" weapon. It is like bayonet lugs. I have been a police officer for 33 years, have worked on over 100 homicides and I have yet to see anyone get bayoneted. In fact I have yet to see a bayonet mounted on a weapon even if just for looks. Yet, if a weapon has a place to put a bayonet on a barrel, it is super deadly and can kill mass quantities of people. Of course those that come up with such rules have no idea what they are talking about and merely look at a photo of a gun and figure out what features they can visually see in order to find a reason to ban it. 

 

 

[Englebert]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

 

Dude, you're right.  There's no real excuse, but what actually happens is voter turn out is lowered.  We can sit in our ivory tower and give legit reasons for people screwing up their ability to vote.  I'm just of a mind to help those people.

2nd amendment involves a potentially deadly weapon.  Yes, you can find hypocrisy if we turn this into an ethics class.  

Again, how is asking someone to identify themselves when voting interpreted as suppression? I don't think anyone has a problem with helping people vote. Case in point, free I.D.s are given to those who need them. Many people give rides to the polls for those that need that help. No outrage rising from these practices.

And if voter turnout is lowered when I.D.s are required, could it possibly be that this is due to less illegal votes?

[baddog]

11 minutes ago, Remmus said:

I agree.   I concede it's more of a societal problem especially in certain areas.  And the drug lords churn all this b.s..  I can throw out several theories as to why we play games with these guys.  I mean, we have the highest incarceration rate in the world (or is that a lefty lie?).  A lot of jobs are supported by the mass prison system ...from cops, judges, lawyers, prison guards.  If we can catch Bin Laden we could go kill off all the drug lords and shut off the supply.

Crack was a scourge in the 80's and 90's.  Today its pills, meth, heroin is back, powder coke, and marijuana.  

You missed me with the Bin Laden comment.

I agree that heroin is making a huge comeback but I believe that the gangs deal crack more than the others. I have no stats to back that up. Not sure there are any.

[tvc184]

And if you view the video above, you will get this.....

 

[tvc184]

More fun video from the left. The "ghost gun" that takes a 30 caliber clip (whatever that is) and then fires 30 rounds in half a second. That comes out to 60 rounds a second. I've got to get me one of those guns are at least have somebody show me one. I would hate to pay for the ammo though at that rate.....

 

 

 

[Remmus]

9 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This is one of my favorite videos and shows the insane rants of "evil" guns. Among other things banned is "barrel shrouds" on guns which makes them an "assault" weapon. It is like bayonet lugs. I have been a police officer for 33 years, have worked on over 100 homicides and I have yet to see anyone get bayoneted. In fact I have yet to see a bayonet mounted on a weapon even if just for looks. Yet, if a weapon has a place to put a bayonet on a barrel, it is super deadly and can kill mass quantities of people. Of course those that come up with such rules have no idea what they are talking about and merely look at a photo of a gun and figure out what features they can visually see in order to find a reason to ban it. 

 

 

Come on officer.  Yes, banning bayonets is stupid and does nothing.  Probably not hard to find an idiot that will defend the idea, but if we're really talking about gun safety you'll need a better video. 

[Englebert]

My favorite is a video from a few years back. I tried to find it but couldn't. A state congressman (California I think) was having a press conference about her proposal to ban "assault" rifles. Behind her was a board with about 5 or 6 "scary" looking rifles. Right before the presser, someone hung a hammer on the board and added a banner above that read "Which of these kills more people on a yearly basis?" Obviously the press conference was immediately called off when the congressman's team saw the added items, but not before a video was made that found its way to YouTube.