Mueller’s Conference today

[arkieb1]

Needing a simple ID to vote is racist and classist and all other kinds of bad words but high fees, long waits, and fingerprints are ok to own a firearm for self defense?

Am I missing something why is needing a simple ID to vote racist and classist? We have to show ID when we vote, identify ourselves by where we live and we have to jump through even more hoopla than that to own a gun. I live in a society that does all those things, it's really not that bad.

 

[partgypsy]

Needing a simple ID to vote is racist and classist and all other kinds of bad words but high fees, long waits, and fingerprints are ok to own a firearm for self defense?

Yes, because unlike voting, which you want to ENCOURAGE in a democracy, make as low as a bar so you have greater participation rates for all citizens, whether they work two jobs, are elderly, are students, etc, makes our country have representatives that are more representative of the country.
Like cars, like flying planes, guns can kill people. People who are law abiding citizens should have no problem with increasing gun safety in the US, especially when we have all seen the alternative (mass shootings are a regular occurrence in the US, in movies theatres, in malls, and in schools). All those people killed have had their rights irrevocably taken away from them. Their rights to gun safety is more important than the right to bear arms. And despite your anecdote the statistics do not bear out your view that guns make you safer. The likelihood someone in your household will die from gunshot wounds goes up if there is a gun in the house Your house is also more likely to be broken into, to steal the guns natch. It makes you more of a target, not less of one. Some burglers actually LOOK for NRA stickers, because = more guns to steal. If you want to be safer from robbers in your house, get a big dog with a bark.

And I just want to add, voter id laws solve a problem that does not exist, that there is any appreciable amount of voter fraud of people voting twice. OTOH there is a clear problem that gun safety would address, the high number of gun deaths in the US. Just like alcohol is legal, doesn't mean there can't be laws of who can buy, and where and under what circumstances you can drink.

 

[MissStepcut]

Am I missing something why is needing a simple ID to vote racist and classist? We have to show ID when we vote, identify ourselves by where we live and we have to jump through even more hoopla than that to own a gun. I live in a society that does all those things, it's really not that bad.

Americans don’t necessarily have government issue ID the way it’s a requirement for daily life elsewhere. There are states that have systemically shut down DMV offices in minority communities to make sure it stays that way, too.

More examples of the strategy of using ID laws to keep certain people from voting here:

“In April of this year, Representative Glenn Grothman, Republican of Wisconsin, predicted in a television interview that the state’s photo ID law would weaken the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the state in November’s election.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/...eraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html

 

[arkieb1]

Yes, because unlike voting, which you want to ENCOURAGE in a democracy, make as low as a bar so you have greater participation rates for all citizens, whether they work two jobs, are elderly, are students, etc, makes our country have representatives that are more representagive of the country.
Like cars, like flying planes, guns can kill people. People who are law abiding citizens should have no problem with increasing gun safety in the US, especially when we have all seen the alternative (mass shootings are a regular occurrence in the US, in movies theatres, in malls, and in schools. All those people killed have had their rights irrevocably taken away from them).

Yes what gun owners are basically arguing is that their rights because they are part of an old outdated constitution are way more important than the rights of everyone else to be safe. More guns might make them feel safe but statistically less guns over all makes everyone safer.... The time will come when a new generation of Americans will demand change, it's coming, mark my words.

 

[Karl_K]

Am I missing something why is needing a simple ID to vote racist and classist?

I don't know but that is what the liberals and liberal judges in the US have determined.

 

[MissStepcut]

I don't know but that is what the liberals and liberal judges in the US have determined.

It’s actually what Republicans have determined too.

 

[MissStepcut]

Yes what gun owners are basically arguing is that their rights because they are part of an old outdated constitution are way more important than the rights of everyone else to be safe. More guns might make them feel safe but statistically less guns over all makes everyone safer.... The time will come when a new generation of Americans will demand change, it's coming, mark my words.

If it doesn’t come by amending that “old outdated constitution” we are really all done for.

 

[Karl_K]

Yes what gun owners are basically arguing is that their rights because they are part of an old outdated constitution are way more important than the rights of everyone else to be safe. More guns might make them feel safe but statistically less guns over all makes everyone safer.... The time will come when a new generation of Americans will demand change, it's coming, mark my words.

Could be, but then again maybe enough of them will wake up and it will not happen.
Its not a good reason to not fight the good fight now.

 

[arkieb1]

Could be, but then again maybe enough of them will wake up and it will not happen.
Its not a good reason to not fight the good fight now.

I remember when guns were banned here, I was a teen in a rural community and we had just had the biggest massacre in our history so the government changed the gun laws. There was a huge outcry, my parents whispering about how bad it all was.

And you know what, we all survived. Our society is way better off with less guns. My mother is a crack shot with a gun, and she still has a gun, my husband who also grew up in a rural community has a gun license. Seriously you would get to keep most of your guns, it's about making it more difficult for stupid people that do dumb things with them, harder for disenfranchised teens, potential terror suspects and criminals over all to have them.

 

[MissStepcut]

I remember when guns were banned here, I was a teen in a rural community and we had just had the biggest massacre in our history so the government changed the gun laws. There was a huge outcry, my parents whispering about how bad it all was.

And you know what, we all survived. Our society is way better off with less guns. My mother is a crack shot with a gun, and she still has a gun, my husband who also grew up in a rural community has a gun license. Seriously you would get to keep most of your guns, it's about making it more difficult for stupid people that do dumb things with them, harder for disenfranchised teens, potential terror suspects and criminals over all to have them.

The 2nd amendment is grounded in a belief that tyrannical police powers need to be checked with citizens holding guns. I think sometimes this point is misunderstood and people proceed from an argument that a handgun could never protect you from America’s modern international military force, which is true, but also not how 2A was designed. I don’t think the American police force is any less threatening today to unarmed citizens than it was then, so the push to disarm citizens is a little confusing to me as an Originalist.

 

[arkieb1]

The 2nd amendment is grounded in a belief that tyrannical police powers need to be checked with citizens holding guns. I think sometimes this point is misunderstood and people proceed from an argument that a handgun could never protect you from America’s modern international military force, which is true, but also not how 2A was designed. I don’t think the American police force is any less threatening today to unarmed citizens than it was then, so the push to disarm citizens is a little confusing to me as an Originalist.

The "right to keep and bear arms" 2nd amendment was written in 1791, it is about time everyone came to terms that it's fundamental basis after over 200+ years is an outdated concept. The good of everyone in a society should come before the rights of a few.

 

[MissStepcut]

The "right to keep and bear arms" 2nd amendment was written in 1791, it is about time everyone came to terms that it's fundamental basis after over 200+ years is an outdated concept. The good of everyone in a society should come before the rights of a few.

Well that’s quite my point. I don’t think the underlying principles are “outdated” in the least. Now, do we today fear mass shootings more than police tyranny? Maybe, and if so the Constitution should be amended through the processes provided for by the Constitution.

 

[arkieb1]

Well that’s quite my point. I don’t think the underlying principles are “outdated” in the least. Now, do we today fear mass shootings more than police tyranny? Maybe, and if so the Constitution should be amended through the processes provided for by the Constitution.

IMHO it should have been amended long ago. Yes I agree the reasons why you need to even own a gun have changed in the last 200+ years. The need to fight against "police" or political tyranny these days with guns compared to 1791 is moot.

 

[MissStepcut]

IMHO it should have been amended long ago. Yes I agree the reasons why you need to even own a gun have changed in the last 200+ years. The need to fight against "police" or political tyranny these days with guns compared to 1791 is moot.

The citizens of Chicago and Baltimore, among other extremely corrupt cities know that police tyranny is certainly no better than it was at the time of the adoption of 2A. We may decide, as a society, that even though the problem is as bad as it ever was, privately armed citizens are not the right solution, but it’s just not true that it’s “moot.”

 

[arkieb1]

The citizens of Chicago and Baltimore, among other extremely corrupt cities know that police tyranny is certainly no better than it was at the time of the adoption of 2A. We may decide, as a society, that even though the problem is as bad as it ever was, privately armed citizens are not the right solution, but it’s just not true that it’s “moot.”

Just because a city is corrupt and the police are not honest, doesn't mean citizens should form a militia with guns and over throw them. I don't see that happening, nor should it happen even in places with issues like the ones you have described above. The document was written to guard against British tyranny in 1791 not corrupt police officers in 2019. The point moot because it should never be applied today in the same context it was written.

Anyway this whole post was about Trump being an inappropriate leader it's now digressed into a gun debate yet again which on here never ends well.....

 

[MissStepcut]

Just because a city is corrupt and the police are not honest, doesn't mean citizens should form a militia and over throw them. I don't see that happening, nor should it happen even in places with issues like the ones you have described. The document was written to guard against British tyranny in 1791 not corrupt police officers in 2019. The point moot because it should never be applied today in the same context it was written.

Right, I am agreeing that the solution proposed by our founding fathers may well have failed. But not because we no longer have the problem. We have it as bad as ever. It’s frustrating when people misinterpret the motivation for 2A and then claim it’s outdated. The founding fathers were too right about the risks of armed police.

 

[arkieb1]

Right, I am agreeing that the solution proposed by our founding fathers may well have failed. But not because we no longer have the problem. We have it as bad as ever. It’s frustrating when people misinterpret the motivation for 2A and then claim it’s outdated. The founding fathers were too right about the risks of armed police.

In 1791 they were talking about a police force potentially under British rule being sent to the US trying to enslave them and take away their rights. They were talking about freedom of liberties. Yes I get what you are arguing but I think we are talking about two totally separate ideas. Your domestic police might indeed be corrupt but it's not the same as escaping from British rule to found a new colony and then uphold the rights you have in a new land.

I don't think I've missed the original interpretation or intention of 2A at all. Perhaps all you need to do is adapt what I still think is an outdated concept to better apply to today. Irrespective gun ownership and the laws and rules surrounding it should be for the benefit of everyone not the interests of a few.

Again, this post was about Trump being a poor choice of President, arguing about your history and how it doesn't and doesn't apply today is off the original topic.

 

[MissStepcut]

In 1791 they were talking about a police force based under British rule trying to enslave them and take away their rights. They were talking about freedom of liberties. Yes I get what you are arguing but I think we are talking about two totally separate ideas. Your domestic police might indeed be corrupt but it's not the same as escaping from British rule to found a new colony and then uphold the rights you have in a new land.

2A was not to protect against the tyranny of the British. It was to protect against tyranny of the new government turned against its own citizens. Which is not something that has been mooted, not by a long shot. Instead of disarming citizens, I tend to think we need to come up with more protections to stop police and governmental tyranny that infringes on the life and liberty of Americans, consistent with the Constitutional framework. But if my fellow Americans disagree, that old trusty document contains all the provisions we need to change it.

 

[arkieb1]

2A was not to protect against the tyranny of the British. It was to protect against tyranny of the new government turned against its own citizens. Which is not something that has been mooted, not by a long shot. Instead of disarming citizens, I tend to think we need to come up with more protections to stop police and governmental tyranny that infringes on the life and liberty of Americans, consistent with the Constitutional framework. But if my fellow Americans disagree, that old trusty document contains all the provisions we need to change it.

And where do you think the people from your new government initially came from? The answer = Britain. What previous tyrannical rule and laws etc were they trying to break away/escape from when they went to the US and then wrote the constitution? The answer = also Britain.... I seem to remember many decades ago writing a university paper that the basis of your whole legal system was a direct reaction against former British rule, Australia by comparison adopted most British laws and has a political system more similar to Britain, rather than being founded upon a reaction against Britain.

200+ years later our (Australian) gun laws and general way of thinking about guns, are more similar to Britain than yours...... But yes, I think we are actually in a round about way arguing the same thing, I just think that the "old trusty document" should not be used as an excuse to allow people that should never have guns to have easy access to guns, if that means it needs an update then so be it.

 

[redwood66]

Then the ones who want it amended should get to it. As I have said before, and MissStepCut reiterated, there is a process for a Constitutional amendment so get on with it. Doing an end run around it piecemeal is not the way. The country will agree with you or not.

 

[Karl_K]

Again, this post was about Trump being a poor choice of President, arguing about your history and how it doesn't and doesn't apply today is off the original topic.

Actually it is not.
2A issues was a huge reason he was elected and judging by the current crop of Dem. candidates will be a big reason he might get a second term.
It is a big reason many conservatives will support him again against the anti-gun dem even if they dont like him much.

 

[Karl_K]

Yes you might have to give up a few of your guns

Why should I have to and what if I don't want to?
Just askin! :}

 

[Dancing Fire]

We can buy guns over the internet... even machine guns. This must be a new law??

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1134468225268441088

 

[mrsthomas]

As an Australian, this thread is a real eye opener...

 

[MissStepcut]

We can buy guns over the internet... even machine guns. This must be a new law??

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1134468225268441088

Can you not buy a bump stock online? I wouldn’t know, all my guns, I inherited.

 

[arkieb1]

Why should I have to and what if I don't want to?
Just askin! :}

Interestingly enough I read a number of articles of people that felt exactly the same way you do until their children were murdered in one of the massacres that occurs so regularly in the US. They didn't think arming themselves would have saved their children any more than I do. I also remember that a number of the people that were in the crowd in Las Vegas during the shooting who were also pro gun ownership that owned a number of guns also changed their minds once their were put in that position.

Again my point is that no one wants to take away all of your guns, no one wants to take away all the guns of all the people that use them responsibly, it's to attempt to restrict people from getting guns that are more effective in massacre type situations, and about restricting the type and amount of guns that fall into the hands of idiots.

When people can walk into schools and mass murder your children and that isn't a singular event but something that occurs on a fairly regular basis, something about the way your society functions, needs addressing.

If you can suggest some magical way to achieve an outcome of less mass shootings, without tighter gun laws and restrictions on the types of guns available for sale, please enlighten me.

 

[Karl_K]

If you can suggest some magical way to achieve an outcome of less mass shootings, without tighter gun laws and restrictions on the types of guns available for sale, please enlighten me.

Tighter gun laws will have 0 effect on anything. There are more guns than people in the US.
They will only effect the honest and disproportionately the poor denying them the right of self defense.
The vast majority of non suicide shootings in the US are gang and drug related. We can't stop tons of drugs being brought into the country what makes anyone think that more gun laws will help at all.

 

[soxfan]

This pretty much sums up America's obsession with guns. Part two should start after video.

 

[Octo2005]

This pretty much sums up America's obsession with guns. Part two should start after video.

Thank you for sharing!

 

[arkieb1]

Tighter gun laws will have 0 effect on anything. There are more guns than people in the US.
They will only effect the honest and disproportionately the poor denying them the right of self defense.
The vast majority of non suicide shootings in the US are gang and drug related. We can't stop tons of drugs being brought into the country what makes anyone think that more gun laws will help at all.

Well unfortunately it's a catch 22 situation Karl, you do nothing the situation gets worse, in fact given you are a logical thinking mathematician, I'd hazard a guess to say it will continue exponentially until you will have no law and order at all. At least if you attempt to both reduce the amount of guns your society has as a whole, and restrict access to certain types of guns and you do it in a methodical way over a long period of time I think you will make some kind of dent in the problems you are describing.

I'm not at all delusional enough to say get rid of all guns or that's it's going to be a quick and easy process, but something needs to be done, and doing something IMHO is way better than sitting back accepting that is a good way to live.