After President Obama unveiled his plans for gun control...

50 posts / 0 new

Including signing more than 20 executive orders – Republicans are reacting with calls for impeachment. Despite Presidents routinely signing executive orders – Republicans are accusing the President of high crimes. Republican Congressman Steve Stockman compared the President to Saddam Hussein, and previously threatened to impeach him. Also, Republicans Louie Gohmert and Trey Radel piled on – saying impeachment is one of a number of options that should be on the table to respond to the President’s gun reforms.

Of course, to the rational person, the President's executive orders are common sense reforms: including better record sharing between federal agencies – new studies on gun violence – and even providing incentives for schools to hire resource officers. But to the insane, these are tyranny, which is odd because these same Republicans didn’t seem to mind when Bush signed a number of far more radical executive orders during his term, including: a ban on stem cell research – authorization of torture – creating more powers for the Vice President’s office – and making it harder to get a hold of presidential records.

All of these actions were taken without any consideration of Congress. But none of them were taken against the deep-pocketed gun industry – so Republicans were just fine with them. Enough with the rhetoric, it’s time for Congress to do what the American people overwhelmingly support, which is take action to get weapons of war off our streets, and out of the hands of the mentally ill. And that also includes addressing the wealth inequality issue in America that is underlying all this violence in our society.

Pass an Assault Weapons Ban – and repeal the Reagan tax cuts, too.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

Whoopee!!! It's going to be a wonderful progressive utopia with Art's unicorns and lollipops. Now if progressives could only ban those pesky republicans, would that end the corporate/government collusion? Ha!

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

To be funny, a post such as yours needs more than half a dose of wit.

Your participation in Obamahate rather than sensible criticism soils your posts. Your idiotic characterization of people who are quite critical of Obama and the Empire as though we were running his fan club tells us that you are not in touch with reality and certainly do not know to whom you are posting.

If we want to end government/corporate collusion, we would need to get rid of the GOPimp cult and find some actual conservatives to be a loyal opposition. We would also need to purge the Democratic Party of the DLCrapheads with their triangulation play book and give the sensible and realistic policies proposed by the Progressive Caucus a chance.

They also find the Empire a heavy burden.

As to the use of Executive Orders by a President, please relax your trigger fingers and deal with what is being ordered rather than your obsession with "executive powers." We can go there if you are willing to take on the GOPNAC theology of empire instead of bash the Black Guy. Many of us do not like Obama continuing this imperialism, but it is not "our" theory being implemented and "we" are not willing accomplices in anything new here.

I would like to have government center on the Congress rather than the Great Leader. I want the Supremes to take their cold, dead hands off of democracy and get back to being the high court of appeals instead of the Curia. If we end legalized bribery, we can have elected representatives who work for us instead of the big bucks. Corporate collusion is the corrupter of government, not the reverse. Imperial government is designed for corporate collusion and cannot be a real democracy or republic by the nature of the domination it engages in. We see this acted out in the insanity on the Right and the co-dependence in the Center. The Left just gets left out.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I have looked up the Trial Lawyers Association for contact information. They ought to lobby for a tort plank in the new laws. Sueing gun owners that don't secure their guns would be an easy amendment to any gun regulation bill.

Importation of all the models sought in the ban could end immediately by executive order. GHW did just that in his term. Offering duty free status to models the companies develop with bioengineered identity locks or equivalent might off set their market loss and give them a jump on a new market sector the American gun manufacturers aren't interested in because they're too lazy and bribery is cheaper.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And the leftest "progressives" are innocent in all your rantings about the GOPimps.. Eh, drc2? Bullshit. More of your self righteous, sanctimonious pontificating.

That is what is needed is a bunch of bottom feeding, blood sucking, scumbag lawyers to come up with another way to enrich their clan. What they would need to do is to come with an amendment to a gun regulation bill that would allow them to go after where the money is because most gunwoners would not have the resources that, say, gun manufacturers would have. Like the states that were extorted in the tobacco lawsuits.

America's constitutional representative democracy is under attack. This plot is not being carried out by terrorists or an opposing army, but by greedy and power hungry lawyers who seek to over throw our constitutional representative democracy and install in its place a system governance by litigation in which lawyers rule supreme. With the assistance and backing of trial lawyers, small and extreme groups are finding it increasingly easy to bypass and subvert the democratic process and impose their agenda on the rest of society by abusing litigation and manipulating the courts.

I have not one bit of use for blood sucking lawyers. There should be open season on them with no bag limit. LOL

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Well, once again you aim and fire at the wrong targets, D. It is not the trial lawyers, those who defend people against corporate crimes, who are the problem here. It is the Corporate Lawyers who tie up all the just claims and torts against them with delaying tactics and other bullshit so people have little recourse when Corporate Scumbags screw them over, and over. If you want open season on the lawyers serving the banksters and the petrocriminals, go for it. You can even use assault weapons for all I care.

What is being installed is anything but a system of litigation. That is what our Corporate Masters are eliminating. They have already imposed their agenda on us through the Courts, including the Supremes. People who fight the crimes of the insurance, drug and energy companies are heroes.

The term GOPimps refers to their slavish devotion to Wall St. and the Warmonger Elite. At one time, people tended to call them "whores," but I objected to the slur on honest sex workers because it was our ass that got screwed, not theirs. They pimp us out to Corporate as a way of life. There are a few Dems who also sell us out, but I do not include the Progressive Caucus among them, nor do I have your loathing for the term, straight from Gospel of Beck.

I said the Left has been left out. Are we innocent for being irrelevant? I would not say so, but it is a different kind of guilt than I apply to those who are actively engaged in the crimes. I am able to observe some nuance while you go to ranting hyperbolic polemics at every opportunity. Your rage is not being productively used. Too bad. Thinking is not that painful even if it is not a direct emotional relief all the time. Sometimes things get complicated.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:I have not one bit of use for blood sucking lawyers. There should be open season on them with no bag limit. LOL

Fascinating what people on Internet forums are willing to divulge... Laughing out loud over the open season hunting/slaughter/murder of lawyers....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There oughta be a bounty on them. They have no ethics, integrity, or morals. Why are there so many of them in DC politics? Because they are expert liars and have no ethics, integrity or morals.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

1/16/13 -

Everything You Need To Know About Obama’s Gun Violence Prevention Proposals

1/17/13 -

Defense Secretary: ‘I Don’t Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons’

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

1/16/13 -

Obama unveils sweeping plan to battle gun violence

1/17/13 -

Republicans Who Tout Mental Health As Response To Gun Violence Opposed Landmark Mental Health Law

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

HEADS OF SCHOOLS SPEAK OUT AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE

This page has an open letter to the president from Heads of Schools, and also contains a link to a page where people who support the program can sign:

An Open Letter to the President and Our Elected Officials

***

Demand A Plan - over 800 mayors and a million supporters demand that Congress comes up with a plan to end gun violence

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
Quote douglaslee:I have looked up the Trial Lawyers Association for contact information. They ought to lobby for a tort plank in the new laws. Sueing gun owners that don't secure their guns would be an easy amendment to any gun regulation bill.
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:That is what is needed is a bunch of bottom feeding, blood sucking, scumbag lawyers to come up with another way to enrich their clan. What they would need to do is to come with an amendment to a gun regulation bill that would allow them to go after where the money is because most gunwoners would not have the resources that, say, gun manufacturers would have.

That’s what liability insurance is for. I don’t know why gun owners shouldn’t be liable for damage done by the guns that are ultimately traced back to them, ie, Ms. Lanza. Stipulate liability insurance for each gun owned. Responsible owners need not worry, and their record of safety and expertise would result in lower liability coverage costs. Whereas someone with a problems in their past would have exhorbitant liability insurance costs, discouraging ownership. Kids in the house? Higher quote. The higher performing the weapon, the higher the liability cost, ie, assault style weapons expensive, staid non-automatic rifles cheaper to insure. Have a gun safe? Trigger locks? Burglar alarms? Get an insurance discount. Let the free market dictate the risk to society of gun ownership via liability insurance costs. I know this is pie in the sky and would entail much better record keeping, but I’d support that more than an outright ban of assault weapons.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

1/16/13 -

Obama invokes Constitution in arguing for gun control

1/17/13 -

Biden Confirms Support for Second Amendment, Says He Owns Two Shotguns

Recalling Pain of Guns’ Toll, Mayors Urge Bills’ Passage

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

miksilvr's link, Demand A Plan - over 800 mayors and a million supporters demand that Congress comes up with a plan to end gun violence

Why don't they come up with their own plan?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

this first item is for women who advocate against gun control:


Gun laws save lives – in states w background checks, 38% fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners

***


Former Australian prime minister: Banning military style weapons made Australia safer


There is no clear and effective statute that makes gun trafficking a federal crime. to change this.


5 ways you can take action and to end gun violence -


“Nobody wants to see a felon get a gun” VT gun show organizer to require background checks for all gun sales.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

two things concern me about the executive orders released.

one what are the guildlines for a prohibited individuals or can the A.G. make that up as he goes.

what is in place to stop any administration from saying gun owners no longer qualify for health care, now that doctors can ask if you own guns. the fact that i own guns has no effect on my health care.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Don't worry about question one. State officials can, and will, be replaced.

If your doctor asks if there are any firearms in your house, politely respond with, "it is none of your business"

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

i was talking about the federal a.g. like holder, what if he decides that all combat vets, retired police and or anyone who has lived through a tramatic event can no longer own gu.s what than?

posted from phone please excuse typos

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

If we let odictator get by with unConstitutional EOs and gun runner in chief racist AG holder make up his own rules, what will be their next step in the trampling of the Constitutional rights of responsible, law abiding gun owners? There are as many ways around any laws criminals can use as there will be laws that the anti-gun agenda nuts can come up with. Criminals don't care about, muchless obey laws.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

I think "Odictator" has issued about 170 EOs. GW issued almost 300. Clinton issued over 300. FDR issued over 2000 EOs. Of course nobody noticed when they did it.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

"The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are neccesary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government.

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition. Presidents have used executive orders to direct a range of activities, including establishing migratory bird refuges; putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II; discharging civilian government employees who had been disloyal, following World War II; enlarging national forests; prohibiting racial discrimination in housing; pardoning Vietnam War draft evaders; giving federal workers the right to bargain collectively; keeping the federal workplace drug free; and sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote firearm owner:

i was talking about the federal a.g. like holder, what if he decides that all combat vets, retired police and or anyone who has lived through a tramatic event can no longer own gu.s what than?

posted from phone please excuse typos

Don't think LE and vets will not have issues with this. Any hint of PTSD or depression could and will trigger a prevention of allowable liberties including any member of your family. In some cases this will be good and others not so much. Medical recordkeeping under Obamacare will be much different and you are now already seeing small clinics joining large medical groups and some are going to direct cash only practices with NO ELECTRONIC record keeping. If you are lucky enough to afford it, that is definately the way to go. Some are even providing annual care for a flat fee with a no trail record keeping system.

I laugh at the hurried passage of meaningless laws. The great new crime stopping firearms laws in NY they just passed. prohibits police from entering a school property with any firearms and duty officers cannot carry more than senen rounds in a magazine. I guess they forgot to read the law before they passed it.

Best advice I have been given, and followed,

"I sold all my guns"

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

From your dictionary:

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

I'll bet if it were EOs that you disagreed with, you would follow them without question like the good little lemming you are. I bet criminals are going to do the same, and law abiding gun owning citizens or states have no right to question their constitutionality because to question odictator is racist.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Hey I'm not posting to defend anything or anyone. I'm just posting the facts. Implementing a federal statute is very debatable in my opinion. I don't like EOs. Never have and never will. That doesn't mean that they don't or won't exist. I try to give my honest opinion based on what I think and what I've researched. I refuse to go by some Democratic or Republican play book.

I actually don't agree with the EOs that the President issued on gun control. I believe that we should as a nation decide things like that. But hey, that's just me.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

It's already been decided. It's called the Bill Of Rights!

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

D, in a climate of obstinance and idiocy leading to endangerment, I am willing to accept the procedural deficiencies of the EO if I agree with it. You bet I am. I have had the other kind crammed through, and I have objected to the content and the procedure. But the libs have never been obstinate or hardheaded enough to stand up for what they should have, so there has been more to object to.

Nothing in Obama's gun EO's is going to cramp your style out there unless you are planning for "the revolution." Enjoy the compound.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

1/18/13 -

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

***

"And the hits just keep on coming ..."

1/20/13 -

Albuquerque Shooting: Teen Gunman Kills 5 With Assault Rifle

This would be the first mass shooting in 2013 in which the shooter used an assault rifle.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/23695/albuquerque-shooting-teen-gunman-kills-5-with-assault-rifle

***

NM officials: Teenage gunman fatally shoots 5 at Albuquerque home; suspect in custody

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/17/woman-brutally-stabbed-inside-bed...

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Miksilvr: For Gods sake, get on the ball.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hurt-accidental-shooting-nc-gun-show-...

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Tell Congress: Pass the gun safety proposals outlined by President Obama

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
Quote Redwing:

Miksilvr: For Gods sake, get on the ball.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hurt-accidental-shooting-nc-gun-show-18259364

Hey, thanks for reminding me about that one.

I heard about that unforunate incident from someone last night when I was at a comedy show in DC (Stephanie Miller's Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour). The subject of gun show safety came up in the show (EXCLUSIVE: 51 Upcoming Gun Shows Ban Loaded Weapons To Promote ‘A Safe Environment’) and later in a conversation among people in the audience (ie gun advocates want guns in schools, but not in gun shows, because loaded guns are not safe).

I got home too late last night to get anything done on the 'puter, and got into other subjects today when I did get around to it. From the article you posted, luckily nobody was killed, and does not look like anyone was seriously injured.

Let's hope others learn from this unfortunate incident and carefully unload any weapons they intend on taking into a gun show.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

408197_475176925872912_1638230723_n

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Both Sides in Gun Debate Agree: Punish Background-Check Liars

Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/politics/us-may-focus-more-on-gun-background-checks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0#DemandAPlan

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

Obama to ‘Put Everything I’ve Got’ Into Gun Control

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
Quote al3:

That’s what liability insurance is for.<snip>

Let me make sure I got this right. Voting, which most of us agree is a right, should not be burdened with even the inconvenience of getting a picture ID because it will disenfranchise poor and minority citizens.

Gun ownership, which is an actually stated right, should be subject to not only picture ID, but should have a cost applied.

Before we go any further with this discussion, it would be helpful to have an example list of what rights poor and minority citizens should be allowed, and which should be denied. It doesn't need to be a long list, just enough to try and establish a trend. We can have two columns: "Disenfranchisement Required", and "Disenfranchisement Forbidden".

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote miksilvr:

Obama to ‘Put Everything I’ve Got’ Into Gun Control

Not only the President, but the Vise President too. I for one am so happy to see that the deficit has been fixed, illegal immigration is no longer a problem, unemployment has shrunk to a historical low, Social Security will be solvent forever, the economy is skyrocketing, and civil rights is an issue of bygone days. Whew!! Glad all of that is over. Now we should put all of our effort, money, and will into stopping the murder of another 25 people with assault rifles. I just love a president who can stay focused on the important issues.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote al3:That’s what liability insurance is for.<snip>
Let me make sure I got this right. Voting, which most of us agree is a right, should not be burdened with even the inconvenience of getting a picture ID because it will disenfranchise poor and minority citizens.

Gun ownership, which is an actually stated right, should be subject to not only picture ID, but should have a cost applied.

Before we go any further with this discussion, it would be helpful to have an example list of what rights poor and minority citizens should be allowed, and which should be denied. It doesn't need to be a long list, just enough to try and establish a trend. We can have two columns: "Disenfranchisement Required", and "Disenfranchisement Forbidden".

Paleo-Con, nice try, but I don’t buy your assertion about voter ID because fraudulent voters don’t kill people, guns in the wrong hands do.

I believe making a gun owner ultimately responsible for the damages his gun(s) cause an idea worth kicking around, and by association, some type of liability insurance program for guns and gun owners. Let unleash the free market! Why can’t we have the financial/insurance dirtballs make themselves useful for once?

I’m all for a booming gun-lock, gun-safe, and trigger-lock industry.

Experienced, trained, responsible gun owners with clean criminal, mental health and financial history – yes, credit score - would pay low premiums. Those with all of the above plus tactical training, ie, ex military or LE, even less. Newbies, or those with less a history, questionable history, or minimal training would pay more. Assault weapons and other “bada*s” guns would be more expensive to insure….more pedestrian guns, not so much. Sounds reasonable to me. Admittedly from a non-gun owner.

You may say that these steps wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook. But paying all that liability insurance, and/or knowing she could be financially ruined, (of course no gun owner believes the risk is get her own brains blown out) if the guns were stolen and used, would possibly have incentivized her to be a bit more careful about carelessly leaving the ability of her son to access the guns or safe keys.

Just one opinion. Feel free to pick it apart if you wish. But keep in mind any effective solution will in some way, shape, or form, probably hinder responsible gun owners’ rights a bit.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote miksilvr:

Obama to ‘Put Everything I’ve Got’ Into Gun Control

Not only the President, but the Vise President too. I for one am so happy to see that the deficit has been fixed, illegal immigration is no longer a problem, unemployment has shrunk to a historical low, Social Security will be solvent forever, the economy is skyrocketing, and civil rights is an issue of bygone days. Whew!! Glad all of that is over. Now we should put all of our effort, money, and will into stopping the murder of another 25 people with assault rifles. I just love a president who can stay focused on the important issues.

I do believe the Dems are overdoing it a bit, and risk losing some moderate gun owners. Talk of the AW ban, I believe is foolish, unless I'm missing something, considering it has NO chance of passing the house. Not to mention the divisiveness the AW ban discussion engenders could prevent a more modest package of reforms.

And hopefully no liberals support a EO to ban assault weapons, because that would make the "Obama's coming to take your guns!" crowd smarter than we thought they were.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote al3:
Quote Paleo-con:Let me make sure I got this right. Voting, which most of us agree is a right, should not be burdened with even the inconvenience of getting a picture ID because it will disenfranchise poor and minority citizens.

Gun ownership, which is an actually stated right, should be subject to not only picture ID, but should have a cost applied.

Before we go any further with this discussion, it would be helpful to have an example list of what rights poor and minority citizens should be allowed, and which should be denied. It doesn't need to be a long list, just enough to try and establish a trend. We can have two columns: "Disenfranchisement Required", and "Disenfranchisement Forbidden".

Paleo-Con, nice try, but I don’t buy your assertion about voter ID because fraudulent voters don’t kill people, guns in the wrong hands do.

<snip>

Honestly, I understand your reason for the diversion, but I didn't ask if you have a good reason for splitting rights into two groups. I asked which rights you believe belong in each group. Personally, I believe all of our rights belong in the same category which is "Disenfranchisement Forbidden". This is why I also believe they all deserve equal protection. The goal of my question is simply to find out which rights you find disagreeable.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote al3:
Quote Paleo-con:Let me make sure I got this right. Voting, which most of us agree is a right, should not be burdened with even the inconvenience of getting a picture ID because it will disenfranchise poor and minority citizens.

Gun ownership, which is an actually stated right, should be subject to not only picture ID, but should have a cost applied.

Before we go any further with this discussion, it would be helpful to have an example list of what rights poor and minority citizens should be allowed, and which should be denied. It doesn't need to be a long list, just enough to try and establish a trend. We can have two columns: "Disenfranchisement Required", and "Disenfranchisement Forbidden".

Paleo-Con, nice try, but I don’t buy your assertion about voter ID because fraudulent voters don’t kill people, guns in the wrong hands do.

<snip>

Honestly, I understand your reason for the diversion, but I didn't ask if you have a good reason for splitting rights into two groups. I asked which rights you believe belong in each group. Personally, I believe all of our rights belong in the same category which is "Disenfranchisement Forbidden". This is why I also believe they all deserve equal protection. The goal of my question is simply to find out which rights you find disagreeable.

I don't believe it's a fair comparison. The voter ID issue, that I'm not convinced is an issue at all, is pretty much a binary issue. It's either a 1 or a 0. No ID, no vote. Gun reform is not a binary issue. I'm not looking to take your gun ownership rights away. You don't get a 0. You get maybe a .95. And I don't consider gun ownership disagreeablt at all, so you won't be disenfranchised.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

In addition to the hyperbole about voter fraud v. the real election fraud is not controlled by poor people, but by the easy to cheat machines we got from another Bush piece of genius--for his profiteer cronies.

For there to be voter fraud without the ID, there would have to be an organized effort to bring many people, a rather obvious event compared to "those who count the votes" being where the action is. ID does nothing other than intimidate and frustrate a segment of potential voters that some don't want participating. It does nothing about any crime.

I find Gerrymandering to be a form of election fraud.

While, in the past, it is possible to find a lot of "irregularities" in the urban political machines, it was equally easy to expect the "downstate vote" to be counted where it counted. At this point, there is no shared participation in the rigging of elections or the suppression of voters. Democrats are willing to have all the eligible Republicans vote, but Republicans will not return the favor by making 'eligible' subject to new "poll taxes" and other tactics that do not look good in the light.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote al3:
Quote Paleo-con:

Honestly, I understand your reason for the diversion, but I didn't ask if you have a good reason for splitting rights into two groups. I asked which rights you believe belong in each group. Personally, I believe all of our rights belong in the same category which is "Disenfranchisement Forbidden". This is why I also believe they all deserve equal protection. The goal of my question is simply to find out which rights you find disagreeable.

I don't believe it's a fair comparison. The voter ID issue, that I'm not convinced is an issue at all, is pretty much a binary issue. It's either a 1 or a 0. No ID, no vote. Gun reform is not a binary issue. I'm not looking to take your gun ownership rights away. You don't get a 0. You get maybe a .95. And I don't consider gun ownership disagreeablt at all, so you won't be disenfranchised.

Once again, this is not about me. I can afford both insurance and a picture ID. The people that are the subject of this list are the poor and minorities. Asking both voters and gun owners to get a picture ID seems reasonable to me as I treat all rights equally. What I am hearing from you, is that the poor and minorities are not entitled to some of their rights unless they can pay for them. In the last two responses, you have established that criteria and I accept that you really mean it. That is not my question. My real interest is in which other rights you feel poor people are not entitled to by virtue of their financial status.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drc2:

<snip> It does nothing about any crime.

For your records... Voter fraud is a crime.

Quote drc2:I find Gerrymandering to be a form of election fraud.

Then we have a point of agreement. Least you fall into your usual Democrats are saints meme, take a look at the Maryland Congressional map. Although Republicans occupy most of the State, they get few of the elected representatives. Please note how the population centers of the DC suburbs and Baltimore are carved with thin little lines to include people that live hundreds of miles from the cities. After we both accept that gerrymandering infects both parties, we can proceed. My position is simple and short; gerrymandering must stop.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Interesting how hartmann claims this gerrymandering is all a Republican issue, and a few months ago he was ranting that he thought California should break into three separate states so they could gain four more Senators. Guess what party would benefit from that idiotic move?

Do as I say not as I do.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote al3:
Quote Paleo-con:

Honestly, I understand your reason for the diversion, but I didn't ask if you have a good reason for splitting rights into two groups. I asked which rights you believe belong in each group. Personally, I believe all of our rights belong in the same category which is "Disenfranchisement Forbidden". This is why I also believe they all deserve equal protection. The goal of my question is simply to find out which rights you find disagreeable.

I don't believe it's a fair comparison. The voter ID issue, that I'm not convinced is an issue at all, is pretty much a binary issue. It's either a 1 or a 0. No ID, no vote. Gun reform is not a binary issue. I'm not looking to take your gun ownership rights away. You don't get a 0. You get maybe a .95. And I don't consider gun ownership disagreeablt at all, so you won't be disenfranchised.

Once again, this is not about me. I can afford both insurance and a picture ID. The people that are the subject of this list are the poor and minorities. Asking both voters and gun owners to get a picture ID seems reasonable to me as I treat all rights equally. What I am hearing from you, is that the poor and minorities are not entitled to some of their rights unless they can pay for them. In the last two responses, you have established that criteria and I accept that you really mean it. That is not my question. My real interest is in which other rights you feel poor people are not entitled to by virtue of their financial status.

I still don’t consider it a fair comparison. It would probably be more equivalent, if guns were free, if they were something that governments widely issued to the public as a means to exercise their right to bear arms….say, the “Right to have a gun.” If guns were free, then requiring an ID and insurance and other “hoops” for gun ownership could be considered an equivalent hurdle or disenfranchisement as Photo ID is to voting.

I would believe the main hurdle or disenfranchisement to gun ownership - for the voting bloc we're discussing - is the cost of the gun or ammo itself. Exercising that right costs money. The “right to vote” is more equivalent to the “right to have a gun.” Considering that every poor or urban person would gladly arm themselves under the “right to have a gun” scenario, I’d like to believe that conservatives would support a few hurdles at that point. But, in the real world, since the key hurdle to gun ownership is being able to afford the gun itself, I’d argue that that the Photo ID and insurance are speed bumps, not real hurdles, to owning a gun.

Considering the right to vote is free, and desired to be exercised by a wider percentage of our population, including those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young, a requirement for photo ID is a higher hurdle to voting than requiring photo ID or insurance is to owning a firearm.

That’s my first argument. My second is the fact that the potential damages to society of guns in the wrong hands is higher than votes in the wrong hands. Violent criminal elements are attracted to guns, not votes. Just a handful of guns in the wrong hands can cause havoc and kill many, while a handful of votes in the wrong hands doesn’t really do much damage. However, that’s not to say that a large, coordinated, program of fraudulent voting couldn’t be damaging. But that’s never been proven as far as I know.

I don’t expect you to agree with this.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote al3:

I still don’t consider it a fair comparison. It would probably be more equivalent, if guns were free, if they were something that governments widely issued to the public as a means to exercise their right to bear arms….say, the “Right to have a gun.” If guns were free, then requiring an ID and insurance and other “hoops” for gun ownership could be considered an equivalent hurdle or disenfranchisement as Photo ID is to voting.

It is a very fair comparison. It is just an uncomfortable comparison because it forces your position to face its inconsistencies. Most of my guns were free; I didn't pay a cent for them. Most of my poor friend obtained their guns for free also (some from me). Therefore, cost of the gun does not have to be applied as an issue. So, we have a situation that fits your last sentence. Maintaining a free gun is just as much of a hurdle as getting a photo ID (by your own words), yet you support one and protest the other.

Quote al3:I would believe the main hurdle or disenfranchisement to gun ownership - for the voting bloc we're discussing - is the cost of the gun or ammo itself. Exercising that right costs money. The “right to vote” is more equivalent to the “right to have a gun.” Considering that every poor or urban person would gladly arm themselves under the “right to have a gun” scenario, I’d like to believe that conservatives would support a few hurdles at that point. But, in the real world, since the key hurdle to gun ownership is being able to afford the gun itself, I’d argue that that the Photo ID and insurance are speed bumps, not real hurdles, to owning a gun.

Conservatives do support the hurdles; they have repeated such over and over on this message board. The point here is that if a photo ID is not a hurdle for all the other rights, it is not a hurdle for voting rights when being applied to the same voting bloc.

Quote al3:Considering the right to vote is free, and desired to be exercised by a wider percentage of our population, including those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young, a requirement for photo ID is a higher hurdle to voting than requiring photo ID or insurance is to owning a firearm.

Actually, voting cost a lot of money. It is not free as somebody is footing the bill. I don't understand your premise. If the "those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young" find obtaining a photo ID a high hurdle, why is it not an equally high hurdle when applied to their 2nd Amendment rights? Does the height of the hurdle just disappear? It is the same exact photo ID after all.

I think the cost issue is just a side track anyway. Many rights come with a cost, yet they are not seen as a disenfranchisement issue. The press cost, speech cost, abortions cost, religion cost, and property cost. If the "those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young" are expected to cover the cost of exercising those rights, then it is not unreasonable to expect the same of other rights.

Quote al3:That’s my first argument. My second is the fact that the potential damages to society of guns in the wrong hands is higher than votes in the wrong hands. Violent criminal elements are attracted to guns, not votes. Just a handful of guns in the wrong hands can cause havoc and kill many, while a handful of votes in the wrong hands doesn’t really do much damage. However, that’s not to say that a large, coordinated, program of fraudulent voting couldn’t be damaging. But that’s never been proven as far as I know.

I don’t expect you to agree with this.

You severely underestimate the power of the vote. Voting has changed society for more than guns can ever hope to. History is replete with examples of the bad guys manipulating the vote to get their way. Chicago's political history is a prime example. We have seen over and over that there is no correlation between violent crime and guns. A criminal will use whatever tool is available; including a vote.

If one cannot ask for ID, how can one prove voter fraud? It is a self fulfilling prophecy isn't it? I have worked as a poll worker at every election since 1980. I sit at a table and give people their cards after they tell me who they are and I check it against a list of registered voters. When someone approaches and says their name is Mickey Mouse, I have to give them a card if Mickey Mouse appears on my list. I cannot ask for ID. One year it is a tall lady, the next election it is a short man. When I complain to the supervisors, I am asked if I have proof that they are not Mickey Mouse. When I explain that I have no proof because I am not allowed to ask for ID. I am always told "Then you understand why you should go back to your table and continue working."

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:

You severely underestimate the power of the vote. Voting has changed society for more than guns can ever hope to. History is replete with examples of the bad guys manipulating the vote to get their way. Chicago's political history is a prime example. We have seen over and over that there is no correlation between violent crime and guns. A criminal will use whatever tool is available; including a vote.

If one cannot ask for ID, how can one prove voter fraud? It is a self fulfilling prophecy isn't it? I have worked as a poll worker at every election since 1980. I sit at a table and give people their cards after they tell me who they are and I check it against a list of registered voters. When someone approaches and says their name is Mickey Mouse, I have to give them a card if Mickey Mouse appears on my list. I cannot ask for ID. One year it is a tall lady, the next election it is a short man. When I complain to the supervisors, I am asked if I have proof that they are not Mickey Mouse. When I explain that I have no proof because I am not allowed to ask for ID. I am always told "Then you understand why you should go back to your table and continue working."

Actually there is a huge correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership in the industrial world. The US and Mexico stand out as by far the most murders than the next nation of the OECD. Both share two traits, bad US drug policies and easy access to guns. Even within the US, states in the New England area have the strictest guns laws, and the lowest homicide rates. The highest homicide and gun death region is the South, which also has the most gun ownership.

As for voter fraud, in the USA, we register to vote, and the State's through their Secretary of State and then through the county govt, verify voter registration. So unless someone in your neighborhood is legally named Mickey Mouse, and is a legal voter, then your proper course of action is to contact the Secretary of State, and ask them to review the voter rolls.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

Actually there is a huge correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership in the industrial world. The US and Mexico stand out as by far the most murders than the next nation of the OECD. Both share two traits, bad US drug policies and easy access to guns. Even within the US, states in the New England area have the strictest guns laws, and the lowest homicide rates. The highest homicide and gun death region is the South, which also has the most gun ownership.

This is what thwarts an honest discussion. Cooking the numbers doesn't prove your point. Reread your numbers, this time compare the homicide rate committed with guns to the rate of gun ownership. The question we are on is if there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun crimes. For an even more drastic number, remove suicides from the equation. By the way, the US is one of the only countries that considers suicide as a homicide. So when comparing international crime rates, one should remove the suicides.

Quote Phaedrus76:As for voter fraud, in the USA, we register to vote, and the State's through their Secretary of State and then through the county govt, verify voter registration. So unless someone in your neighborhood is legally named Mickey Mouse, and is a legal voter, then your proper course of action is to contact the Secretary of State, and ask them to review the voter rolls.

The fact remains that the Secretary of State cannot ask for ID either. Registering to vote does not require an ID either. They can review all they want, but cannot remove Mickey Mouse without proof; proof that they are not allowed to ask for.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote al3:I still don’t consider it a fair comparison. It would probably be more equivalent, if guns were free, if they were something that governments widely issued to the public as a means to exercise their right to bear arms….say, the “Right to have a gun.” If guns were free, then requiring an ID and insurance and other “hoops” for gun ownership could be considered an equivalent hurdle or disenfranchisement as Photo ID is to voting.

It is a very fair comparison. It is just an uncomfortable comparison because it forces your position to face its inconsistencies. Most of my guns were free; I didn't pay a cent for them. Most of my poor friend obtained their guns for free also (some from me). Therefore, cost of the gun does not have to be applied as an issue. So, we have a situation that fits your last sentence. Maintaining a free gun is just as much of a hurdle as getting a photo ID (by your own words), yet you support one and protest the other.

Free government-issued guns, to prevent disenfranchisement of citizens of the “right to bear arms,” is not the same as few random free guns exchanged between friends or acquaintances. The right to vote is what it is, you can go to the local precinct and vote. The right to bear arms is the right to go buy a gun, and the associated accessories and training. There is a natural disenfranchisement for that right, and that disenfranchisement is the fact is you need money to enjoy that right. Now, if to prevent that disenfranchisement, the government decides to issue free guns, then other associated hurdles, such as Photo ID, to gun ownership would indeed be considered equivalent to photo ID for voting.

Quote Paleo-Con:
Quote al3:I would believe the main hurdle or disenfranchisement to gun ownership - for the voting bloc we're discussing - is the cost of the gun or ammo itself. Exercising that right costs money. The “right to vote” is more equivalent to the “right to have a gun.” Considering that every poor or urban person would gladly arm themselves under the “right to have a gun” scenario, I’d like to believe that conservatives would support a few hurdles at that point. But, in the real world, since the key hurdle to gun ownership is being able to afford the gun itself, I’d argue that that the Photo ID and insurance are speed bumps, not real hurdles, to owning a gun.

Conservatives do support the hurdles; they have repeated such over and over on this message board. The point here is that if a photo ID is not a hurdle for all the other rights, it is not a hurdle for voting rights when being applied to the same voting bloc.

I stand by my reasoning above. The 2nd amendment right has natural hurdles, for the most part, it costs money to exercise that right, and any additional hurdle is relatively small compared to the other costs. The right to vote is free, thus any hurdle placed in front of it is significant.

Quote Paleo-Con:
Quote al3:Considering the right to vote is free, and desired to be exercised by a wider percentage of our population, including those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young, a requirement for photo ID is a higher hurdle to voting than requiring photo ID or insurance is to owning a firearm.

Actually, voting cost a lot of money. It is not free as somebody is footing the bill. I don't understand your premise. If the "those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young" find obtaining a photo ID a high hurdle, why is it not an equally high hurdle when applied to their 2nd Amendment rights? Does the height of the hurdle just disappear? It is the same exact photo ID after all.

You’re right – the cost of voting, the voting infrastructure, is paid by taxpayers. But it’s pretty much free to the voter. In a world where the government recognized the 2nd amendment right to bear arms held a built in disenfranchisement due to the cost of the guns and the associated accessories - and therefore issued free guns to everyone - I’d agree with you. Requiring a photo ID to receive your free gun would indeed be an attempt to disenfranchise.

Quote Paleo-Con:I think the cost issue is just a side track anyway. Many rights come with a cost, yet they are not seen as a disenfranchisement issue. The press cost, speech cost, abortions cost, religion cost, and property cost. If the "those who have no car, are poor, old, infirm, or young" are expected to cover the cost of exercising those rights, then it is not unreasonable to expect the same of other rights.
Not sure I understand this. It doesn’t cost anything to speak freely, not that I know of. I don’t believe it costs anything to worship because you can observe your Religion in many ways, some cost, some don’t.

Quote Paleo-Con:
Quote al3:That’s my first argument. My second is the fact that the potential damages to society of guns in the wrong hands is higher than votes in the wrong hands. Violent criminal elements are attracted to guns, not votes. Just a handful of guns in the wrong hands can cause havoc and kill many, while a handful of votes in the wrong hands doesn’t really do much damage. However, that’s not to say that a large, coordinated, program of fraudulent voting couldn’t be damaging. But that’s never been proven as far as I know.

I don’t expect you to agree with this.

You severely underestimate the power of the vote. Voting has changed society for more than guns can ever hope to. History is replete with examples of the bad guys manipulating the vote to get their way. Chicago's political history is a prime example. We have seen over and over that there is no correlation between violent crime and guns. A criminal will use whatever tool is available; including a vote.

I think men with guns have had a pretty profound impact on history too.

Quote Paleo-Con:If one cannot ask for ID, how can one prove voter fraud? It is a self fulfilling prophecy isn't it? I have worked as a poll worker at every election since 1980. I sit at a table and give people their cards after they tell me who they are and I check it against a list of registered voters. When someone approaches and says their name is Mickey Mouse, I have to give them a card if Mickey Mouse appears on my list. I cannot ask for ID. One year it is a tall lady, the next election it is a short man. When I complain to the supervisors, I am asked if I have proof that they are not Mickey Mouse. When I explain that I have no proof because I am not allowed to ask for ID. I am always told "Then you understand why you should go back to your table and continue working."

If that’s your experience, I can’t argue that. But I still believe that for voter fraud to make a real impact you believe it does, it would need to be a large, coordinated effort to do so. I don’t believe it that much of a huge issue on either side. Whenever liberals, or that Brads Blog guy comes on Thom’s show to start screaming about electronic voting fraud, I roll my eyes on that too. I generally trust the system. What I don’t trust however, is the gerrymandering – GOP and Dems – but the GOP seems to be taking it to a new standard by their attempts to gerrymander the electoral college.

******************

Paleo-Con, I think we’re at a dead end here. I don' think I've said anything new here but spent typing time. You believe votes in the wrong hands are the bigger danger, I believe guns in the wrong hands are the bigger danger. While that’s interesting, I’m not sure we can reconcile that. You reject my core assertion that – if the 2nd requirerd the government to issue free guns and ammo to all citizens, and there were free gun and ammo issue offices on every block, in every town, then requiring photo ID to pick up that gun would probably indeed be a disenfranchisement from the 2nd. Otherwise, it’s not. My 2c, and I admit I’m not nearly the smartest guy here, so it may be baloney. We should probably move on.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Ferguson Effect On Our Great Grand Children

A few weeks ago, Congressman Paul Ryan released his latest proposal for tackling America’s poverty epidemic. Unfortunately, the plan does very little to combat poverty in our country, and instead, continues the devastating austerity policies that Ryan himself helped to create. Thanks to those policies, entire communities across America are underwater, and struggling to survive in tough economic times.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system