Mueller’s Conference today

[partgypsy]

Redwood, if there was overwhelming data out there to support your assertion, don't you think the NRA would fund such studies? They have plenty of money to do so. Instead we get editorials and anecdotes (and lots and lots of paid lobbyists). Pro gun control advocates have peer reviewed papers and statistics. And not just correlational studies. Studies that look at gun deaths before a country passed country-wide gun control laws, and afterwards. Gun-related deaths fall. The US obsession with guns is a historical accident based on the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment, the reasons for that 2nd amendment no longer being relevant. Arguing for NO regulations for gun safety or gun possession, undermines their own argument there is a difference between responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. If you make it easy for someone to own 1000's of bullets, or have no background or mental health check before purchase, or are OK with someone owning the equivalent of an AR15, that is not responsible gun ownership.

 

[redwood66]

Why not? I think assault weapons are used in mass killings more often than handguns. 1/3 of gun deaths are suicides Red, I don't think banning a hand gun wil stop all of them from ending their lives. According to the NYtimes 2/3 of handgun deaths in 2017 were suicides. I'd love to take a handgun away from Americans, but in my read of all I've done is that the constitution allowed a person a gun to be in the militia in case of attack, war, etc, now maybe we ban handguns and just allow a rifle because at the time of the constitution's writing there were only muskets and I guess rifle's are closer to a musket, single shot, bolt action.. This may stop a few suicides because it's harder to shoot yourself with a rifle. Yes 12 is a high number but it may have saved some people in Vegas. I have to weigh rights of potential death targets and a gun owners ablity to hunt or protect themselves.

My links are for homicides, not suicides. I am glad to have you admit that you want Americans to have no guns. This is the reason people who are pro 2A are concerned.

 

[Tekate]

It was stated it was okay, it was stated that it could happen and owning an arsenal of guns will nots top martial law, it will not stop the government from coming your home and taking your guns and putting you in jail or worse. Karl said there are too many cops to stop this from happenng, but I think cops woud be part of the takeover and I think the national guard is probably the only group that could fight back. The government could shut down electricity in every state, no computers after batteries and generators die. Block all access to grocery stores. The government has access to biologic warfare, guns are useless then, of course people can buy masks but that would only last so long before one became hungry. So I'm not too worried about having a gun when the government comes to round me up and put in a gulag worse; kill me. We are so advanced that I don't think it would take more than a week for the government to round us all up.

If you are ok for them to do these things for something you agree with, be prepared for all the things they would do that you won't like much. IOW be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[redwood66]

Redwood, if there was overwhelming data out there to support your assertion, don't you think the NRA would fund such studies? They have plenty of money to do so. Instead we get editorials and anecdotes (and lots and lots of paid lobbyists). Pro gun control advocates have peer reviewed papers and statistics. And not just correlational studies. Studies that look at gun deaths before a country passed country-wide gun control laws, and afterwards. Gun-related deaths fall. The US obsession with guns is a historical accident based on the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment, the reasons for that 2nd amendment no longer being relevant. Arguing for NO regulations for gun safety or gun possession, undermines their own argument there is a difference between responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. If you make it easy for someone to own 1000's of bullets, or have no background or mental health check before purchase, or are OK with someone owning the equivalent of an AR15, that is not responsible gun ownership.

The reasons for the second amendment are always relevant. I have never argued for no regulations so that is absolutely incorrect.

 

[Tekate]

What I said was the constitution allows a militia, a militia means a person (men) can have a gun, as long as the constitution states this there is no way in my mind that we can ban guns and I don't even think about it. I am perfectly fine with people having a gun for protection from harm. Or hunting. Please don't put words in my mouth, I would love to ban guns, I'd love to ban war, I'd love to ban polluting and make us all drive electric cars, I'd love to ban coal fired plants, I support nuclear plants (which is risky surely) and I support solar energy and I think it should be supported by the government. I support a lot of stuff but I don't think much or any of it will happen, I send money to candidates who state they are against assault weapons.

My links are for homicides, not suicides. I am glad to have you admit that you want Americans to have no guns. This is the reason people who are pro 2A are concerned.

 

[redwood66]

It was stated it was okay, it was stated that it could happen and owning an arsenal of guns will not top martial law, it will not stop the government from coming your home and taking your guns and putting you in jail or worse. Karl said there are too many cops to stop this from happenng, but I think cops woud be part of the takeover and I think the national guard is probably the only group that could fight back. The government could shut down electricity in every state, no computers after batteries and generators die. Block all access to grocery stores. The government has access to biologic warfare, guns are useless then, of course people can buy masks but that would only last so long before one became hungry. So I'm not too worried about having a gun when the government comes to round me up and put in a gulag worse; kill me. We are so advanced that I don't think it would take more than a week for the government to round us all up.

You just explained how the government could take over the country and you are ok with this? Line up like a good little citizen because the government knows what's best for you. Sorry, no thanks. I want them watched like hawks for everything they do. FWIW my state and others have enacted laws barring state and local law enforcement from assisting the Fed Gov in firearm confiscation that infringes on the peoples 2A.

 

[redwood66]

What I said was the constitution allows a militia, a militia means a person (men) can have a gun, as long as the constitution states this there is no way in my mind that we can ban guns and I don't even think about it. I am perfectly fine with people having a gun for protection from harm. Or hunting. Please don't put words in my mouth, I would love to ban guns, I'd love to ban war, I'd love to ban polluting and make us all drive electric cars, I'd love to ban coal fired plants, I support nuclear plants (which is risky surely) and I support solar energy and I think it should be supported by the government. I support a lot of stuff but I don't think much or any of it will happen, I send money to candidates who state they are against assault weapons.

You would love to take them all. Do you think others don't feel the same? It will take a constitutional amendment so get on with it.

 

[Tekate]

What? I said this COULD happen and I think guns would be useless in THIS scenario. I don't think it will happen. It's nice your state has enacted laws to make sure cops don't take your guns, but if this crazy stuff went down, I doubt it would be enforceable. So what if they don't take your guns? YOUR meaning anyone in your state. Will the feds round up the cops and put them in jail or worse? These are fantasies anyway. One thing I am sure of is this; we will continue down this road until laws are passed that ensure the rights of all Americans, doubt it will happen in my time. Until we pass laws that do NOT allow businesses and non profit organizations, religious institutions etc to give money to candidates. Right now our country is a mess of special interests, not the interests of the average American in my opinion.

You just explained how the government could take over the country and you are ok with this? Line up like a good little citizen because the government knows what's best for you. Sorry, no thanks. I want them watched like hawks for everything they do. FWIW my state and others have enacted laws barring state and local law enforcement from assisting the Fed Gov in firearm confiscation that infringes on the peoples 2A.

 

[redwood66]

What? I said this COULD happen and I think guns would be useless in THIS scenario. I don't think it will happen. It's nice your state has enacted laws to make sure cops don't take your guns, but if this crazy stuff went down, I doubt it would be enforceable. So what if they don't take your guns? YOUR meaning anyone in your state. Will the feds round up the cops and put them in jail or worse? These are fantasies anyway. One thing I am sure of is this; we will continue down this road until laws are passed that ensure the rights of all Americans, doubt it will happen in my time. Until we pass laws that do NOT allow businesses and non profit organizations, religious institutions etc to give money to candidates. Right now our country is a mess of special interests, not the interests of the average American in my opinion.

My friend we will never see eye to eye on this and that is ok. I still like you very much.

 

[Tekate]

yeah I did but I said I don't think it's legal. I would love to take away cigarettes that kill, I'd love to take away polluting cars, loving to do something isn't the same as spending my money on supporting candidates who say they will do this, because I don't think Americans want this. I did not say I support banning all guns, I said i'd love it if it happened, like I'd love it if we all drove vehicles that dont pollute and say people who buy suburbans because they are unnecesary and pollute and driving and they use a lot of fossil fuel, but I don't think it will happen. Are you saying you support NO gun control?

You would love to take them all. Do you think others don't feel the same? It will take a constitutional amendment so get on with it.

 

[Tekate]

I feel the same xoxoxo

My friend we will never see eye to eye on this and that is ok. I still like you very much.

 

[redwood66]

yeah I did but I said I don't think it's legal. I would love to take away cigarettes that kill, I'd love to take away polluting cars, loving to do something isn't the same as spending my money on supporting candidates who say they will do this, because I don't think Americans want this. I did not say I support banning all guns, I said i'd love it if it happened, like I'd love it if we all drove vehicles that dont pollute and say people who buy suburbans because they are unnecesary and pollute and driving and they use a lot of fossil fuel, but I don't think it will happen. Are you saying you support NO gun control?

I have never said that. I support laws and programs that will actually have an effect on the problems. I do not support "doing something" to make people feel better that has no effect, but instead criminalizes law abiding citizens. Let's enforce the ones we already have for a start.

 

[Karl_K]

@Karl_K said:

Drivers license or state id and a background check when buying from a dealer(with no tracking) should be good enough to buy any gun. So yea a license or state ID should be required to vote.
I would even support a background check on private sales if a way could be found to to prevent abuse and it was not tracked.

Tekate says:

What defines a state ID?

A photo id issued by the state to those that do not want or can't have a drivers license.

 

[partgypsy]

Karl this is why it is not a straightforward as you may think. From my state. People waiting multiple hours for SCHEDULED appointments. People who need drivers licences will wait in line for hours. why are you asking people without cars, parents without childcare, people with multiple jobs, and elderly to wait in line for hours to get an ID that they were otherwise never use?
It's not because there is widespread voter fraud.
I would accept having an ID needed if a) the states issued the IDS so you didn't have to wait in person in line. Or, people could use alternate forms of acceptable ID that they may already have, like birth certificates, soc sec cards, etc. Otherwise it is a waste of taxpayer money for no real benefit.
Some of the biggest shortages/wait lines for DMV offices are in a) cities like Raleigh, liberal areas like Wilmington, and rural areas with a high African American population. But I'm sure that's a total coincidence.
https://www.wral.com/real-ids-young-drivers-create-long-lines-at-multiple-dmv-locations/17754978/

https://www.citizen-times.com/story...hall-unclear-after-abrupt-closure/3341764002/

 

[redwood66]

Because technology has come so far, personnel from DMV offices could travel to areas with no local DMV once a month, or more if needed. Or the county could run the ID process as it does in my state. There are plenty of things that could be done to get IDs to people. You need a picture so just mailing one does not work. Long lines are part of government process for everyone, yes it sucks but everyone has to do it.

 

[partgypsy]

It is an expensive solution to a non-problem. Nothing indicates that voter fraud (as in someone showing up and voting who is not that person) is anything but incredibly rare (31 cases in 14 year period). The most recent voter fraud case we had which did involve thousands of votes, was done for a Republican candidate whose contractor and his helpers collected mail in votes, apparently filing or completing the ballots themselves, also disposing of other completed ballots collected. The photo id laws would not have addressed this type of voter fraud.
Currently, everyone has to register to vote with their current address. People who want to vote also have to show up in person on election day to vote at their polling location (unless they do early voting.
I think if you want additional hurdles, additional costs on taxpayers on something that is a constitutional right, then there needs to be a compelling rationale for it. The only thing that voter ID laws have shown to do, is make it more difficult for the poor, minorities, and college students to vote. That is not a compelling reason.

I DO feel that other types of election fraud should be addressed. Regarding gerrymandering, I feel there should be a non-political, non partisan committee in every state who draws the lines periodically, that is done to most fairly represent the actual demographic/electoral proportions in the state (whatever they may be). Another is to have adequate staffing for polling locations (i.e. more polling locations with higher population) so that you do not see the long lines in some areas that deters people from voting. If any taxpayer money is to be spent, it should be to increase access to voting as well as make sure other types of voter fraud (with machines, paper ballots ie who is collecting or scoring ballots) is less likely to happen.

 

[Tekate]

As I said some people cannot get one due to age, illness, transportation.

A photo id issued by the state to those that do not want or can't have a drivers license.

 

[Tekate]

Then people will complain about how much that costs. Altho it's a good idea. My SIL is retired but she was a pediatrician and once a month her hospital sent her to appalachia to check out poor children there who could not make it to the hospital. It was a wonderful thing.

Because technology has come so far, personnel from DMV offices could travel to areas with no local DMV once a month, or more if needed. Or the county could run the ID process as it does in my state. There are plenty of things that could be done to get IDs to people. You need a picture so just mailing one does not work. Long lines are part of government process for everyone, yes it sucks but everyone has to do it.

 

[MissStepcut]

A photo id issued by the state to those that do not want or can't have a drivers license.

Why are you ignoring the fact Republican legislators believe this requirement will suppress minority votes? Isn’t that troubling to you??

 

[Karl_K]

Why are you ignoring the fact Republican legislators believe this requirement will suppress minority votes? Isn’t that troubling to you??

I dont agree with them and think it is a reasonable requirement.
In IL you have tp provide a photo state id to get any government assistance past the first 30 days.
They will sign you up on a one time 30 day emergency bases without it but in the first 30 days you have to provide it to continue receiving anything.
I consider it a reasonable requirement.

edit: not feeling good so limited time for a while, so will be spending my time in RT and bowing out of this thread.

 

[House Cat]

I dont agree with them and think it is a reasonable requirement.
In IL you have tp provide a photo state id to get any government assistance past the first 30 days.
They will sign you up on a one time 30 day emergency bases without it but in the first 30 days you have to provide it to continue receiving anything.
I consider it a reasonable requirement.

edit: not feeling good so limited time for a while, so will be spending my time in RT and bowing out of this thread.

Take care Karl.