Buying a Gun and Registering to Vote should be roughly as difficult as Legally Owning and Driving a Car.

Colton. wrote:

You know what America needs? More guns in schools to stop school shootings.

You joke, but back when every pickup truck had a deer rifle, there weren’t any school shootings... what changed?

theJeff wrote:

Colton. wrote:

You know what America needs? More guns in schools to stop school shootings.

You joke, but back when every pickup truck had a deer rifle, there weren’t any school shootings... what changed?

The culture changed. Unless you have a solution for this, then limiting access to weapons of mass killing is your next logical step.

theJeff wrote:

R1200 wrote:

I wouldnt omit the insurance hurdle either. Registering a car and driving means you are somewhat financially solvent and someone agreed to insure you. Why not have the same check and balance on guns AND VOTING? They have the same power to kill & maim as a car.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean require voter registration, I (a social liberal) absolutely agree.

R1200 wrote:

theJeff wrote:

Not sure what you mean. If you mean require voter registration, I (a social liberal) absolutely agree.

Just steering back to the original topic of whether it makes sense to have the same criteria for voting and owning a firearm.

L L wrote:

You still have to register to vote and can only vote in very restricted ways and locations.

And you can't vote if you are a felon.

Getting a gun is so much easier than voting.

Having difficult restrictions to bear arms does not remove your right to bear arms.

If you made laws that said that every potential gun owner had to be trained and licensed and every gun had to be registered to an owner and that a gun license could be suspended for improper behavior - that would not preclude people from having a right to bear arms.

In other words, it would not be unconstitutional.

Not saying that those laws should be enacted. I am saying they could be enacted without a constitutinal amendment.

Well Done.

To the original post: Those things are not equal in damage that can be done. Driving a car can be as dangerous as a gun, but guns can be much more deadly. Voting by an individual has a small impact. Background check, training and licensing does not seem unreasonable for gun ownership. You have to have a license to fish and people seldom get in a tiff about that.

You are supporting my point. Votes have a small impact because there are too many voters. An educated voting population would be smaller and make more informed decisions. A cooldown period between registering to vote and actually voting helps ensure that the people voting are not making emotional decisions on a whim, but instead have prioritized their civic duty.

Texerine wrote:

In principle, I don't disagree. But, the right to vote and the right to bear arms are both constitutionally protected. The privilege of driving a car is not. So, I would argue that the right to vote and the right to bear arms should both be easier than owning and driving a car.

When this ridiculous notion of "privilege" become parlance for normal everyday behavior in this country?

It's simply absurd, if not patently dishonest, to pretend that something not specifically mentioned in the B of R is somehow a "privilege". You have every right to go get yourself a license and drive a car. That isn't "granted" to you. The right to drive a car is every bit as valid as the right to buy land or own a house might be. The loops and red tape we make you jump through for that don't alter the fact that we have the right to do it. They're simply part of living together as an organized society.

Your right to bear arms is protected under the Constitution. That's great. But it doesn't mean you don't have a right to bear children, breathe air or drive a car.

theJeff wrote:

Colton. wrote:

You know what America needs? More guns in schools to stop school shootings.

You joke, but back when every pickup truck had a deer rifle, there weren’t any school shootings... what changed?

When exactly did "every pickup truck have a deer rifle"?

theJeff wrote:

All of these require a certain level of competence and responsibility.

Libs want it to be easy to vote but hard to get guns.

Cons want it to be easy to get guns but hard to vote.

It would be a fair compromise that whatever tests, background checks, and cooldown periods that apply to one should apply to the other. I also believe that driving a car, once you factor in the driver's exam, insurance application process, and credit check for purchasing the car itself, is a reasonable criteria to apply to both owning a gun and registering to vote, both constitutionally protected rights.

I would love to hear your rational arguments that one of these actions should be easier than the other.

I don't see people wielding a vote with intent to make other people bleed. Conflating voting and buying a firearm is simply making a false equivalency. Why you would choose to do that I have no idea.

Buying a car, voting and owning a firearm are three completely unrelated, separate events. There is no logical reason to process the three in the same way. Or even a similar way.

A "cool down period" to register to vote? Wtf is wrong with you?

You are conflating "holding guns and voting to similar standards" with "claiming that owning a gun and voting are equal". I never claimed that. I claimed that treating the two the same would be a reasonable compromise.

Yes, a cool-down period to vote. Same-day voter registration is ridiculous, unless your 18th birthday happens to be on Voting Day. Do you want people deciding the future of our country on a whim? Wtf is wrong with YOU?

Yes, it is a privilege. You have to pass a written test and a field test AND be able to afford insurance to legally drive a car. You don't have to do any of those things in order to breathe or have kids (although, I kinda wish your parents would have AT LEAST had to pass a sobriety test...)

The US Govt should have no say on who owns guns or who can buy a gun. We in America don't want to become a US militarily occupied fascist crap hole like Iraq and Palestine after all.

US Govt has no say on Guns wrote:

The US Govt should have no say on who owns guns or who can buy a gun. We in America don't want to become a US militarily occupied fascist crap hole like Iraq and Palestine after all.

Our government already tried the “hands off” approach to regulating human reproduction. You see where THAT got us...

No. The only reason one would treat the two the same is if they are somehow similar items. They're not.

There's is no reason, at all, for a cool-down period to vote. There is ample data to show why a cool-down period is reasonable in the purchase decision of firearms. There are also numerous perfectly reasonable situations where someone should be able to vote without a lengthy "pre-vote registration" period required.

If someone wants to vote, whether they're angry or not, whether they're jealous or not, etc, they should be able to, as much as the red tape of bureaucracy can allow for.

There are many instances we've seen over the years that show this is not a good system for the purchase of firearms.

Your continuing insistence that even this specific requirement be treated similarly is you conflating the 2 things ... you can deny that all day long but you're still doing it.

theJeff wrote:

Yes, it is a privilege. You have to pass a written test and a field test AND be able to afford insurance to legally drive a car. You don't have to do any of those things in order to breathe or have kids (although, I kinda wish your parents would have AT LEAST had to pass a sobriety test...)

Those requirements don't make something a privilege. They're simply basic standards to ensure the safety of people sharing the road with us. Even the most basic of rights outlined under the constitution can have similar obligations and requirements to meet. We can discuss all day long the merits of those requirements, but they don't diminish the essence of those things being a 'right'.

A right in a civilized and complex world doesn't mean an open page to do what you or want without regard to the society we live within. And nor does having a few elementary obligations as standard operating procedure make something a "privilege". For a functional society, we simply define certain rules.

Why the f*** did you just insinuate my parents were drunk when I was conceived?

No, wtfunny, I am not. I am talking about a compromise on two issues that otherwise DON’T have a whole lot in common. It happens a lot in legislation, actually. Bills get attached to unrelated bills, etc. It makes for great mudslinging come campaign time.

All I am doing is trying to get people to see things from the other’s perspective, but as usual, you are too shallow and pedantic to appreciate that. So please, tell us more about how voting and owning a firearm are unrelated. We had no effing clue until you enlightened us.

If they're unrelated, it makes zero sense to apply similar standards and procedures to legislation applying to them. The fact that some people like apples and some people like milk doesn't mean we should eat them the same way.

I guide outdoors trips here in Alaska. Among others, some are backpacking trips, some are photography tours and some are packrafting trips. The idea that because they all involve risk I might apply the same Risk Management to them all is silly. We don't carry throw bags with us on a backpacking trip. We don't wear dry suits when we're photographing bears and we don't carry a sat phone if we're sitting by the roadside photographing the northern lights.

When there are reasonable elements and protocols that might apply across the board, that's a good choice to make. But doing so simply to appease people on varying sides of some political fence is simply creating the very bureaucratic nonsense that you conservatives seem to (often rightly) so loudly rail against.

I agree you have no effing clue.

That is what we civilized people call “compromise”. What I am asking people to do is take their criteria for something they are AGAINST, and see how they feel if it is applied to something they SUPPORT. It is just a little mental exercise.

I used to enjoy debating with you, but right now you are just being argumentative; I find it childish and rather annoying. So, either offer up something constructive or find someone else to stalk. We have been over this: you aren’t my type.

theJeff wrote:

That is what we civilized people call “compromise”. What I am asking people to do is take their criteria for something they are AGAINST, and see how they feel if it is applied to something they SUPPORT. It is just a little mental exercise.

I used to enjoy debating with you, but right now you are just being argumentative; I find it childish and rather annoying. So, either offer up something constructive or find someone else to stalk. We have been over this: you aren’t my type.

Jeff the reason we have something like a driver's license test is to determine that an applicant can reasonably safely drive a car. Applying that standard to voting because 'some people are for it' simply makes no sense at all. If there is a real and demonstrable need for some kind of safety procedure for voting registration, make a case for it. The argument that someone wants to vote on a whim is simply childish. If they want to vote on a whim, that's their prerogative to do so. Their right to vote doesn't hinge on your or my approval of how much time and effort they put in to that vote.

A compromise is meeting 2 opposed positions at some point other than the 2 end points.

You find it childish and annoying? Aren't you the one who just said you wish my parents had been required to pass a sobriety test?