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

wtfunny wrote:

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?

LeadvilleNative wrote:

theJeff wrote:

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

What changed?? You romanticize a culture that never existed.

I grew up in as redneck a town as exists-Leadville Colorado. I went to Colorado State University-which is about as redneck a university as exists. I am a conservative--the only thing liberal about me is my use of obscenities. 40 years ago, a rancher here and there would have a rifle in their pickup to shoot coyotes-but in no way or form did every pickup truck have a deer rifle. People did not drive around Fort Collins or Leadville (or Rock Springs, or Rawlins, or Tonapah-or any western city or town) with a rifle or shotgun on their gunrack--because, likely as not, it would be stolen if they parked. The guns were in work trucks, not go to town trucks. The real rednecks I knew (and know) in Colorado are 100 times more likely to have a fishing rod in their gunrack as a gun.

What changed?

In the culture where I grew up, guns were tools, not political statements. The Pawnee National Grasslands, 50 miles east of Fort Collins, are a 30 by 60 mile area of failed homesteads--there are county roads, but the farmers and ranchers who homesteaded in the early 1900s could not make a go of it-and never got patents to the land-so it reverted back to the feds. It's now run like a national forest, only it's semi-desolate prairie, with dirt roads down the section lines, rather than a forest. I hunted rabbits and antelope there in the early to mid 1980s-and no one was out there. In the last 10 or 15 years, every cross-road, every weekend, is populated by target shooters emptying hundreds of rifle cartridges. They are not hunting, they are not protecting anything--they are generally drinking beer, listening to sh!tty country music, and wasting ammuntion. It's appalling.

What's changed? The gun culture has expanded to make gun ownership and extreme militance a "lifestyle" choice--just like something that might be espoused by Oprah Winfrey or Martha Stewart. Similar to today's country music-it's the act of embracing a romanticized lifestyle that never really existed. The VAST majority of AR 15s or similiar iron are not used as tools for farm or ranch management, or protection, or hunting, but as entertainment-and a means to identify as part of the tribe of second amendment "true americans."

These people are not serious--they are morons. No better than the drunken fools at a Bronco game who get their self esteem watching a child's game played by mercenaries. The difference is, authentic Bronco Game Day repilca jerseys don't kill people, though they cost about as much as an AR 15.

These idiots are as much a "well regulated militia" as I am a Bronco player. I really don't have a problem with these people doing what they do--live and let live, etc. But I do have a problem with them enobling their behavior as some sort of sacred birthright, and welcoming anyone with a pulse to join in the fun. Guns are serious business. They should be used seriously, and treated with respect. Mentally deranged 18 and 19 year olds who have been kicked out of high school and are under psychiatric care should not be allowed anywhere near any weapon-let alone purchase one. If that makes me a snowflake-well so be it.

What changed?

Remington, and WInchester, and the NRA and everybody else figured out they can sell more of this stuff if its marketed as a lifestyle, rather than as tools necessary for rural living. Roll in the second amendment, and duty to god and country-it's a winning strategy. They are laughing all the way to the bank. And there are 17 dead kids in Florida-because we as a nation can't discern shades of grey between rights and responsibilities. And 6 months from now, there will be 17 more innocent dead kids somewhere else. If that doesn't make you sick, you deserve the zombie apocolypse you are arming yourself against.

wtfunny wrote:

theJeff wrote:

You have never seen videos of exit polls that demonstrate that people have no idea what the politics of the candidates are? You have never seen voters being bussed in to polling stations? There are ABSOLUTELY reasons to believe that people are voting irresponsibly.

But, more to the point: take your first paragraph there and replace the word “vote” with the phrase “own a gun”. Do you still agree with it? Would you be willing to apply the same standard to both? KEEP IN MIND: Not everyone agrees with what you consider “obvious”.

And yes, I wish your parents had bed tested a little more carefully. You should, too, but I hear ignorance is bliss, so enjoy it.

Of course I've seen those polls. So what? Who am I to set a standard that someone else needs to meet in order to vote?

The idea that this in any way mirrors the issues with firearms is patently ridiculous. Your vote, much as I may disagree with your choices, isn't going to get me shot tomorrow. Norr my apparently not enough sober enough for you ignorant mother.

Because people can be perfectly responsible and vote for the exact same clown as someone else. Responsible and irresponsible votes can be exactly the same votes. They're counted the same.

This isn't true of firearm usage.

I completely disagree with the idea that if you want voter testing and I want firearms tests, that "meeting in the middle" somehow means we end up with both of those things. That's the very essence of bureaucratic creep. We end up with twice the amount of red tape we started with. Isn't that the very thing conservatives rail against?

My arguments for firearms registration don't hinge on your concerns about voting. And your concerns about voting should rest on their own merit. if they don't, there's no reason to apply them, simply because it gives us both what we want.

Applying your own logic about voting .. pass a simple test as to why we should have these voter rules you advocate for. If you can't make a cogent and convincing argument for them, then why should we apply them?

You're simply saying either

a) voting is important. Firearms are important. We should regulate them the same way.

or

b) I want this about voting. You want that about firearms. You give me mine and I'll give you yours.

I think both of those are poor approaches to finding a way forward. Demonstrate a need for your request. if you can't do that, have a Coke and a smile and stfu.

LeadvilleNative wrote:

theJeff wrote:

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

What changed?? You romanticize a culture that never existed.

I grew up in as redneck a town as exists-Leadville Colorado. I went to Colorado State University-which is about as redneck a university as exists. I am a conservative--the only thing liberal about me is my use of obscenities. 40 years ago, a rancher here and there would have a rifle in their pickup to shoot coyotes-but in no way or form did every pickup truck have a deer rifle. People did not drive around Fort Collins or Leadville (or Rock Springs, or Rawlins, or Tonapah-or any western city or town) with a rifle or shotgun on their gunrack--because, likely as not, it would be stolen if they parked. The guns were in work trucks, not go to town trucks. The real rednecks I knew (and know) in Colorado are 100 times more likely to have a fishing rod in their gunrack as a gun.

What changed?

In the culture where I grew up, guns were tools, not political statements. The Pawnee National Grasslands, 50 miles east of Fort Collins, are a 30 by 60 mile area of failed homesteads--there are county roads, but the farmers and ranchers who homesteaded in the early 1900s could not make a go of it-and never got patents to the land-so it reverted back to the feds. It's now run like a national forest, only it's semi-desolate prairie, with dirt roads down the section lines, rather than a forest. I hunted rabbits and antelope there in the early to mid 1980s-and no one was out there. In the last 10 or 15 years, every cross-road, every weekend, is populated by target shooters emptying hundreds of rifle cartridges. They are not hunting, they are not protecting anything--they are generally drinking beer, listening to sh!tty country music, and wasting ammuntion. It's appalling.

What's changed? The gun culture has expanded to make gun ownership and extreme militance a "lifestyle" choice--just like something that might be espoused by Oprah Winfrey or Martha Stewart. Similar to today's country music-it's the act of embracing a romanticized lifestyle that never really existed. The VAST majority of AR 15s or similiar iron are not used as tools for farm or ranch management, or protection, or hunting, but as entertainment-and a means to identify as part of the tribe of second amendment "true americans."

These people are not serious--they are morons. No better than the drunken fools at a Bronco game who get their self esteem watching a child's game played by mercenaries. The difference is, authentic Bronco Game Day repilca jerseys don't kill people, though they cost about as much as an AR 15.

These idiots are as much a "well regulated militia" as I am a Bronco player. I really don't have a problem with these people doing what they do--live and let live, etc. But I do have a problem with them enobling their behavior as some sort of sacred birthright, and welcoming anyone with a pulse to join in the fun. Guns are serious business. They should be used seriously, and treated with respect. Mentally deranged 18 and 19 year olds who have been kicked out of high school and are under psychiatric care should not be allowed anywhere near any weapon-let alone purchase one. If that makes me a snowflake-well so be it.

What changed?

Remington, and WInchester, and the NRA and everybody else figured out they can sell more of this stuff if its marketed as a lifestyle, rather than as tools necessary for rural living. Roll in the second amendment, and duty to god and country-it's a winning strategy. They are laughing all the way to the bank. And there are 17 dead kids in Florida-because we as a nation can't discern shades of grey between rights and responsibilities. And 6 months from now, there will be 17 more innocent dead kids somewhere else. If that doesn't make you sick, you deserve the zombie apocolypse you are arming yourself against.

wtfunny wrote:

theJeff wrote:

You have never seen videos of exit polls that demonstrate that people have no idea what the politics of the candidates are? You have never seen voters being bussed in to polling stations? There are ABSOLUTELY reasons to believe that people are voting irresponsibly.

But, more to the point: take your first paragraph there and replace the word “vote” with the phrase “own a gun”. Do you still agree with it? Would you be willing to apply the same standard to both? KEEP IN MIND: Not everyone agrees with what you consider “obvious”.

And yes, I wish your parents had bed tested a little more carefully. You should, too, but I hear ignorance is bliss, so enjoy it.

Of course I've seen those polls. So what? Who am I to set a standard that someone else needs to meet in order to vote?

The idea that this in any way mirrors the issues with firearms is patently ridiculous. Your vote, much as I may disagree with your choices, isn't going to get me shot tomorrow. Norr my apparently not enough sober enough for you ignorant mother.

Because people can be perfectly responsible and vote for the exact same clown as someone else. Responsible and irresponsible votes can be exactly the same votes. They're counted the same.

This isn't true of firearm usage.

I completely disagree with the idea that if you want voter testing and I want firearms tests, that "meeting in the middle" somehow means we end up with both of those things. That's the very essence of bureaucratic creep. We end up with twice the amount of red tape we started with. Isn't that the very thing conservatives rail against?

My arguments for firearms registration don't hinge on your concerns about voting. And your concerns about voting should rest on their own merit. if they don't, there's no reason to apply them, simply because it gives us both what we want.

Applying your own logic about voting .. pass a simple test as to why we should have these voter rules you advocate for. If you can't make a cogent and convincing argument for them, then why should we apply them?

You're simply saying either

a) voting is important. Firearms are important. We should regulate them the same way.

or

b) I want this about voting. You want that about firearms. You give me mine and I'll give you yours.

I think both of those are poor approaches to finding a way forward. Demonstrate a need for your request. if you can't do that, have a Coke and a smile and stfu.