A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

A three vote salute in honour of the fallen.

With babby who doesnt affraid of anything?

?

Now that I think about it, shooting a paper ballot to mark your vote would eliminate the problem of hanging chads.

Are the choices hang or shoot then? What about a third option?

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 2:48pm by Xsarus

And yet you're scrambling really really hard to insist that elections are in no way replacements for using violence to make those decisions. Which I find amusing as hell.



It's not about it being a "trap". It's about it being the truth. It's just a truth that you don't want to acknowledge because it calls into question a political position you happen to hold. You're "laughing" because that's what liberals do when they realize that they don't have a good counter argument. When you can't win on logic or reason, just point and laugh. Laugh as loudly as you can. Make sure lots of other people see you do it so that they'll laugh with you and maybe not stop and think "wait a minute, that guy has a point".

Voting in an election is a substitute for arming yourself and fighting for a faction in a civil war. You can laugh all you want, but that's what it is. That's the purpose it serves. Forgetting that is foolish and stupid.

?

Believes what? That elections aren't replacements for using violence to make those decisions? I think they do.



Huh? I've at least twice given complete responses about which rules I think we should have in common for both. You apparently didn't like my "let's give a registration card to everyone who can own a gun and vote and use the same card for both" idea, because you never bothered to respond to it.



So you're all for handing a registration ID card to everyone who can legally vote and requiring them to present that when voting? Cause I'm perfectly find with handing a registration ID card to everyone who can legally own a gun and requiring them to present that when buying one (or carrying one outside their home). Your little rant would ring a bit more true if you'd even bothered to respond to what I wrote.



I was talking about why you do it, not about whether it works. I kinda envision you kinda straining and laughing nervously going "Wow. That's just crazy. Isn't that crazy? Haha! Um... Really guys. Look how funny that is. I mean, no one could believe that! Guys?". All the while you're looking around and gauging people's reactions and hoping they're buying it.

No. I said we should treat them equally under the law. You then went off on a bizarre tangent inventing ridiculous rules that would treat them very unequally.



You didn't apply the same laws. You came up with how you thought the laws should be applied. I responded by saying that they should apply differently. That's a difference of opinion Joph. I think that we should apply the same rules for both. You and I disagree on what "the same" means though.



That's not the same though. We don't register "votes". We register voters. And the registration is not tied to the act of voting. Registration simply means you are legally allowed to vote. I have absolutely no problem with a registration that simply says "this person is legally allowed to own a firearm". I've sated that many times.

You want to track people's gun purchases and ownership. But that's more like tracking how people vote. It's not analogous in terms of basic registration. I'm opposed to a system which tracks how people vote in any election and I'm similarly opposed to a system that tracks which guns people buy and how many they own. And as I already explained, I oppose both for more or less the same reason.


You want to track the guns people own. I want to make sure that only those legally allowed to own guns can buy them. Just as I don't want to track how people vote, I just want to make sure that only those people who are legally allowed to vote do so. You've presented a ridiculous scenario in response to my proposal. I'll ask again: Why don't we just maintain a database of people registered to own a gun and a database of people registered to vote. Hand out ID cards to those people that are tied to that registry. When they go to vote, they swipe their card at any polling place to prove their eligible to vote, and they can then vote. When they go to buy a gun, they swipe their card at any gun store to prove their eligible to buy a gun, and then they can buy a gun. The systems are maintained and if the status of anyone in the system changes, it's instantly reflected and will prevent them from voting or buying a gun.

Simple. Effective. No one's privacy gets infringed, and we close the loopholes in both systems. But you don't want to register people to own guns. You want to track gun ownership. Those are completely different things. And I'll wager you would oppose a voter registration system like the one I've proposed, because, well that's a good question. Why would one oppose such a system? Seems like it would be a much better way of managing things.

I don't know where gbaji votes, but every time I have ever voted there was someone there with this big book of names and I had to sign it next to my name. If that's not recording the fact that I voted, I'm not sure what it is.

And in case you need that spelled out, gbaji, that would equate to recording every gun purchase. Not necessarily what try purchased, but that they did purchase a firearm.

Correct. Good thing I never said that. That was a bizarre strawman you pulled out all on your own. I said that the voting is a replacement for fighting in a civil war, and that each person voting was equivalent to an armed person fighting for his side in a civil war. I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes. Those were silly responses form the peanut gallery.



Correct. The physical paper you write on when you vote isn't an action either. The act of voting is an action. And the act of fighting is an action. The difference is whether we decide who wins by counting up votes on pieces of paper, or by having the sides fight it out for real.



Yes. But the results of that vote don't disappear immediately after voting either. And you retain the right to vote in each election. It's not about the physical vote, but the concept of "being able to vote". Similarly, it's not about the physical gun, but the concept of "being able to own a gun" that matters here.



Which isn't what I originally was talking about. I was talking about treating "registering to vote" the same as "registering to own a gun". And I'm more than happy to apply the same rules to both. Tracking every gun purchase would be equivalent to tracking how you voted.



No. I'm saying that those obvious differences only matter to someone who's ignoring what I'm saying and arguing a strawman instead. You can't treat guns identically to votes because, as you yourself pointed out, there are differences between them. Which is why I didn't propose that. I proposed that we use the same method to register people's legal ability to vote as we'd use to register people's legal ability to buy guns. You're trying to expand that into something I never argued for.

I'll ask for the third time: Do you have a disagreement with what I proposed? If so, why? You still haven't really addressed this.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 5:43pm by gbaji

Which is yet again, completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. You continue to make statements irrelevant to the topic and wonder why people get confused when they assume relevancy.