It's not stupid at all. It's brilliance that sadly is lost on a population that has a very limited grasp on even the most basic concepts of civics and social constructs.
That must be it
No. Because we don't require voters to tell us who they voted for, do we?
Doesn't matter. Each time you go to vote, you need to prove that you are registered and the fact that you are voting is recorded for public record. If "guns are votes" then each time you go to purchase a gun, you should have to prove government registration and then have that purchase recorded. Simple as that.
Voting records are *not* public. The fact that you voted is
Erm, what do you think is meant by "voting records"? Anyway, it's currently the law and so you obviously agree that gun purchases should also be public record since guns are votes. And, by the way, while who you voted for isn't recorded, things such as whose ballot you choose in a primary certainly can be. So I think a fair amount of information about your gun purchases recorded into the public record is reasonable. Since "guns are votes" I'm certain that you agree.
I'm totally up for that. Are you?
I said what I'm up for: treating guns like votes just like you asked. Required government registration which is checked for each and every "vote", public recording of "votes" and imprisonment for owning a "vote" without registration. You're the one flailing about trying to say these things don't really count. Ah, I almost forgot -- just as you are limited in how many times you can vote (once per election, assuming you're registered for that cycle), we're going to need strict limits on those "votes" as well, if you know what I mean.
Well, anyway, nice job stepping all over your **** as you try to compare a couple things, throw up some dumb challenge and then look like a fool trying to explain how they're nothing alike and guns shouldn't really be subject to the same laws as voting Edited, Feb 12th 2013 11:00pm by Jophiel