Dear Cargo,
I am dedicating this thread to you. Why? Because I felt your pain. Just for a moment.
You have continually said that gun ownership is a right and that you shouldn’t have to apply or register to bear arms because doing so was a right. (or something to that effect.)
I feel like I am having to dance and jump through hoops just to be able to vote. I think everyone here knows that I have a bad knee and that on any given day it could make me unable to go to the polls. I also have breathing issues but that is another story.
I like to vote by mail. It’s easier, it is legitimate, and it ensures that I will be able to vote in the event that the knee is acting up. So, tonight I thought to myself…I had better apply for that absentee ballot since March 1 is right around the corner.
Finally I find how to apply online. It is fairly well hidden. Then I started filling out the form. Nothing is intuitive. The form has changed since last time. Now I had to give a social security number and….tah daaaaaaaxahhhhhhh…..my DMV number so that my signature can be compared.
Why must I do all this just to be able to vote? Voting is a right. I shouldn’t have to go through all this bullshit. My knee hurts. I don’t feel like limping to the foyer to get my purse.
Where is the voter fraud? Show me where the voter fraud is and I might feel just a little bit better about going through all this malarky. Why would someone say they were me, risk going to prison just so they could cast a vote, in my name? How absurd.
Cargo, I feel about voting like you do about guns. It is much easier to own a gun than it is to vote. Tell me, when you buy a mail order gun, does DMV have to be involved to compare your signature? I seriously doubt it. If I am wrong, please tell me.
Happiness is finding a less complicated website.
http://www.scottsurovell.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=408
Senator Surovell’s website has constituent services with a much simpler process.
You only have to provide your name, address, last 4 digits of your social. No full social and no DMV signature comparison. (on state board of election website)
This simplicity should be universal. The application is being mailed to the election registrar in pwc.
Thank you Senator Surveil.
Now will Tony Guiffre come along with his lady friends and check up on me?
What is happening with that one? I want him to be fined or serve time. Actually, in my bad girl mind, I would like to punch him in the face.
I do not know why they insist on using the Social Security Number.
Knee joint replacement under consideration?
Not replacement but perhaps surgery. I don’t like thinking about being chopped.
Are both your knees your own?
Yes, but the pair of them have been somewhat uncooperative of late. Mrs. W injured one of hers not too long ago and had out-patient surgery. She is getting along o.k. for now, even though the thing requires daily exercise or it can become a bit bothersome.
We know first hand what you mean about not being very keen to pop up and trek somewhere if you don’t absolutely have to. Very irritating feeling, I must say.
I have been going to PT since July. It helped until the snow. Then I just had to have that rental Tahoe. Getting in that damn thing was not good for the knees. I fear I am back to square 1. Trying to think of the name of the knee part that is shot.
I think it starts with an F. (no, not the expletive that I usually say after MY and before Knee)
If you need your knee or hip done – do not delay it until you are too old and frail to do the needed therapy after surgery. Doing it a little younger will allow you more pleasure with it.
I think the term “young” and Moon-howler are incompatible. Or perhaps that ship has sailed. I have been in PT for months and I go to the gym a couple times a week….welll…before the snow. I went twice this week. Sigh.
But, you are probably right.
Voting shouldn’t be harder than buying a gun
I agree. If you apply absentee on the state website, I promise you it is a lot more difficult.
However, if you go to the address I left, its simple. Now, what’s wrong with this picture? It should be the same for everyone.
I am still outraged over what Tony Guiffre and his lady friends did. I feel violated. They had no business sticking their noses into people’s ballots. I have still not seen indication of this supposed voter fraud.
I’m sorry that you are having trouble with your knees. My brother had both of his replaced….feels much better.
Okay….
A) Voting procedures, as long as they do not violate existing Constitutional limits, are left to the states. Unfortunately, I don’t have any experience in voting your way. I just show up, show my ID, they confirm my identity, and I vote. 5 minutes. Since you are attempting to vote in a way that does not allow the authorities to determine your identity, apparently there are hoops to jump through. I like voter ID because it protects my vote. I completely agree with you that absentee voting should be simple and efficient. And your vote should still be protected via confirming your ID in some way.
As for guns, there is no “mail order gun” service. If you buy by mail/online…etc, your purchase MUST go to a dealer. There you will fill out government paperwork and have your personal information recorded. If you are dishonest on that paperwork, you can be charged with a felony. A background check is run on you, in order for you to exercise your right to buy a gun commercially.
How much paper work must you fill out?
Is DMV involved in any way?
I knew you had to go to a licensed gun dealer to pick up the gun. Does that dealer get a cut? Seems unfair that that individual would have to go through a bunch of who shot John and not make a penny off it.
I don’t like to have to call my name and address out for all to hear when voting in person. For crying out loud, they are holding my ID in their hand while I am bellowing.
The absentee ballot is being mailed to me at my address. Who else would be getting it?
This is your thread, Cargo….dedicated to you and your cause. Feel free to have at it.
I did write back to Jackson Miller and ask why he hadn’t sent out the absentee website this time.
I don’t think where I live should concern anyone but the individual tasked with checking me off. I highly resent having to repeat all that information in front of strangers. In fact, I am not even sure it is safe. It absolutely violates my privacy. There need to be voting HIPPA laws.
Well Cargo wants his vote preserved and is happy with restricting others to make sure his right isn’t infringed by dilution. However flip that argument around and he immediately goes to the other side. He does not support people who want restrictions on gun ownership so that non-gun owners rights to life and liberty are not injured by careless or criminal gun owners.
I have never heard of a claim that a fraudulent vote resulted in someone’s death. We have daily examples of guns in the hands of the wrong people resulting in unjust death. Proportionality suggests that with great power comes with great responsibility. The power of a single vote is extremely small and fraud has to be extreme to influence an election. No such case with guns. One person with a gun can eliminate the voting rights of a whole classroom of kids.
@Moon-howler
My voter people never call out my name and address. They just check me off and I vote.
As for absentee…. the only time I did that was when I was deployed. Did it once. I doubt my vote ever made it to the counting.
@Ed Myers
Please point out where voter ID infringes. Virginia has had it since I can remember and no one has proven that it infringes.
So, Ed…you have evidece.
And as for your views on gun ownership, we already know what you think. Did you buy new tinfoil?
Vote fraud was instrumental in electing Kennedy. Didn’t he do something in Vietnam?
As for our complaints.. When you can explain to me what you will tell to every single person whose life was protected by using a gun…how you will tell them that they should be dead in order to satisfy your paranoid need to disarm people, and your bigoted need to harm gun owners….. get back to us.
You have to call out your own name and address. They might do it also. I cant remember if they do it but I know I had to do it. They were sitting there looking at my picture ID. I would say over kill.
As for Kennedy. Where is the evidence?
Let’s say its true. Was anyone on this blog of voting age when Kennedy was elected? I was a kid.
I just see the Va general assembly always trying to fix voter fraud when there is no voter fraud that anyone knows about. It is like the boogey man.
The list of reasons to be able to vote absentee or by mail is extensive. Why not just make it optional?
If there were more than 30 thousand people a year saved by a gun (to offset the number killed by guns) don’t you think there would be stories on the internet. Examples would be ubiquitous as entertaining pet tricks. People would love it. There would be video. Instead there are very few except perhaps the Cops show. Most “gun saves” are questionable. It is unclear that there is actual danger that could not have been more easily avoided by walking away instead of agitating.
There is also the possibility that the feared potential assailant (if he weren’t also involved in criminal activity) would complain that actually they were the victim and the crime of brandishing occurred. Statistic would show that fears of “others” such as black teenagers with droopy pants and middle eastern men with beards next to women in burqas would become victims of brandishing more than average if everyone had a ready gun . Guns would be used more often to chill public political speech.
We do have frequent examples in the newspaper of hotheads in a traffic altercation showing a gun. I’m sure the gun owner thinks he “saved” himself but the other driver thought the gun toting driver was an aggressive a-hole made worse by the testosterone of packing heat. It is the non-gun driver that contacts police to complain about the aggressive driving. If the gun owner was truly frightened why didn’t he (it is always he) report the attempted assault “saved” by the gun. (A: Because then he’d be charged with making a false police report and brandishing.)
We also have an unintentional gun discharge every month or so where the bullet enters a nearby occupied dwelling. Those cases are documented in police reports, too. Scientific inquiry tells us that gun ownership is a net negative in terms of home safety. Homes without guns are simply safer.
Documented cases of voter fraud? Nada.
I have a problem with suicides being listed in that 30,000 number. People who commit suicide are going to do it regardless.
Oh, I was harmed by Virginia’s voter laws. I voted provisionally once because I refused to say my name. I have the letter that says they didn’t count my ballot because of it.
Why do they need you (or me) to say our names if they are holding our ID? How ridiculous. I was tempted but I knew I wouldn’t be allowed to vote.
I think we have a class action lawsuit.
I feel like my privacy was compromised by Tony Guifree and his friends–all because I applied online. I will let everyone know if I get my absentee ballot. I didn’t sign off on anything to do with the DMV. Why should an unnecessary expense be included.
@ed myers
Funny….why don’t I believe you?
And it is the CDC that reports a minimum of 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.
Even the Brady Campaign estimates 86,000 per year.
As for your 30,000, it sure is interesting how you have to pad your numbers with suicide statistics.
You don’t believe because you screens out all facts that do not fit your preconceptions.
If 90% of suicides are “successful” when a gun is used and other methods are typically less than 10% successful, and individuals who attempt suicide once and get help don’t do it again, then a vast majority of those suicides are preventable if there are no guns.
If there are no guns then there would be homicide deaths that were avoidable if only there had been a gun available to the dead victim. You need at least 90% of the gun suicides that are preventable to make up for homicides that didn’t happen because of the presence of a gun in order for the ledger to be even. Since there are 8,000 homicides there would have to be 3 gun saves that prevented an imminent homicide for every successful homicide to make guns a net advantage given the suicide cost of guns. Saving oneself from imminent death is such grand trauma that a reality show would be hugely successful if they had this quantity of material to work from. (Put wearable cameras on gun owners and record instances where they prevented a homicide. Edit ala AFV.) This is gun owner fantasy world proven by the fact that gun saves are shown on TV only as fiction. Also, if criminals had no guns there would be fewer successful homicides for the same number of homicide attempts making the odds even better in favor of no guns.
Owning and carrying a gun does not improve one’s odds of avoiding death from gun violence. Removing guns from one’s home does. I’ve made the assumption that preventing suicide is a good thing. Gun owners might argue Dawinianism is best. I won’t touch that.
There’s nothing wrong with voter ID – I have no problem with a state opting to go full bio-metric if its legislature so desires. The problems with the recent spate of voter ID enthusiasm are: 1) they address non-problems, 2) the types of ID permitted tend to be the ones most common among the party demanding the new IDs and least common among their opponents, and 3) states enacting new ID requirements are not committing the funds and organizational structure to ensure that no citizen currently eligible to vote will be unable to do so when the new ID requirements lock in. The latter factor is a clear indicator that there’s something afoot other than protecting the purity and integrity of the electoral process. Many (perhaps all) of these measures are motivated by a desire to cull the rolls of demographic groups that tend to vote in ways that don’t favor the controlling political party in the legislatures.
I’ll believe the sincerity of these efforts to require new and different IDs when I see the money coughed up to fund outreach to every eligible voter to ensure that he/she gets his new, upgraded ID before the next election.
+1
@ed myers
I don’t believe you because your stories are unbelievable. You always have some little story that makes you into the victim to fit the topic being discussed, such as when you were “terrorized” by a cop.
Your “logic” on guns has been disproved by reality and that oh so “pro-gun” organization, the CDC.
Suicide rates don’t change with access to guns.
But I will say that your ideas are mildly amusing…as in…. “Aww….he can’t help himself….bless his heart.” amusing.
Rate in 1981: 12.3. Rate in 2014: 12.6.
Japan has no guns.
Many nations in Europe have higher or similar suicide rates.
States with higher percent of households with guns have higher suicide rates that states with lower gun ownership rates.
Can you document that and is it statistically measurable?
@Ed Myers
Bet you can’t find documentation.
Especially since there is no accurate record of gun ownership. Any such studies would be pure speculation and complete claptrap.
Google “suicide rates and gun ownership” and dozens of articles will pop up.
Fox Health has one: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/21/gun-ownership-tied-to-three-fold-increase-in-suicide-risk.html
Here’s a graph that shows the correlation between suicide rates and gun ownership rates:
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-suicide-rates
“The states with the highest levels of gun ownership have approximately twice as many suicides as the states with the lowest levels of gun ownership.
[…]
The three states with the highest suicide rates are Montana, Alaska and Wyoming, which have gun ownership rates of 52%, 62% and 54% respectively. The three states with the lowest suicide rates are the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and New Jersey, which have gun ownership rates of 26%, 23% and 11% respectively.”
Harvard repeats this opinion:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
That’s enough to win the bet. And Cargo proved my claim that he screens out any data that doesn’t fit his preconceived notions by the above prejudicial dismissal before review. . Scientist he is not.
I think anyone who has looked seriously at gun issues in the US, regardless of where they stand on this or that issue concerning regulation of firearms, understands the statistics that Ed has offered: there is a direct correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and death rates from firearms. The accurate response from the little-or-no-gun-regulation crowd should be to point out that those deaths are amped up by a large suicide component. But the correlation exists nonetheless.
That stands to reason. I just don’t like throwing suicides in with the gun statistics. I think there are enough gun deaths to have the conversation without leaching cases off the suicides.
I think we can also say that the more automobiles, the more wrecks and the more axes, the more toes chopped off.
I am not excusing gun behavior, however. As you know, I am a moderate on this issue. Right now, I am mad at the Bloomberg folks to going after McAuliffe. I dont like people who cant accept the reality of politics either.
@Ed Myers
“The three states with the highest suicide rates are Montana, Alaska and Wyoming, which have gun ownership rates of 52%, 62% and 54% respectively.”
They know this percentage as facts, do they? Funny, I don’t remember anything about gun registration in those states. What they DO have are long, cold winters, and white men. Those are closely related to suicide.
As for Harvard, Hemenway is a paid hack for gun control. He creates studies to demonize guns.
Suicide rates in 1990 were 12.5. In 2014, it was 12.1 according to SAVE.org. Meanwhile gun ownership skyrocketed. Thus, suicide rates do not change with access to guns.
In fact, gun HOMICIDE rates are dropping. Suicides have not. This is expected since age is most closely correlated to suicide.
According to CDC
42,773 suicides in 2014. pop: 318,857,056 Rate: 12.9
21,334 by gun rate 6.3
So…half did not involve guns even though the US is “awash” in guns.
27,596 suicides in 1981 pop: 229,465,316 Rate: 12.3
16,139 by gun Rate: 7.1
And this while gun ownership has skyrocketed. Conservative estimates put gun ownership at 43% of the adult population.
@Scout
“there is a direct correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and death rates from firearms.”
The above CDC statistics don’t agree with your assertion.
I said deaths, Cargo, not homicides. I also said that the correct response to that reality is to point out that the suicide component hikes up the numbers. One can make the argument that if people want to use guns to kill themselves, that should not be a concern that drives gun policy. There is probably plenty of room for disagreement among reasonable people about that, but it is at least an honest argument.
@Scout
I know you did.
And the CDC data shows that you are wrong.
The rate of gun death dropped while the suicide rate stayed about the same.
For suicides.
Gun death rate in 1981 was 7.1 Gun death rate in 2014 6.3 Thus, the rate DROPPED while gun ownership went up.
Gun death for ALL intents 1981: 34,050, with a rate of 14.6. That is for ALL deaths, accident, justified, murder, suicide, etc.
Gun death rate for ALL intents 2014: 33,599 with a rate of 10.2
Not only did the rate go down, the raw numbers went down, even though the population has grown by almost 100 million.and the number of gun owners has skyrocketed.
Your “intuition” does not match the CDC numbers.
Suicide by gun: dropped.
Accidents by gun: dropped
Murder by gun: dropped.
Those are the big three.
I am being honest. I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m lying.
The implication comes from within you, Cargo. Certainly not from me. i don’t work that way. You’ve been around long enough in these parts to know that. I’ve never slimed anyone anywhere in the blog world. And I’ve previously expressed my respect for you here.
My use of the word “honest” wasn’t directed at you personally. I was talking about the policy argument, generally.
I’ve seen enough comparative data to confirm the common sense notion that the greater degree of gun presence (measured by numbers of firearms per unit of population) is directly correlated to gun deaths (from all causes). I’ve seen good data on this both on a state-by-state basis and on a nation-by-nation basis. The data you cite reflect a time series. The data I am looking at (and probably Ed’s data are similar/related) show that whatever the death rate from firearms in various sectors, it is higher where gun ownership is more widespread. Your set and ours don’t contradict one another – they measure different things. I willingly acknowledge, however, that correlation is a tricky thing, however. It isn’t necessarily causation, and the gun death statistics include homicides, accidents, justified killings, and suicides. All that has to be unpacked and understood.
I offer no solutions for the US. I tend to think it’s an insoluble problem that is just a stain on American life in modern times. We’ve allowed it to get to this. Perhaps the best we can do is ban concealed carry and require much better training before issuing open carry permits. Culturally, we need to try to encourage a better understanding of risk and threat. As a gun owner, I could accept that, and it would not impinge on my (or anyone else’s) Second Amendment rights.
@Scout
“but it is at least an honest argument.”
I was probably feeling touchy for some reason and misread. You are right. I take it back.
“I’ve seen enough comparative data to confirm the common sense notion that the greater degree of gun presence (measured by numbers of firearms per unit of population) is directly correlated to gun deaths (from all causes).”
And yet, the data does not support that conclusion other than the logical extreme of if you remove all guns, there cannot be “gun deaths.” But murder and suicide don’t stop. And realistically, you cannot remove guns. And finally, utilitarian arguments are not valid against inalienable rights.
Why ban concealed carry when there is no problem with concealed carry? There is no logic in that since concealed carriers have been shown to be MORE law abiding than most, including cops.
And Virginia’s experience with open carry shows that no permit is necessary for safety.
Banning concealed carry and demanding permission from the state for open carry is most certainly an infringement on a right.
@Scout
Something you might enjoy reading about gun control and what you think you know.
https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/
How would stiffening requirements or banning concealed carry (except for law enforcement officers) impinge on Second Amendment rights? The courts have said repeatedly that the right is not without limits, is subject to reasonable regulation, and has refused in several recent cases to review local regulations concerning permitting. I think concealed carry has become a way for society to put its head in the sand about our attitudes toward guns, and has allowed a lot of people who either shouldn’t be carrying deadly weapons around or who have absolutely no need other than their inner insecurities to carry deadly weapons around knowing that their weaknesses can be hidden from others. By requiring open carry, we ensure that those of us who prefer not to assume the risk of being around feebly vetted civilians with weapons to move on to other venues. At the same time, it doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s right to carry.
Because the right is keep and BEAR.
Banning concealed carry is silly on its own since concealed carry does not and has not harmed society. That is not a reasonable regulation.
Requiring a permit to open carry is equal to requesting permission to exercise an inalienable right.
And the courts have ruled that one or the other MUST be allowed. And if you ban concealed and then deny a permit, you have infringed on the right again.
Your pseudo-psychological analysis is nonsense.
I am assuming that the permitting requirements for open carry would be fairly minimal – for example, range training and certification, lack of convictions and lack of mental illness and periodic re-evaluation. Stricter than Virginia’s current concealed carry requirements (which are an absolute joke – how did Herring and the State Police manage to find so many jurisdictions that had even more lenient regulations), but still not particularly onerous.
The Heller Court (and one subsequent case from the Supreme Court) have made the point that it is not reasonable regulation if the requirements are essentially a ban. However, banning concealed carry and a reasonable regulatory regime for open carry would, I think, pass constitutional muster.
I have known several folks who carry concealed weapons on their persons for personal psychological reinforcement, kind of like Linus’s blankie. I also have known people who carry concealed weapons because their worldview (or at least their Northern Virginia view) is that it is a very dangerous place out there, and that one never knows when, a la Mighty Mouse, they may be called on to disrupt a murder, an armed robbery, or some other violent event. The pairing of these psychologies with ready access to an ability to dispense instantaneous death offends my conservative notions of ordered liberty. If these folks had to carry openly and conspicuously, they might think a bit more about it, and I would at least have the option of removing myself from their vicinity as a matter or personal protection and self defense. I should have the ability and the State should not deprive me of it.
The point is that requiring a permit is asking permission, turning a right into a privilege.
As for Herring, etal, they didn’t find locales with weaker policies. They also banned from stronger locales. That is the point of the backlash.
The state is depriving you of nothing.
The 2nd gives the right to possess and bear arms. It says nothing about concealed.
I am confusing my issues right now.
Let’s go to my issue…I have a constitutional right to an abortion. There are all sorts of hoops which end up being permissions.
I think I started off on your side, didn’t I? I don’t remember because Corey Stewart was so absurd. He took my mind away.
Cargo and I went down the gun wormhole. But your post was largely focussed on voting rights. Cargo’s position on guns (I hope this is fair) is that permitting “abridges” 2A rights. He doesn’t say as much, but I think the logic of his first sentence (the substance of which one hears frequently) in Comment #41 is that permitting degrades a right into something else. The initial post makes the point that voting permissions are also limitations on rights. Recent efforts by some states to invalidate existing credential requirements will leave some eligible voters without an ability to vote unless they get new permits. Enthusiasts of minimalist or no regulation of gun possession might logically be expected to be opposed to additional permitting requirements for voting. I suspect, however, that that is very rarely the case.