Is Your Ideology Consistent?

[saveliberty]

Pertaining to our Constitutional rights, I would like everyone to do a gut check on their ideological consistency.

1) If a person shows up to vote on Election Day, how would you ensure he is not an illegal immigrant or a convicted felon without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to vote?

My state uses a photo ID. Why doesn't the law abiding citizen NOT want safe guards?

2) Have you find yourself ranting about how easy it is for illegals and criminals to vote?

Why wouldn't a law-abiding citizen WANT illegals and criminals to vote? Why do you term it a rant?

3) If a person shows up at a gun show to buy a gun, how would you ensure he is not an illegal immigrant or a convicted felon without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun?

The state has rules, they should be enforced. A law abiding citizen isn't the problem now are they?

4) Have you found yourself ranting about how easy it is for illegals and criminals to buy guns?

Ah, criminal don't usually buy guns...something about registering them. Frankly, I haven't heard anyone rant about this.

4) Crazed Muslims have killed a bunch of innocent people, so have you supported closer monitoring of, and/or stricter controls on, all Muslims? Explain.

5) Crazed gunman have killed a bunch of innocent people, so have you supported closer monitoring of, and/or stricter controls on, all gun owners? Explain.

Crazed gunman are the problem no? Why all the focus on law-abiding citizens then?

Instead of some (not so clever) wordplay, why don't you simply lay out your argument that conservative "ideology" is somehow inconsistent. Personally, I don't subscribe to any ideology, but I do take note of illogical and/or disingenuous arguments.

My comments in blue.

 

[g5000]

I think so.

I support Voter ID.

I am also in favor of some oversight in private sales...http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/269038-benedict-arnold.html...as long as it doesn't lead to de facto registration.

I oppose profiling, whether it be Muslims or gun owners.

How would you have oversight in private sales without de facto registration?

Background check the potential buyer, not the gun...leave serial numbers out of it.

I detailed it in a post, reproduced here:


I'd like to see ALL background checks handled differently...and in exchange for that compromise, ALL weapons transfers would need to be handle thru an FFL.

The compromise would be that all background check simply determine the legal illegibility of the purchaser...no firearm data is recorded in conjunction with a persons name.

And for that small concession, private sales would be subject to the same federal background checks that are required of FFL transactions.

Keep in mind, when Obama and the gun grabber talk about ending the "gun show loophole"...what they really mean is ending the private sales exception.

Interesting. This has given me an idea.

If we think we might want to vote one day, we have to prove our eligibility long before Election Day through the registration process. This gives the voter registrar time to verify you are a law-abiding citizen who is eligible to vote and put you on an approved list of voters. If you are an illegal alien, you do not end up on the eligible list.

From that point on, the onus is on the State to properly maintain that roll of registered voters. If you die, the State is required to remove you from this list, and so forth. If a dead person is on the roll, Voter ID won't remove them. The failure is on the State, not the voter.

You may then choose to vote or not vote.

So what about a gun buyer registration? If we think we might want to own a gun one day, we can prove our eligibility long before the next Gun Show through a registration process. This would give the gun registrar time to verify you are a law-abiding citizen who is eligible to buy a gun, and put you on an approved list of gun buyers.

From that point on, the onus is on the State to properly maintain that roll of registered gun buyers. If you die, the State is required to remove you from this list, and so forth. If they screw up the list, the failure is on the State, not the gun buyer.

You may then choose to buy a gun or not buy a gun.

If you do buy a gun, the seller just has to look you up on the approved buyer roll.

When you vote, no one knows who you voted for. When you buy a gun, no one knows what you bought, or how many you bought.

How's that sound?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

everybody already gets a background check at gun shows except for the occasional private buyer/seller...

40% isn't "occasional".
PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check

it's a fact that 99.9% of all terrorism is caused by Muslims

No it is not a fact.

i believe your source is inconclusive...

Our ruling

Mayor Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows OR the Internet.

The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old. Current regulations don’t allow direct tallies of sales of this sort. An undercover investigation found a great deal of internet activity, but it was sponsored by a mayor who seeks greater regulation. Groups opposed to greater regulation were asked to rebut the mayor’s assertion and did not respond.

other than a couple time almost all the other terrorist incidents were by Muslims....i consider terrorist events to be caused by enemies of the state.....not insane madmen on drugs or whatever....

 

[Missourian]

How would you have oversight in private sales without de facto registration?

Background check the potential buyer, not the gun...leave serial numbers out of it.

I detailed it in a post, reproduced here:


I'd like to see ALL background checks handled differently...and in exchange for that compromise, ALL weapons transfers would need to be handle thru an FFL.

The compromise would be that all background check simply determine the legal illegibility of the purchaser...no firearm data is recorded in conjunction with a persons name.

And for that small concession, private sales would be subject to the same federal background checks that are required of FFL transactions.

Keep in mind, when Obama and the gun grabber talk about ending the "gun show loophole"...what they really mean is ending the private sales exception.

Interesting. This has given me an idea.

If we think we might want to vote one day, we have to prove our eligibility long before Election Day through the registration process. This gives the voter registrar time to verify you are a law-abiding citizen who is eligible to vote and put you on an approved list of voters. If you are an illegal alien, you do not end up on the eligible list.

From that point on, the onus is on the State to properly maintain that roll of registered voters. If you die, the State is required to remove you from this list, and so forth. If a dead person is on the roll, Voter ID won't remove them. The failure is on the State, not the voter.

You may then choose to vote or not vote.

So what about a gun buyer registration? If we think we might want to own a gun one day, we can prove our eligibility long before the next Gun Show through a registration process. This would give the gun registrar time to verify you are a law-abiding citizen who is eligible to buy a gun, and put you on an approved list of gun buyers.

From that point on, the onus is on the State to properly maintain that roll of registered gun buyers. If you die, the State is required to remove you from this list, and so forth. If they screw up the list, the failure is on the State, not the gun buyer.

You may then choose to buy a gun or not buy a gun.

If you do buy a gun, the seller just has to look you up on the approved buyer roll.

When you vote, no one knows who you voted for. When you buy a gun, no one knows what you bought, or how many you bought.

How's that sound?

I like it.

And, like voting, just because you are on the list, that doesn't necessarily mean you own a gun.

If you are a CCW, the government already has a pretty good idea you might be a gun owner...so you lose nothing.

 

[Missourian]

It probably deserves it's own post...maybe you could get a mod to break it out on it's own.

 

[g5000]

The problem is crazy people, not their religion or their ownership of guns.

Owning a gun does not make your more prone to going crazy. Nor does being a Muslim. So monitoring or controlling people just because they fall into one of these groups is missing the forest for the trees.

Crazy people come from all walks of life. Some kill with guns, some with knives, some with bombs, some with gasoline, some with drowning.

We focus on the unusual, and write that large. Muslims are a tiny minority, so when one does something bad, it gets a lot of attention, and then narrow-minded people who know nothing more about Muslims than this one thing begin to form opinions about Muslims based on this one thing. Then every subsequent bad incident involving Muslims confirms their bias.

One one whacked out kid does a bad thing with an AR-15, suddenly all AR-15 are evils which must be removed from the face of the Earth.

This is not consistent or logical thinking.

 

[g5000]

I like it.

And, like voting, just because you are on the list, that doesn't necessarily mean you own a gun.

And even if it did, the best part is that it does not indicate how many you own.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Pertaining to our Constitutional rights, I would like everyone to do a gut check on their ideological consistency.

1) If a person shows up to vote on Election Day, how would you ensure he is not an illegal immigrant or a convicted felon without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to vote?

2) Have you find yourself ranting about how easy it is for illegals and criminals to vote?

3) If a person shows up at a gun show to buy a gun, how would you ensure he is not an illegal immigrant or a convicted felon without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun?

4) Have you found yourself ranting about how easy it is for illegals and criminals to buy guns?

4) Crazed Muslims have killed a bunch of innocent people, so have you supported closer monitoring of, and/or stricter controls on, all Muslims? Explain.

5) Crazed gunman have killed a bunch of innocent people, so have you supported closer monitoring of, and/or stricter controls on, all gun owners? Explain.

1) If a person shows up to vote on Election Day, how would you ensure he is not an illegal immigrant or a convicted felon without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to vote? gunna assume I'm running the place; I'd ask for the voter id card, just like everywhere else, and check him against my rolls.

2) Have you find yourself ranting about how easy it is for illegals and criminals to vote? no

3) If a person shows up at a gun show to buy a gun, how would you ensure he is not an illegal immigrant or a convicted felon without infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun? ask to see his gun permits.

4) Have you found yourself ranting about how easy it is for illegals and criminals to buy guns? not ranting, just pointed out that gun laws are only for honest citizens.

4) Crazed Muslims have killed a bunch of innocent people, so have you supported closer monitoring of, and/or stricter controls on, all Muslims? Explain. yes, just like checking on Italians due to the mob.

5) Crazed gunman have killed a bunch of innocent people, so have you supported closer monitoring of, and/or stricter controls on, all gun owners? Explain you can't get much stricter than public access to who is a gun owner.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How would you have oversight in private sales without de facto registration?

Background check the potential buyer, not the gun...leave serial numbers out of it.

I detailed it in a post, reproduced here:


I'd like to see ALL background checks handled differently...and in exchange for that compromise, ALL weapons transfers would need to be handle thru an FFL.

The compromise would be that all background check simply determine the legal illegibility of the purchaser...no firearm data is recorded in conjunction with a persons name.

And for that small concession, private sales would be subject to the same federal background checks that are required of FFL transactions.

Keep in mind, when Obama and the gun grabber talk about ending the "gun show loophole"...what they really mean is ending the private sales exception.

Interesting. This has given me an idea.

If we think we might want to vote one day, we have to prove our eligibility long before Election Day through the registration process. This gives the voter registrar time to verify you are a law-abiding citizen who is eligible to vote and put you on an approved list of voters. If you are an illegal alien, you do not end up on the eligible list.

From that point on, the onus is on the State to properly maintain that roll of registered voters. If you die, the State is required to remove you from this list, and so forth. If a dead person is on the roll, Voter ID won't remove them. The failure is on the State, not the voter.

You may then choose to vote or not vote.

So what about a gun buyer registration? If we think we might want to own a gun one day, we can prove our eligibility long before the next Gun Show through a registration process. This would give the gun registrar time to verify you are a law-abiding citizen who is eligible to buy a gun, and put you on an approved list of gun buyers.

From that point on, the onus is on the State to properly maintain that roll of registered gun buyers. If you die, the State is required to remove you from this list, and so forth. If they screw up the list, the failure is on the State, not the gun buyer.

You may then choose to buy a gun or not buy a gun.

If you do buy a gun, the seller just has to look you up on the approved buyer roll.

When you vote, no one knows who you voted for. When you buy a gun, no one knows what you bought, or how many you bought.

How's that sound?

does "eligibility" become a subjective perogative of the State.....?

this obviously means that mental patients must be reported to the State if suspected of being unstable....but this could be a problem....this puts the onus on the doctors and many would probably overstep the limits because of ensuing lawsuits....thus harming a group of people who shouldn't be banned...

it seems alot of these 'madmen' are simply young men on Prozac or something like that which causes them to go crazy....would that mean that all patients who take certain drugs cannot buy a gun....? what about others who take the drugs but are fine.....? how about women.....i haven't heard of any young women taking prozac go on shooting binges...