freeman2 wrote: I also think with the rise of right-wing radio since the 1990s, Fox News, and the Internet anti-government positions with regard to raising taxes and gun control have hardened.

You were doing so well in stating your beliefs, then you got to this.

One could just as easily argue that anti-gun nuts, like Bloomberg, have had more effect than the others. There are also cities (Chicago, DC) and States (MA) that have put such restrictions on owning/buying guns that they might as well be illegal.

I don't see how that impasse can be resolved unless you had a Constitutional Amendment that more clearly spelled out gun ownership rights and the limits of gun control.

The beauty of the US Constitution is its simplicity. An amendment of the type you describe would need to be longer than the rest of the Constitution put together. That's not going to happen, and nor should it.

The only way would be to repeal the 2nd amendment altogether, which is very unlikely to happen.

I agree that guns should have restrictions to who can own them (as I have stated before for mental defect, felony, etc), but not what guns should be owned. This is very similar to cars. There are restrictions of who can drive, but not what you drive. There are some cars that are used primarily with illegal activity (speeding with formula 1 racers).

Since I was honest about my intentions concerning guns v freedom (thanks for the props, RickyP), I would like to see if the opposition explain the dichotomy between gun restrictions/legislation and voting restriction/legislation, as they are both listed as rights in the Constitution, but car driving is not.

You need to show ID to drive, ID to buy a gun, but not ID for voting.

Please explain the difference.

I don't think I was the one who brought up cars, btw.

Brad, I'm willing to bet that you also believe in restrictions on the types of weapons that can be privately owned. Bear in mind that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that the citizen's right to keep and bear guns shall not be infringed, it says 'arms'. That could include anything from a bowie knife to a tactical nuclear warhead. It tends to be pragmatically interpreted as applying only to guns, but there's no objective basis for this really, it's a political decision where the line is drawn at the point that a majority of Americans would consent to it. I've come across a few extreme libertarians who believe that if the government can have nukes or sarin shells then the citizen should be able to buy them too, but I suspect that even you wouldn't go quite that far.

How does this answer my question explaining the difference between voting and the 2nd Amendment?

I was responding to the first of the two points you made. Not sure the second is a valid question really, because opposition to voter ID laws is not usually on the basis that it's unconstitutional, more that it's undemocratic. Clearly these voter ID laws are permissible within the constitution or they'd all have been struck down by the USSC.

I don't necessarily object to voter ID laws anyway. I did think that certain Republican states were using them cynically by bringing them in at short notice with a view to suppressing the black vote, but in principle if proper notice was given and valid ID was made cheap and easy to obtain then I don't see why they'd be so bad.

bbauska wrote:I don't think I was the one who brought up cars, btw.

No, you weren't. But your comment on them was what I was responding to. Is that not allowed, now?

Sass, you have hit upon the essential issue with 2nd Amendment arguments. It does not specify the type of arms, and we certainly have restrictions on private ownership of chemical or biological weapons as well as nuclear. I don't know if it would be legal to have a SAM sitting in you back yard out there, but I suspect it would be frowned on by the Federal Government. Even if they were legal to own, I suspect there would be a lot of restrictions.

It's not voter ID I have problem with, so much as the political use of it and selective nature of fear of issues with voting. In the 2012 elections we saw problems with a different kind of 'fraud' - partisan registration drivers that selectively omitted to send on to the authorities forms for people they thought might be more likely to vote the other way. Florida and Virginia, wasn't it? Some voting law changes have been struck down, but mainly because of conflict with legislation that came in to end Jim Crow, rather than the USC.

I have not heard of any complaint here about people having NBC weapons, and military grade electronic systems. Perhaps that is a large bit of hyperbole?

(The comment about cars was not out of frustration, just clarification.)

I saw some interesting stats this morning in the WSJ on gunshot and stab wounds for the US for violent attacks. In 2010 there were 34,058 stab wounds which resulted in death 1.7% of the time. In 2010 there were 32,419 gunshot wounds that resulted in death 13.9% of the time. This suggests that gun ownership is at least partly responsible for more fatal outcomes.

The article accompanying the stats was about improved trauma care which has resulted in declining death rates for either type of violent attack. In 2007 the fatality rate for stab wounds was 2.0% whereas the fatality rate for gun shot attacks was 15.8%. Although the number of gunshot and stab wounds have each increased over the last 3 years, the number of deaths from either has declined.

bbauska wrote:I have not heard of any complaint here about people having NBC weapons, and military grade electronic systems. Perhaps that is a large bit of hyperbole?

No, they are examples of how the 'right to bear arms' doesn not mean the right to whatever type of arms any individual wants. There are restrictions, and presumably they are Constitutional. So different restrictions are not necessarily unconstitutional either. The answer to any suggestion of change with "well change the Constitution / repeal the 2nd Amendment" is not sufficient - you would need to explain why such a change would be contrary to the current wording and interpretation of the USC.

Then why cannot the voting ID laws be restrictive as well? I can make restrictive hyperbole just as much as thee.

I would have answered this yesterday, but Christmas Party day at our house took precedence.

The voting laws are restrictive. Currently the right to vote is restricted by age, but in the past there have been other restrictions.

Look, I don't know why you're persisting with this line, it doesn't make any sense. These are not related issues and there's no benefit to conflating the two. I'm not really sure where you get the 'hyperbole' accusation from either. I simply pointed out that your statement saying that you don't believe in any form of restrictions on the type of weaponry that should be permitted to the citizen is factually incorrect. In doing so I obviously assumed that you do favour restrictions on the ownership of WMDs and the like, and perhaps I misjudged you there, but I don't think so. The point to this is obviously to illustrate that the 2nd amendment isn't perhapos as clear cut as it's made out to be and that in fact its interpretation in the law is the result of political compromise. It's possible to concede that point without changing your views about legal ownership of guns one iota.

But anyway, if you insist then I'll answer your question. I don't think laws introducing voter ID requirements should be seen as in breach of the US Constitution and I fully accept that states should have the right to pass these laws if they wish. In saying that I do still think that many of these laws have been introduced cynically in order to disadvantage the Democratic vote, but nevertheless I wouldn't say there was anything fundamentally wrong with them and so long as they're applied fairly and reasonably then I don't even think they're especially unfair. Like I said before, I really don't get how this has anything to do with the subject matter in this thread.

The reason that I think it is hyperbole is because the person who pulled a weapon did not bring a LAW rocket, WMD, tac Nuke or even a .50 caliber MG. He brought a legally purchased weapon that is allowable for anyone to own.

The bringing up of WMDs, military grade weapons, etc. is hyperbole, and not applicable to the situation.

On a side note, a NFL player killed a NFL practice player with booze and a car. Where are the calls for cars to be outlawed and booze to be restricted? My point is punish the people who do evil to the fullest extent of the law. Do not restrict those who do not do evil.

Why do I constantly bring up voting? So many want to get rid of the right to bear arms w/o changing the 2nd Amendment. I am offering other Amendments that can be "disregarded".