Conservative admits no voter fraud

Post Reply New Topic

-
It's not for the license. There usually isn't a license required in most states to buy a firearm or posses them. The states and cities that do require a licence just to purchase a firearm are typically politically liberal.


You ARE kidding, right? Firearm ownership, as a right, has a long history of being trampled. Like Dox said, much of it has its roots in racism. Really, how far into this do you need to be taken in this history lesson?


You're going to have some examples of people being f***ed by the system in just about anything you look at. If we have to screen firearm buyers at their expense for each purchase because the odd one might be on record as mentally ill or have a record then we can do the same for voters to weed out the odd fraudulent voter.
I have no problem at all with anyone voting, regardless of political affiliation, because it is a right. However, it cannot be forgotten that it's not the only right.
Honestly, I'm starting to think that I'm more reasonable as a conservative than you'll even allow yourself to be as a liberal.

Last edited by Raptor on 22 Mar 2014, 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

I didn't have to pay for anything but the purchase price of the gun I selected.You mean people have to pay extra in some states? I was unaware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

If requiring an ID constitutes repression, what about these?

6/15/2012 - President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign checked the identification of the supporters attending Obama’s “framing” event at Cuyahoga Community College today. The 1,500 supporters in attendance picked up tickets at campaign offices in Northeast Ohio beginning on Monday, though tickets to the event made no mention of an ID requirement. …

7/10/2012 - NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See AG Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID.

This is what it's really about:

11/7/2012 - Obama lost in every state that requires a photo ID to be produced before voting.

I purchased at a hardware store,they did a background check,didn't take long but I don't remember having to pay for it.Maybe I did and they just figured that into the price.

Depends on the state.

Thank you for the link.
From what I gleaned from the Wiki entry was that the bill road in on an anti-immigrant, nativist fervor, though it said nothing about it being the cause. And it pointed out that the first person to be arrested due to the Sullivan bill was in fact connected to organized crime.

No, I'm not joking.
And while in the past there had been racist motivations behind guns laws, where today is a fee for a gun license racial motivated?

I only did what you could have done and highlighted Sullivan Act, right clicked, and selected search Google and the wiki article was the first thing that came up. There are other sources, though.

Well the lawmakers weren't going to come right out and publicly say "Were doing this to keep Italians from getting guns". It's all about intent and timing.
So find me a republican lawmaker that came out and publicly said "we're doing this to keep blacks from voting" where voter ID laws are concerned. If not then, by your own rules, you have no case for voter suppression.

Last edited by Raptor on 22 Mar 2014, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't say that I doubted that the Sullivan Act had been directed against Italians. I only stated that the article hadn't definitely made that connection. For the record, I tend to think it likely that had been the intent. I was a little standoffish to say that I thought it was because I'm too used to you and Dox jumping on my back for "making assumptions" - even though it was you guys who had brought the Sullivan Act up.

-Could it be that we've both repeatedly taken you by the hand and factually and logically exposed the fallacy of gun control for you to have you agree then, only to have you repeatedly fall back to your protectionist progressive party default setting on this?

-Could it be that you look at rights with blinders on, even though doting on being a *liberal (you know, open minded. tolerant, and all that jaz)?

* And before we go there, I'm a conservative. We don't hang our hats on being open minded. tolerant, and all that jaz.

Just because I might concede some points to you and Dox hardly means I'm changing my opinions.
And in all honesty, I'm not all that anti-gun - I might just appear that way to gun fetishists. I have always believed that with rights comes responsibility - it has nothing to do with looking at rights with blinders on. That means owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right. And anyone who imagines they need guns to enforce "second amendment remedies" on the federal government, or that the second amendment exists to one day overthrow the government, probably needs to take a competency test, because such persons are clearly dangerous.
And finally - - You're a conservative?!?! NO!! !! But seriously, what's possibly wrong with tolerance and open mindedness? What evil comes from being tolerant and open minded?
And by the way, tehre are far more important things wo worry about

No student ID should ever be acceptable. Too easy to fabricate. State-issued IDs have anti-tampering, anti-forgery features. And, yes, I've been to the DMV...no problem, and for an ID card, they can always make it a priority to help people get them. Besides, if you are WORKING, you pretty much need an ID/DL because how many times are you going to be asked for it? You can't get a job without ID now. You can work for yourself, but unless you walk or bicycle everywhere and never need to buy anything that they will ask for an ID....

And what do you mean by "any form of ID that a Democratic voter might use"? Are Democrats ideologically opposed to going to the DMV and getting an ID card or bringing their DL to the polling place? Why is one group seeing no problem doing it but the other side acting like it's the equivalent of hacking your arm off at the elbow?



That both sides do it is meaningless. That Democrats want to point the finger at Republicans when they (in essence) do exactly the same thing illustrates their hypocrisy. Arguably, Republicans could employ the same tactics to get people to vote illicitly because of no voter ID laws being in place, but they want to eliminate that problem. If they pushed for tighter enforcement of anti-gerrymandering laws and the Democrats opposed it, the issue would be the same.



No, a lot more happened than just that. Many were armed and made aggressive gestures towards non-black voters attempting to enter the polling place.

In my area, you are not allowed to have any campaign material within X feet of the door of the polling place, and you can not do anything more than offer a "sample ballot" to passing voters (a page showing what the ballot looks like with your candidates selected). You are not supposed to say anything beyond "good morning/afternoon" as they attempt to enter the building. You are not allowed to do anything that MIGHT intimidate them. Any complaint is grounds to be told to leave and/or have the police called to remove you from the property.

Yeah, but it seems to be the same things over and over.


You're either pro or anti. Gun fetishist is an anti-gun term.


They can imagine whatever they want. Now you're advocating thought control.

Nothing, if you actually ARE open minded and tolerant and not just selectively so. Liberals seem to be selective about open-mindedness and tolerance yet they are the ones that preach it.

It's pointless to discus anything on this forum (PPR). We only do it just because.

If liberals are ever intolerant, it's because we fail to see the need to be tolerant of the intolerant.
You yourself said that as a conservative, you're not tolerant.
And a gun fetishist isn't every gun owner. It's someone who thinks the whole constitution revolves around the second amendment, and has the most bizarre gun fantasies.