All Things Biden: Is It Over Yet?

[Hermit]

Well, there are pretty solid ways of affirming ID. It should be at least as challenging as getting a gun permit. Only a nut-case would be against properly identifying voters.

Or someone who wanted to gerrymander with forms of id, designed to exclude those who can't meet certain qualifications. Much simpler to just have good simple ID. Like the modern world, I mean.

You did not read my reply.

You did not answer my question.

I answered it twice.

Should people have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun? Or to vote?

Let's see now. In 2019 15,000 people were killed by guns in the USA, and another 25,000 used them to commit suicides. No data available yet on the numbers in 2020, but there is no reason to believe they will be much different. I looked, but could not find any information on how many people killed others or themselves in 2020 using votes.

...he said, avoiding the question as best he can.

OK, then. Since you pretend you can't see the answer in my previous post:
People should have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun.
People should not have a higher ID requirement to vote.

I gave you one reason for my reply above. There are more.

[Sean Hayden]

It's not arrogant. It's just what the numbers show.

--//--

The US is a big place where what holds for one area may not for another, I have to show ID to vote, for example, and it's actually easier to get one elsewhere. How fucking stupid is that?

I'm jealous of those who can walk up to a kiosk to renew their license --bastids!

Until recently I've always had to make a trip to the DMV, and even with the new online option I have to meet certain requirements that would be easy to fail.

That is the accepted line. I'm not sure it's true though, since it seems to presume a lot about the poor and non-white. Such as the arrogant suggestion that they are going to be Dem voters.

Being opposed to ID seems to be exclusively for voting. It's ok to demand it to drive, get health care or go to the city pool or gym. I don't know anyone who is opposed to requiring ID for any other reason, than wanting to support the American Democratic party accepted line about voter ID.

(I don't know, but I bet you have to identify yourself in your country, to vote)

[Cunt]

OK, then. Since you pretend you can't see the answer in my previous post:
People should have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun.
People should not have a higher ID requirement to vote.

I gave you one reason for my reply above. There are more.

That sounds good for Australia, but it conflicts with the US constitution, and with a whole bunch of voters who like the constitution.

It also sounds more collectivist than individualist, which I guess is why it rubs me the wrong way.

I think it is fairly simple to get a good ID on someone, and require it before voting. As to guns, it's nice if people get trained and licensed, but it isn't as important as voting.

If the wrong idiot gets elected, a bunch of brown people usually get bombed in a far-away country.

It's almost like the voting is a serious responsibility, with life-or-death consequences. Most guns are much less consequential.

[Hermit]

Well, there are pretty solid ways of affirming ID. It should be at least as challenging as getting a gun permit. Only a nut-case would be against properly identifying voters.

Or someone who wanted to gerrymander with forms of id, designed to exclude those who can't meet certain qualifications. Much simpler to just have good simple ID. Like the modern world, I mean.

You did not read my reply.

You did not answer my question.

I answered it twice.

Should people have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun? Or to vote?

Let's see now. In 2019 15,000 people were killed by guns in the USA, and another 25,000 used them to commit suicides. No data available yet on the numbers in 2020, but there is no reason to believe they will be much different. I looked, but could not find any information on how many people killed others or themselves in 2020 using votes.

...he said, avoiding the question as best he can.

OK, then. Since you pretend you can't see the answer in my previous post:
People should have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun.
People should not have a higher ID requirement to vote.

I gave you one reason for my reply above. There are more.

[Sean Hayden]

You're also wrong about opposition to IDs and who opposes them Cunt. Christ, requiring it for voting may be the only time Republicans and Libertarians think it's okay, and then only because they've put up with the bs for everything else!

[Sean Hayden]

It's almost like the voting is a serious responsibility, with life-or-death consequences. Most guns are much less consequential.

My vote actually doesn't matter Cunt. It's true, my vote will never decide an election.

[Cunt]

If you think of voting as 'use of force' (I do) then it starts being uglier fast. It means one WILL use force, and you get to vote which colour of club you would prefer, but not whether it is wielded by bureaucrats.

Because of this, I think less done by government is better. I think the stranglehold everyone has on necessities is a bit awful, because of how wealthy we are, but also a bit reasonable, since I don't think it is fair to steal the beans you grew, just because I want to feed 'the hungry'.

I do think the best Canada can do though, is to invent the 'Canadabean', which is the cheapest (most economical) most nutritionally complete food modern science can produce, then make enough of it to feed everybody.

One problem solved.

I think we could pass the hat, and get voluntary contributions enough to buy cheap beans for everyone. I'd throw six bucks in right now.

[Hermit]

OK, then. Since you pretend you can't see the answer in my previous post:
People should have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun.
People should not have a higher ID requirement to vote.

I gave you one reason for my reply above. There are more.

That sounds good for Australia, but it conflicts with the US constitution, and with a whole bunch of voters who like the constitution.

It also sounds more collectivist than individualist, which I guess is why it rubs me the wrong way.

I think it is fairly simple to get a good ID on someone, and require it before voting. As to guns, it's nice if people get trained and licensed, but it isn't as important as voting.

If the wrong idiot gets elected, a bunch of brown people usually get bombed in a far-away country.

It's almost like the voting is a serious responsibility, with life-or-death consequences. Most guns are much less consequential.

I don' know where you get the idea from that I am against IDs when it comes to voting. You asked:

Should people have a higher ID requirement to buy a gun? Or to vote?

I replied twice.

[Cunt]

I guess I see owning a gun as more like owning a car.

Voting is MUCH more important to protect. I don't care who owns what cars, as much as I care who votes. Non-legal votes rob EVERYONE voting. Maybe more than that.

An interesting recent take on voting made me take a step back. He said voting represented a failure, and should be seen as a last resort. If you and I are in a sinking rowboat, we don't need to vote on whether we bail, we agree, and (hopefully) move quickly and as a unit.

When we two (or two million) can't agree that clearly, we have to resort to one party getting their way. Not so great, really.

I'm liking the idea of consensus government more and more (though of course I hate it too)

[Sean Hayden]

But how did you come to see voter fraud as an equivalent problem, no, a bigger problem in the US than gun violence?

WTH happened?

[JimC]

That is the accepted line. I'm not sure it's true though, since it seems to presume a lot about the poor and non-white. Such as the arrogant suggestion that they are going to be Dem voters.

Being opposed to ID seems to be exclusively for voting. It's ok to demand it to drive, get health care or go to the city pool or gym. I don't know anyone who is opposed to requiring ID for any other reason, than wanting to support the American Democratic party accepted line about voter ID.

(I don't know, but I bet you have to identify yourself in your country, to vote)

Not really. Once over 18, you need to register to vote, which is easy. Then, at any election (State or Federal), you turn up at a polling station, they look up your name, cross you off the list and give you your voting papers. Simple.

[Hermit]

I guess I see owning a gun as more like owning a car.

Voting is MUCH more important to protect. I don't care who owns what cars, as much as I care who votes. Non-legal votes rob EVERYONE voting. Maybe more than that.

OMG. How much voter fraud has happened last year, and how many deaths has it caused?

As for guns, they killed around 40,000 in 2020.

Again, in case you missed it once more, I have never said there should be no ID checks when it comes to voting. You just keep putting those words in my mouth.

[pErvinalia]

(I don't know, but I bet you have to identify yourself in your country, to vote)

Nup.

[Cunt]

But how did you come to see voter fraud as an equivalent problem in the US to gun violence?

WTH happened?

I don't understand the resistance to voter ID, from folks who have NO resistance to firearm acquisition ID. Like I get the 'I don't need no ID, I'm 'Mercan' rednecks (well, I get it a bit) but if someone IS in favour of ID for guns (because they are consequential) but not in favour for votes, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

There is an idea presented sometimes that it excludes poor folk unable to navigate the bureaucracy, but if that's true, then the poor souls also have lost the right to bear arms by the same device. Ergo, unconstitutional. Or something.

[rainbow]

But how did you come to see voter fraud as an equivalent problem in the US to gun violence?

WTH happened?

I don't understand the resistance to voter ID, from folks who have NO resistance to firearm acquisition ID. Like I get the 'I don't need no ID, I'm 'Mercan' rednecks (well, I get it a bit) but if someone IS in favour of ID for guns (because they are consequential) but not in favour for votes, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

There is an idea presented sometimes that it excludes poor folk unable to navigate the bureaucracy, but if that's true, then the poor souls also have lost the right to bear arms by the same device. Ergo, unconstitutional. Or something.

It is the responsibility of the bureaucrats, to register anyone who is eligible to vote.
They shouldn't be making it harder for people to register.

If the Merkins are confused on how to do this they can ask the Civilised Countries how they get a near universal registration of voters, and can make it impossible for vote fraud to take place.