The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

The latter i can see for SOME perscriptions. Someone who takes vicodin cause of anxeity imo doesn't count as being too mental. Someone taking bLAH for high depression/Bi-polar, imo should.

That's what the psychologist is for.

We see eye to eye there, but i have seen SOME who advocate that the kin should also lose it, cause of how many times we have heard stories of someone who was barred, just knocking out the kin, and taking THEIR gun.. SO they feel that if the person's banned, so too in essence should his kin living with him or her..

It's a risk, but the simple fact of the matter is pretty much anything is a risk. What you need to find is the balance between freedom and safety. You will -never- remove guns from US culture, so you what you can to limit the risk.

On the Ex cons, i say it should depend on what they did. Misdemeanors that ranked up to where they went to jail. Serve your time, get out, and in say 2-4 years if you've kept your nose clean, then you can apply to get it back.
Went to jail for a felony, like say drug dealing, smuggling, low-grade sex assault (groping, flashing) etc, then its gone for a little longer, say 5-8 years after getting out you can re-apply. Rape, child assault, manslaughter and murder.. Its gone for good if you get out at all.

I disagree with all of this. No voting while serving a sentence, fine. Continued disenfranchisement after doing your time is ridiculous.

OF those i've personally argued the points with, it seems not to be 'what forms', it seems to be ANY requirement..

Well, not me. I do think that if you are going to require it, then it should be given to all -citizens- of voting age for free.

In ohio, yes. As i show my id, they look my name up, mark my vote sheet, have me sign the book by my name, then give me the sheet to hand to the person who walks me to the voting machine..

Same here, though we don't have to sign anything.

And how long will it take to squirrel those troops into play? IF longer than say 10 min, the bombers/missile launcher peeps might be long gone.

Sure, which is why I said they are not always a viable option.

Then we have a different definition of what closing our border is..
To me plugging up our porous border with Mexico by putting up that wall IS closing our border. It seems to me you see closing the border as a complete lockdown, no one in, no one out, whether by land/sea or air..

You are giving that impression.

[garhkal]

It's a risk, but the simple fact of the matter is pretty much anything is a risk. What you need to find is the balance between freedom and safety. You will -never- remove guns from US culture, so you what you can to limit the risk.

Strange then that in the attempt to limit risks (all those gun free zones), we see MORE crime/shootings there, than in free carry areas..

I disagree with all of this. No voting while serving a sentence, fine. Continued disenfranchisement after doing your time is ridiculous.

Disagree all you like. To me certain crimes deserve loss of rights for a LONG time.

Well, not me. I do think that if you are going to require it, then it should be given to all -citizens- of voting age for free.

New parents iirc need to pay for their baby's birth certificate. You want a DL, you pay for it. Same with a passport.
ALL THOSE are valid docs for voting and the first/last are good for proof of citizenship. Why should they be provided for free?

You are giving that impression.

If so, its not my intention. I've said many times, i have NO problem with legal immigration, just as long as they are legally here (not using fake schooling to get the visa etc), and go back when their time is up.

[Gatefan1976]

Strange then that in the attempt to limit risks (all those gun free zones), we see MORE crime/shootings there, than in free carry areas..

Gun free zones are not risk management, they are a band aid on a....... gunshot wound.

Disagree all you like. To me certain crimes deserve loss of rights for a LONG time.

Sure, we have fundamental disagreements on many things.

New parents iirc need to pay for their baby's birth certificate. You want a DL, you pay for it. Same with a passport.
ALL THOSE are valid docs for voting and the first/last are good for proof of citizenship. Why should they be provided for free?

Voting is a right granted by the constitution to all citizens, if the state wants to require documentation to exercise that right, then they should supply it.

If so, its not my intention. I've said many times, i have NO problem with legal immigration, just as long as they are legally here (not using fake schooling to get the visa etc), and go back when their time is up.

Just pointing out why you are coming off that way.

[Annoyed]

I disagree with all of this. No voting while serving a sentence, fine. Continued disenfranchisement after doing your time is ridiculous.

Gotta agree with GF on this one. Once your sentence is served, including post-prison probationary terms, voting rights should be restored.

Well, not me. I do think that if you are going to require it, then it should be given to all -citizens- of voting age for free.

We need to positively ID voters. Since that requires a photo ID, the state ought to pick up the tab for that. Under current constitutional law, no fee can be required to vote. That would extend to the cost of required documentation.

[Falcon Horus]

Strange then that in the attempt to limit risks (all those gun free zones), we see MORE crime/shootings there, than in free carry areas.

Gun-free zones -- a definition which I've always felt weird or bizar since most civilized countries are gun-free zones, as in no guns allowed except law inforcement, military personel or security guards permitted to carry a lethal weapon.

Gun-free zones are not actually, literally speaking, gun-free zones because people with the intent to harm others with a gun really don't give a damn wether a zone is gun-free or not. Would the laws make it harder to come by that lethal weapon, however, it would make more zones gun-free.

So, when you try that lame "more people die in a gun-free zone" excuse, you are just ignoring the very fact that it's not the zone's fault, but the part where people can easily get their hands on the previously mentioned guns and use them to hurt people in these zones, such as schools or public places.

Also, there are literally no statistics available to proof or disproof whether gun-free zones really do kill more people or are places with more crimes because, thanks to the NRA, the CDC can't actually do any studies towards figuring that out -- for the past 20 years even.

From an article about gun-free zones which was deemed mostly true by politifact:

"There is no definitive data to say that a gun-free zone has saved lives. In part, that’s because the CDC has been blocked from studying anything related to firearms for the last 20 years. And also because "saved lives" are hard to quantify.

However, there are many anecdotes, scholarly articles and federal studies with data showing that just the presence of guns can cause anxiety and increase aggressive behavior."

Source: How many lives would be saved by a gun-free zone?

For anyone interested: Gun free zone Law and Legal Definition

New parents iirc need to pay for their baby's birth certificate. You want a DL, you pay for it. Same with a passport.

I don't know about a birth certificate, but we do have to pay a small amount for a new ID-card every 10 years, a DL (once, unless you loose it somehow -- or you want the new variety in order to make sure it's valid in other countries outside of Europe), and a passport (depends on expediated or the long wait, more expensive if you need it quick).

[SoulReaver]

btw americans might wanna consider gun control for the SS since these guys like to play cowboy (worse they're protected by the same law they're supposed to enforce)

[aretood2]

Strange then that in the attempt to limit risks (all those gun free zones), we see MORE crime/shootings there, than in free carry areas..

You just see more "justifiable use of deadly force" from the police in those areas free carry areas...

Disagree all you like. To me certain crimes deserve loss of rights for a LONG time.

I'd question the assault on a minor thing, considering that these days a parent can be charged for simply slapping their kid's wrist with their hands. There's also the question of how one gets to losing their right to vote for life just because they wanted to get high for a little bit...

New parents iirc need to pay for their baby's birth certificate. You want a DL, you pay for it. Same with a passport.
ALL THOSE are valid docs for voting and the first/last are good for proof of citizenship. Why should they be provided for free?

I'm not opposed to an ID. However it's the methedology that has been used by the GOP that directly moves to exclude as many potentional Democrat votes as possible, as has been proven time and time again to happen, that's what worries me.
And until we have a system set in place that can quickly shot that down, I have to say no to ID laws. You want an ID law, pass a voting rights law that can't be gutted by a blind supreme court. I'll save you the time and effort. The GOP will never ever ever agree to that.

If so, its not my intention. I've said many times, i have NO problem with legal immigration, just as long as they are legally here (not using fake schooling to get the visa etc), and go back when their time is up.

The problem is that all too often that is the impression given by a lot of people. You don't want illegal immigrants because it's a matter of law and order? Fine, whatever. But then why do people go and make arguments like "Hispanics are dumber and more criminal" and "They are poisoning our wells, raping our women, burning our villages and drinking the blood of our children" type arguments. Essentially avoiding everything but the simple argument. It is also hard to see that simple legal argument when you can call a new born infant a criminal, that just doesn't make any sense.

Now you can say "that's not me" but I don't see you saying "That's horrible and I'm against it". In the general you. On the contrary, you voted one of those people into our highest office. Long story short, you talk a good talk but you have yet to walk the good walk.

We need to positively ID voters. Since that requires a photo ID, the state ought to pick up the tab for that. Under current constitutional law, no fee can be required to vote. That would extend to the cost of required documentation.

The state DMV's can provide that service too, there'd be no need for added infrastructure or anything. Just bring your proof of citizenship and done.

[garhkal]

Voting is a right granted by the constitution to all citizens, if the state wants to require documentation to exercise that right, then they should supply it..

Well, gun ownership is also a basic right granted by the constitution, in the bill of rights. VOTING didn't even make it in, till what, the 15th amendment. So shouldn't then the govt give people a gun by that logic of yours? YET LOOK at all the bloody laws we have restricting people's right to own guns.. Permit fees, class fees etc..

You just see more "justifiable use of deadly force" from the police in those areas free carry areas...

Funny, i see the #s being roughly the same..

I'd question the assault on a minor thing, considering that these days a parent can be charged for simply slapping their kid's wrist with their hands. There's also the question of how one gets to losing their right to vote for life just because they wanted to get high for a little bit...

Well, if one can lose their right to get a gun for life cause of just being CHARGED with domestic violence. then why not the right to vote for being CONVICTED? Why is one right ok to revoke for life, for a crime, but a different right Not?? Especially when that 2nd right comes further into our constitution than the first one??

I'm not opposed to an ID. However it's the methedology that has been used by the GOP that directly moves to exclude as many potentional Democrat votes as possible, as has been proven time and time again to happen, that's what worries me.

Aretood.. Are you trying to say that the majority of ID laws only target dems? How? Are they less likely to have ID than an equally situated republican? Are dem minorities (more likely to be on welfare) less likely to have ID than a rep that actually works?

The state DMV's can provide that service too, there'd be no need for added infrastructure or anything. Just bring your proof of citizenship and done.

But with how many states are allowing DLs to go to illegal aliens, HOW can a state trust that the ID is representing they are a citizen??

[Annoyed]

The state DMV's can provide that service too, there'd be no need for added infrastructure or anything. Just bring your proof of citizenship and done.

In theory, yes. In reality, no. Too many liberal states want to give illegals voting rights, and therefore would be lax in positive identification/verification before issuing a document that confers the rights of citizenship.

A good example would be NY. I recently had to go renew my driver's lic. in person because I was due for an eyesight test this time around.
I overheard enough of the conversation between the DMV flunkie and the person ahead of me (hispanic origin as far as I could tell) to know that she was doing the same thing, drivers lic. renewal.
The DMV flunkie asked this person no less than 4 distinct times if she wanted to register to vote while getting her license. The woman eventually said yes, I suspect just to shut the flunkie up about it so she could get her paperwork and move on to the next line.
Funny thing is, when it came to be my turn, the exact same DMV flunkie didn't even ask me once.

Unbiased, my arse.

[jelgate]

Their is a word for that. Starts with a G. Sometimes a S.

[mad_gater]

as for the guns issue.....societies that allow only the police and military to own weapons of any sort tend to not be too far away from forming an authoritarian dictatorship

[Coco Pops]

Dumbass father of four now to soon be in jail.

Why would you go attack people coming out of a place of worship?

[garhkal]

as for the guns issue.....societies that allow only the police and military to own weapons of any sort tend to not be too far away from forming an authoritarian dictatorship

Exactly. It's how China rules, NK rules and how germany ruled..

[Annoyed]

Exactly. It's how China rules, NK rules and how germany ruled..

And how the Democrats wish to rule....

[Falcon Horus]

as for the guns issue.....societies that allow only the police and military to own weapons of any sort tend to not be too far away from forming an authoritarian dictatorship

What the actual **** are you on about?!?

Does this even sound like any nation that has strict gun laws and where it's not easy to get a weapon -- legally.

1. limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
2. a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
3. minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
4. informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.