The Pub Discussion Board

Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion

You are not logged in.

#1 2016-09-24 20:15:47

Jefferson
Completely Blotto
From: East Coast, USA
Registered: 2006-12-03
Posts: 449

Two New Issues....

Two New Issues, pulled from today's headlines that I would like Opinions on:

There was a shooting at a mall in Washington State. As I write this, five people are dead and the shooter is still out there.

I am a strong believer that part of the reason the US government has been as stable as it has been over the last 240 years is because the American people all had guns. If some president decided to declare himself "King of America, for life" I can see American people, in the past anyway, rising up and dethroning the new king. I believe that our founding fathers were right to allow the American people to have guns to defend themselves, not just criminals or an invading army but also from our own government turned against us.

Now I will admit, our founding fathers could NOT have foreseen the wonderful variety of weapons we have today but I do believe the American people should do everything they can to defend the right to bear arms so, I will admit we need some basic rules. Bazookas and grenade launchers have never been legal. Those few individuals who do own them have to jump a lot of government hoops. Automatic weapons are also banned, and have been since the 1920's or so. I've never seen a good definition of what makes a rifle into an "assault weapon," and until I do, I refuse to support an assault weapons ban. While there is a lot of gun violence going on right now. There seems to be a lot of mass shootings, and then there are the terrorists. But I still support the right to bear arms.

So, opinions?

Next, there is a story coming out of Colorado of "Zombie Voters."

Now, I have been a fan of requiring a photo ID in order to vote since this whole thing became an issue. I live in Virginia and every time I've gone to vote in the last 20 years or so, they always ask me for ID and I smile as I show them my driver's license. I don't want someone else to be voting for me. Now, I've heard all of the arguments:

That it somehow denies black people the right to vote. How?

That some people don't have a photo ID. Who are these people and, under what rock, do they live?

...Ashe Schow of The Washington Examiner compiled a list of 24 things that require a photo ID.

You must have a photo ID if you are 25 or under and wish to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. Store signs say so. Want to open a bank account? Photo ID required. Here are the rest of the categories: applying for welfare, Medicaid and Social Security (presumably poor people take advantage of one or more of these programs); unemployment benefits (ditto); rent/buy a house, or apply for a mortgage; drive/buy/rent a car; get on an airplane; get married; buy a gun; adopt a pet; rent a hotel room; apply for a hunting or fishing license; buy a cellphone; visit a casino; pick up a prescription (or buy restricted over-the-counter medications); donate blood; apply for a license to hold a demonstration; buy an "M"-rated video game; purchase nail polish at CVS.


That voter fraud doesn't really exist. Click on the link I provided above, or the one below, and try saying that again with a straight face.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/yes-really-141 … ople-alive
(Alexandria, VA) – August 27  The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has put 141 counties on notice across the United States that they have more registered voters than people alive. PILF has sent 141 statutory notice letters to county election officials in 21 states. The letters are a prerequisite to bringing a lawsuit against those counties under Section 8 of the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

States with counties which received a notice letter are (# of counties): Michigan (24), Kentucky (18), Illinois (17), Indiana (11), Alabama (10), Colorado (10), Texas (9), Nebraska (7), New Mexico (5), South Dakota (5), Kansas (4), Mississippi (4), Louisiana (3), West Virginia (3), Georgia (2), Iowa (2), Montana (2), North Carolina (2), Arizona, Missouri, New York (1 each). Federally produced data show the letter recipients have more registrants than living eligible citizens alive.


My question, why wouldn't everyone support this? Most states nowadays, provide a photo ID even for those people who don't have a driver's license or can't get a driver's license. A lot of the states that are working on voter ID laws, are now providing state-issued photo ID's for free. So why is this a problem?

Last edited by Jefferson (2016-09-24 20:18:09)

Offline

 

#2 2016-09-24 23:46:03

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: Two New Issues....

Piece of information:  It doesn't require a photo ID to pick up a prescription.  You don't even have to be the person the prescription's for.  I have been picking up Keeshaba's prescriptions at Publix for years now.  They know I'm not her.  I even asked if I'm supposed to sign her name or mine on the little machine thingy.  They said, "Yours," so they don't care.  The only thing they ever ask is for the address, to verify they've got the right meds in front of them.

As to my opinion on both issues:
1. Given the intent of the founding fathers, the citizenry should have the legal right to possess ANY WEAPON the US Government does.  (Think this wasn't their intent?  Private individuals used to own cannons.)  It was the government they were worried about, not terrorists OR the guy breaking into your house.  Further, since the Second Amendment says very plainly that the right to keep and bear arms shall "not be infringed", that means (at least to me) that the government can do NOTHING that will make it more difficult for a person to own a (FUNCTIONAL!) weapon.  This may not sound safe to lots of people: I DON'T CARE.  It's what the Constitution says, and it really is what they intended.  If more people legally owned guns, carried guns, and knew how to use them, a lot of these mass shootings would end very differently, with far FEWER deaths.

2. If we don't know - And I mean GUARDDAMNED KNOW - who you are, how do we know you have any right to vote?  Any idiot can claim to be "Joe Schmoe".  That doesn't mean he IS Joe Schmoe.  Given that voting integrity is essential to our governmental process, there shouldn't be any question at all about verification of identity of the voters.  You can't afford an ID card?  REALLY?  In Florida, they cost $25 (and I thought that was excessive when I got here).  You really don't have the ability to set aside, say, $5 a month for 5 months?  $1 a month for 2 years?  There is no excuse for someone to not have photo ID except that they don't WANT one.  And if you don't have one, then you don't get to vote.  PERIOD.  Because we don't REALLY know who you are.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#3 2016-09-25 03:51:01

Fenixreign
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2014-08-02
Posts: 255

Re: Two New Issues....

They do tend to require Photo ID for Schedule 2 Drugs such as the Opium derivatives like Methadone, Vicodin, Hycet, Oxcodone and OxyContin.  If you are going in there and they have seen you picking them up for her for years, you might get away with it for a bit longer, but eventually, you WILL be carded.

Offline

 

#4 2016-09-25 04:12:14

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: Two New Issues....

Any of THOSE drugs would require her to be there in person, showing photo ID, and probably signing something more than their stupid "Yes, I accepted your pharmaceutical advice" screen.  She doesn't have any of those meds in her prescription list.

They also won't contact your doctor to get a refill-extension (once your original refills have run out) on those kind of drugs.  You have to do it personally (and it will probably require a doctor visit.)

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#5 2016-09-25 13:13:04

Fenixreign
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2014-08-02
Posts: 255

Re: Two New Issues....

You are right about the Drug thing, Eric, in most cases.  I can pick up for family (I have) as long as the last name matches and the address is the same.  Well, at least, that is the case around me; that may not be the case everywhere.

As for the Zombie voter issue, State ID's should be subsidized anyway.  They are required for enough things that they should be free.  Driver's licenses should still have a fee as should any other form of ID since they are NOT required, but a privilege.  If you make the State ID's free, you can require them for voting and knock out the main argument the nut jobs use to say it is discriminatory.

On the gun issue, the concept of mutually assured destruction was a deterrent for nuclear war.  It works for the smaller scale just as well.

Third issue:  The biggest mistake made in U.S. Supreme Court history was in confirming a lower court's ruling that the "Commerce" clause in the Constitution could be used as justification for new powers Congress was demanding.  The case was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).  Without that ruling, the others that expanded those powers and took them away from the individual States (violating the 10th Amendment in the process) would never have happened.  Now, we are starting to see a bit of backlash on the matter as states like Texas attempt to pass 10th Amendment assertion legislation.

Offline

 

#6 2016-09-25 18:28:00

Jefferson
Completely Blotto
From: East Coast, USA
Registered: 2006-12-03
Posts: 449

Re: Two New Issues....

You know, I saw this today:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/297 … ge-illegal

Basically the ACLU sued the state of Ohio and got a judge to agree that purging voter rolls of dead voters, or voters who have left the state was somehow wrong. That voters who hadn't voted in a while might be struck from the rolls and got this judge to stop the purge.

So how do we fix this? Then it hit me. We can't strike the voters from the rolls because it wouldn't be fair. So let's make it fair.

After EVERY Election, the voter roll is shredded, burned and thrown in the dumpster out in the alley. Each time you want to vote in an election, you have to go register again. You have go down to City Hall or the DMV or down to your local church where they will have voter registration drives, show them ID, show them proof of citizenship and then you can vote in the next election. This process of registering voters, again, would, of course, begin the day after the previous election and you would be registered to vote for one more year. This way, no one can say it's not fair because EVERYONE will thrown off the roll, not just a few or a hand full, everyone. Equal under the law, right? Those who died in the last year are not going to come out to register. Those who have moved out of state, are not going to come out to register. Those who don't want to vote, won't register. Problem solved. Add in showing a state-issued photo ID when you go to vote and we wouldn't have the issue of "Zombie Voters" anymore.

Offline

 

#7 2016-09-25 21:48:03

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: Two New Issues....

What I find disturbing about the article you linked to, Jefferson, is that it isn't good journalism.

Nowhere in the article did they actually elaborate on what criteria the state was using to remove people from the voter rolls.  It mentions the "Supplemental Process" method, but I haven't the foggiest notion what that is.  Good journalism would not require me to go look up information crucial to the story.

I bring this up because journalists are often most responsible for people's perception and opinion of events, and this article does lean heavily in one direction because of the report's lack of clear informational content.  Perhaps the state was vastly wrong in what they were doing.  I have no clue, because I don't actually know what they were doing.  Now, I'm so skeptical of reporters at this point that I write an article like this off as pointless bullshit and get on with my life.  Others, however, accept the "tone" of the article without bothering to think about the facts not mentioned, and that means that journalists are as often to blame for our ills as Congress is.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson