Buckeye State Blog - Should conceal carry be easier than voting? - Comments

Re Voting vs buying a gun

OHIOCHL — Tue, 29 May 2007 07:52:08 -0700

First I am not a Republican, thanks for assuming. Second let’s go thru your list:

"yes, there is a background check for voting. many states bar felons from voting. that's why states match and purge voter files on a regular basis.

Gee you have to commit a felony to be barred from voting…that’s a pretty high standard you have there. I will concede that some states bar felons…however ALL potential gun owners in ALL 50 states have to undergo a Federal Instant FBI background check.

yes, there are reasons one cannot vote. being incarcerated. being a felon who has not received his/her right to vote back. are they different than a conceal carry license? yes. but they still exist.

Not in all States…being incarcerated generally prevents one from owning/possessing a firearm. Once convicted of a felony, one can NEVER own/possess a firearm legally (ask G. Gordon Liddy).

yes, you do have to prove who you are. in addition to the aforementioned id check, board of election send mailings to registered, but inactive, voters. if it bounces back, they can bounce you from the rolls.

Not even in the same class, how can you compare a simple presentation of a State driver’s license or other id to a comprehensive FBI background check. The original preposition that buying Sudafed or voting was more difficult then buying a gun is proved wrong just by the depth of the background check required. The standards are higher for buying a firearm no two ways about it.

now, let's turn this around. after all, you're just comparing registration -- not the act of voting (or carrying a concealed weapon). do you think gun owners would tolerate the following: -- anyone can challenge a voter's right to vote, both before the election and/or at the polls. if challenged beforehand, the voter must prove that he/she should be allowed to vote. would you put up w/ this every time you wanted to go to the shooting range?

Potential/Current gun owners are challenged every single time they go to purchase a firearm, that is what the background check does. Every single time I purchase ammo I have to present id confirming my age. Every time you stopped in an official capacity by law enforcement while carrying a gun you have to prove you are not a prohibited person under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Sometimes at gunpoint. Would you put up with that?

-- both voter registrations and voter histories are a matter of public record, unlike gun ownership.

Not so quick, we still have a secret ballot system in the United States. I am aware that you can get party affiliation, but please show me where I can get my voter history in Ohio (I am curious, I want to check my own). As for gun ownership, every single time you purchase a firearm the BATFE is notified and despite their pleas to the contrary a national registry of gun owners exists. This information is available to any law enforcement agency investigating a crime committed with a firearm.

As for voter history, I am not so sure that this should be available either. So you have won me over to making voter history private.

"Those without swords can still die upon them"

i love it when republicans talk about voting!

bryan — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:21:55 -0700

there's just so much anger over access to voting!

shall i deconstruct (i.e. rip to shreds) your arguments?

yes, there is a background check for voting. many states bar felons from voting. that's why states match and purge voter files on a regular basis.

yes, there are reasons one cannot vote. being incarcerated. being a felon who has not received his/her right to vote back. are they different than a conceal carry license? yes. but they still exist.

now, let's turn this around. after all, you're just comparing registration -- not the act of voting (or carrying a concealed weapon). do you think gun owners would tolerate the following:

-- anyone can challenge a voter's right to vote, both before the election and/or at the polls. if challenged beforehand, the voter must prove that he/she should be allowed to vote. would you put up w/ this every time you wanted to go to the shooting range?

-- both voter registrations and voter histories are a matter of public record, unlike gun ownership.

shall i go on?

King

mattn — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:10:13 -0700

Take it easy on King- He has to support gun control, or he wouldn't be allowed to attend the Cuyahoga County GOP afternoon tea parties.

King care to back up your comments

OHIOCHL — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:58:21 -0700

Gosh where do I start. How about you previous FFL #, cause I can look it up on the BATFE website. I am always suspicious of those who parrot the anti-gun talking points and then try to make fly by stating: "For those that don't know, I am Republican, gun owner, and held a FFL license before. Am an avid hunter and was raised with guns around the house daily." So lets call you on that 1st, if you can back it up, then we can go on to discuss your Soros like ideas on "reasonable gun control" "Those without swords can still die upon them"

Easier than Voting....BS

OHIOCHL — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:52:17 -0700

This has to be the stupidest comment made yet. Let’s look at why registering to vote and actually voting are easier:

No FBI/State background check for voting.

No disqualification for being "adjudicated mentally defective" Hell that would stop allot of voters right there.

No disqualification for misdemeanor drug offenses (like being a pothead).

Can register damn near anywhere, library, DMV, dude on the street. I have never been able to renew my CHL on the street.

No fingerprinting.

No convictions, under indictment for domestic violence in ANY State at any time. Leaves out the wife beaters.

No education requirement. Any idiot can vote. At least with the CHL there is a test.

No poll tax......CHL background check cost money (non-refundable).

You have to actually prove who you are and have it verified, no simple flashing of driver's license which any illegal alien can get or forge.

Shall I go on? For those of you still with us here check out the following two links and see if you had to go thru any of this to vote.

I imagine if this was a requirement the Left side out the house would find themselves quickly disenfranchised:

http://www.clermontsheriff.org/downloads/CCW%20Disqualifiers.pdf

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b5

Try reading this one at one sitting it is just the Federal Firearms Regulations none of the tens of thousands of State laws:

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/index.htm Now tell me again how it is easier to buy a gun than vote?

"Those without swords can still die upon them"

I may not have a right to purchase Sudafed

DelCo Dem — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:35:17 -0700

But I do have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and SPEAK about Sudafed on the Statehouse lawn, provided that I get a PERMIT in accordance with Ohio law (OAC 128-4-02). Just ask the Military Families Speak Out organization.

my post wasn't about gun

trimmtrabb — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:03:25 -0700

my post wasn't about gun licensing. it was about purchasing guns at a gunshow vs. purchasing sudafed at CVS. one is regulated, the other basically is not. what's out-of-bounds or unfair in that comparison? i think it makes a salient point.

i'm not especially keen on regulating either, but if i had to choose, i'd rather the guns be more strictly regulated.

Well, Bryan, you've got to understand

bonobo — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:42:25 -0700

We, as a nation, face a scourge called voter fraud. Thousands, if not millions of people are illegally voting and destroying our democracy. If and when we ever develop a problem with gun violence, then we'll look at more tightly regulating gun possession.

"Our" legislature

AmberCat — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:10:28 -0700

will seemingly do almost anything to avoid having to deal with the issues that really impact on the quality of peoples' lives, which is why we're going to retire more of them next year. This is why Ted Strickland's approval ratings are so high: I'm sure he thinks this is a waste of time in the face of all the other problems the state has and you haven't heard him talking about prioritizing this — because he's a gun owner and he undoubtedly knows that more laws aren't needed for law-abiding citizens to keep their guns — that this type of law is clearly designed to make it easier for fringe and criminal elements to stock up and hence put more money in the pickets of the manufactuers, the true constituency of the NRA.

Busy with King's Right Site,

King — Wed, 23 May 2007 12:52:20 -0700

Busy with King's Right Site, working, planning Strawberry Festival & Car Show for Bedford Historical Society, coaching T-ball, being sick of Bumbling Bennett's fight to clear his name, learning Roger Synenberg of the CCRP donated over $5000 to Tubbs-Jones & Kookcinich.

I will be posting about this ignorance later tonight.

Had to comment on this one over the sheer ignorance. I will defend our right to "Keep and bear arms" until my last breath, but I will never condone arming someone who is not trained.

I also believe that guns do not kill people, people kill people. The argument that guns kill people would be the same as blaming your pencil for misspelling a word.

I ask.... how many hours does it now take for driving lessons? Does anyone know? I bet it is almost 12 hrs, if not more.

Why this question? Because an automobile and a gun can both be lethal weapons. They can both be dangerous to the public and the gun owner, if not properly trained.

The CCW holder in this link is why I say 12 hrs is not enough training.

I am really looking forward to a good debate (fight) and to hear what the gun nuts have to say in dispute of my post. Funny thing is many have never shot more than a BB gun, have never looked down the barrel of a gun from the other end and have never been shot at, so I welcome their feeble arguments.

King

gosh, dude

bryan — Wed, 23 May 2007 11:53:41 -0700

probably the same one that guarantees the right to purchase assault weapons and carry concealed guns. oh, that's right, there isn't an amendment that does either.

there is, however, an amendment that protects private ownership of guns in the context of a well-armed militia. seems to be kinda self-limiting, huh?

Constitution

CincinnatiDude — Wed, 23 May 2007 11:39:44 -0700

Which amendment is it that guarantees the right to purchase Sudafed again?

blast from the past

2010 Buckeye — Wed, 23 May 2007 10:20:13 -0700

king where have you been? we've only had matt posting here, so we've been missing a reasonable conservative to debate.

apparently ralph...

Eric Vessels — Wed, 23 May 2007 09:17:09 -0700

idiots abound!

Only an idiot

King — Wed, 23 May 2007 07:47:56 -0700

would think this is a good idea!!!

For those that don't know, I am Republican, gun owner, and held a FFL license before. Am an avid hunter and was raised with guns around the house daily.

I was against the recent watering down of the carry concealed law as it promotes handling of guns by unqualified people.

You have to be a complete moron and/or have minimal knowledge of firearms to believe 12 hrs of firearm training would qualify anyone to be considered competent in handling a firearm in a safe manner.

Then again, I also believe all guns SHOULD be registered and licensed. Pro gun nuts basic arguments against registration and licensing are weak and to be honest, I feel work against their effort.

I am quite aware of recent events about CCW holders and is why I believe in our right to bear arms. I will also continue to advocate my belief, but I will not go along with something I believe is a fundementally unsafe practice, just to be accepted by the gun nuts.

So gun nuts, get your feeble arguments ready!

King

Should conceal carry be easier than voting?

bryan — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:05:51 -0700

Jill has a post on a potential update to Ohio's conceal carry gun laws. The change: no more permit required. Yep. I'm sure the righties will be goosestepping down to the Statehouse for this one soon enough.

Since I've been thinking about our voting processes as of late (and, no, not in the "stolen" sorta way), I wonder: why in the hell should it be easier to carry a concealed weapon than it is to cast a vote in Ohio?!

Ponder with me, dear readers. If you wanna pack heat, you pick out your gun, the dealer checks a database and, if you aren't a felon/terrorist/naughty-person, the gun is yours. (You'd wait 3 business days if there's a problem.) The police can't keep a record of the purchase. Like to pack hidden heat? Take a color photo, a check, and proof of some safety course to your county sheriff. You'll get a license good for four years.

Compare this to voting. In Ohio, you have to fill out a registration card with your name, address, etc. It's a public record, as is your voting history. Once you're registered, you can actually be challenged and forced to prove you should be able to vote.

To exercise your right to vote, you have to go on a designated day during designated hours to a designated location, sign in, provide proof of identity, and (hopefully) vote. Even then you can be challenged by a complete stranger. Or you can fill out a long application, mail it in, and hope the BoE sends your ballot on time.

(Before some asshat says, "bryan, what about all the regulations the dealers face?" -- what about all the regulations our BoE and SoS face every day?)

Um, what the hell is wrong with this picture? In Ohio, it is easier to buy a gun than it is to vote. Lemme say that again. IN OHIO, IT IS EASIER TO BUY A GUN THAN IT IS TO VOTE.

What is a more fundamental right -- participation in our democracy through your vote, or unfettered access to firearms?

For us, despite all reason, the answer is clear: it's bullets over ballots in good ol' OH-IO.