After reading this http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=444566 I was thinking about how, in some ways, background checks are an infringement upon the second amendment. 

My first thought was that they should be gotten rid of, and any person that was convicted of a crime that should be bad enough to remove their rights is probably a person that shouldn’t ever be released and be among the public ever again. 

Obvious though, the problem is that the idea of keeping dangerous people in prison for the rest of their lives just makes too much sense and as such, will most likely never happen. 

If we stick to that thought process, but still want to keep firearms out of the hands of felons that shouldn’t have rights, yet somehow should still be allowed to be among the population, then we certainly want some way TO prevent them from owning firearms, but still allow citizens to not have to go through the hassle of being denied a firearm.

This led to an idea on my part that developed after reading a few responses that refered to confirming age to do certain things still, and how that’s not considered an infringement. I thought of a rather simple law that could prevent felons that aren’t fully intent on getting a gun no matter what from getting a gun. 

Why not require an ID to be presented to purchase a gun? Simple as that, no background check, nothing but present the ID, have them look at it, hand over the cash, get the gun. Now, the reason this could work, is by simply adding some mark/symbol on the ID of a convicted felon that would indicate that they are one. The majority of the time, it wouldn’t matter, afterall, you don’t exactly flash your ID to every person you meet, and if it’s just to confirm the persons age, they could easily cover the spot the mark is in if they really don’t want anyone to know, however where it matters, the mark is there and the sale can be denied.

Now, this may lead to people saying things like, “Well that won’t work, they’ll get a fake ID!” Well, my response to that is, straw purchasing. Even with background checks in place, criminals still get guns if they really want them through either illegally purchasing them on the street, having someone else buy the gun for them (Which is illegal already also), stealing them, and other such illegal means. The only people the background checks currently stop are those that really don’t care whether they get it legally or not, don’t realize they’re prohibited for some reason and try to buy, and those that get wrongly denied. 

The criminals that already are prohibited from possession of firearms, but want to get one anyways by any means, WILL get one. The mark on an ID will reduce crime rates just as much as the background checks do (That being almost none) will allow a seller in a private transaction to find out if the person is a prohibited person, as they can easily ask to see the persons ID, and will also prevent false denials on people that AREN’T prohibited, but the background checks may, for various reasons, show ARE prohibited.

Where I found it

Alright, heres the main thing that jumped out at me during the Vice Presidential Debate. (To paraphrase) ‘Dick Chaney invented the role of the vice president as being part of the Senate, the vice president has no role in the senate other then casting a deciding vote in a tie’ Didn’t memorize the actual wording, so that will have to do.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Source

Now, the way I read that is that the president pro tempore should very rarely preside over the senate. In fact, except in a rare case, the only really extended time that the Vice President shouldnt preside over the Senate, is when they’re filling the role of the president. Not that short of a tie vote the vice president should ignore the senate entirely. But hey, what do I know….I’m no senator, I just know how to read and read the US constitution…

“Don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment, while keeping AK-47’s out of the hands of Criminals!” Hm who said that? Ah yes, Senator Barack Obama, 8/28/2008. About 10:48 Eastern in his speech accepting his nomination as the Democrats presidential candidate. Here’s a few facts.

Fact: It’s illegal to use a firearm in a crime.

Fact: Most people already convicted of a crime, can’t legally own a firearm.

Fact: The AK-47 is no more deadly then most other hunting rifles.

Fact: Firearms used by career criminals aren’t legally purchesed by said criminals.

So with that in mind, this is how I interpret that statement. “We can’t allow people to own AK-47’s or other scary looking assault rifle style guns, because if they have them, they must be criminals!” Heres the thing, plenty of people own AK-47 type guns, I say type, because they aren’t capable of fully automatic fire, the vast majority of the people in this country couldn’t afford a fully automatic weapon if they tried. Now, with all of the above in mind, I ask, why can’t we crack down on the black market providing these guns to criminals? Why can’t we prosecute criminals using firearms in a crime to the fullest extent of the law? Why can’t we make the penalties for their use so bad that a criminal is too afraid of using a gun in a crime that short of a psycho serial killer, no ones got the guts to try it? Why do we need to restrict what guns a law abiding citizen can own? Think about it, if you’re a law abiding citizen, you aren’t going to use a gun in a crime, but if you’re a criminal, you’re not going to care if the law says you can or can’t own a certain type of gun, because you’re already a criminal that breaks the law. Yet the key way most (not all, I know not all of any group thinks the same) democrats choose to keep people ’safe’ from gun violence, is by making it illegal for the law abiding citizens to OWN guns. Making it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend themselves with a gun if their life is at risk.

Ah well….I just hope Obama doesn’t get into the White House, or if he does, he somehow doesn’t manage to actually get laws passed limiting the guns I can own, at least anymore then my state foolishly already does.

Alright, while this is political, it’s also a bit of a rant. First, lets be clear the rant part isn’t direct at just the democrats, its every politician I’ve ever heard speak.

Lets start with the non-rant part. It’s official, democrats have chosen a black person at their official candidate for the presidency. Why does his skin color matter anyways? I’ve seen news stories all over making it such a big deal…alright, I’ll admit, sure, first time for a non white man to be chosen to run, but hey, maybe I was brought up more accepting of people of other cultures then most, but I just don’t see it as a large milestone really, heck, even if we had a black woman president that was Muslim, I’d just shrug it off. But ah well, that parts done, now we can stop the useless speculating on that, and move onto the useless speculating about McCains VP choice, and who’s going to win the white house for the next 4 years of hell.

Holding off the rant part for a bit more, so shortly before I made this post, I saw that it was leaked McCain finally decided on a VP candidate, it’s…oh wait we don’t know, we only know he’s set to announce a name of Friday. Heh, and I’ve been told I’m a procrastinator. Should be interesting regardless to see who he chose, won’t really change my vote or oppinion one way or the other though.

Alright. Now the rant. First, let’s start with something I noticed in so many of the speeches at the DNC, why is it that all the speeches seem to follow this format:

Step 1: Greeting, suck up to the group you’re talking to.

Step 2: Compliment the chosen candidate/candidate choice and point out strengths in character/stance.

Step 3: Point out opponent attacking candidate/candidate choice

Step 4: Attack opponent of candidate/candidate choice, and become a complete hypocrite.

Step 5: Close on more sucking up.

Seriously, is it just everyone there is too enthused to realize the persons becoming a complete hypocrite? Do they just not care? I know they’re following the candidate pretty dang closely if they’re there, but come on, how can no one notice? Like I said before, this isn’t limited to one party, this is on both sides, it’s really sickening.

Rant, part 2. Alright, that out of the way, let me explain my presidency choice. I’m voting McCain, calm down, relax, I know; “How could you?!” “Four more years of the same!” “Don’t you care about our troops?!”. I’m sure I missed some, but let me cover those three. How could I? Simple, I’m an American citizen, age 18 or older, that’s registered to vote, and has every right to make my own decision on how I wan’t to vote. I have no intention on voting how someone else want’s me to, only how I want to. If you have a problem with that, well frankly I don’t care. It’s my choice.

Four years of the same: Not really, if congress remains democrat, then it wont be. I also fail to see how anyone can trust Obama to follow through on the same promises that were made by Senators and Representatives from his party, who then dropped the ball, and had to submit to Bush’s vetos instead of rallying support. Also, McCain is not Bush, regardless of similarities, and the fact he’s the same political party. I’ll grant, theres a large majority of his positions that I disagree on, but that’s good, because there’s a large majority of stances I disagree with the Dems on too, and none really seem to overlap. This means that I can hope that the president and congress actual maintain a good check and balance system if the controlling parties are different, since everything fights an uphill battle to get in no matter which side it starts on, theres a good chance nothing overly stupid gets through on either end.

Dont you care about our troops?! Of course I do! I’m completly opposed to the war in Iraq! However, I think if the dems in congress get off their lazy rears and actually try, they can get the troops home with McCain as president or not, frankly, I think they’re just not trying and claiming it’s the republicans fault just so they can help get Obama in the white house. However, if he doesn’t get in, they won’t be able to use that excuse four years from now and democrats won’t get elected in as high of numbers, so odds are with McCain in office, they’d have to actually try, and bring our troops home.

Last part of the rant, I promise, this one on the electoral college system. Alright, I can understand some of the reasoning due to communication and such when the EC system was first put into place, but why, in a generation where someone in the US can speak to someone in any country with internet instantaneously, where phones are normal, as are computers in most homes, and where transmitting the actual popular vote numbers from anywhere in the US to any central location taking only moments after the counts are finished, do we need people to decide FOR us on how our votes are applied? I’ll grant, most of the time, the EC does line up with the PV choice, however, if I remember correctly, in 2000, Al Gore got the popular vote, and Bush still won the EC. I’m not sure how Gore would have done as a president, but that’s moot, point is, he should have BEEN the president, I don’t care if he won by a single vote, point is, if the majority of the people in the US vote for you, or at least more for you then anyone else, then you should be the victor, not, each states winner is determined, and ALL of that states votes go to the victor rather then split amongst those voted for. It gives the impression very strongly, that you only really need enough people to cast a vote for each party thats running, and then one more to choose which wins, not that every single vote counts. If every vote counted, then I would bet voter turnout would surge. Ah well, my rantings most likely wont change any systems in the US, but hey, maybe if enough people read them, and they agree, and they start ranting, then eventually the system will be changed. One can hope anyways.

Signing off for the night, N003K,

Not much to say today, nothing to rant about, and nothing major going on online it seems. On the moderating front, it’s actually slowing down, one would almost think us mods are finally being effective and the trolls are giving up! I can only hope…or maybe I shouldn’t hope? If everyone starts behaving, I may end up losing my moderators position, hmm, heck of a position to be in.

On another note, heard Obama finally announced his running mate as Biden, nothing really to say about that personally, given my fondness for firearms, I tend not to agree with their Gun law stance, and tend to vote against them either way.