Thursday, August 29, 2013

A Great Democracy Does Not Make it Harder to Vote than to Buy an Assault Weapon?

I beg to differ. Sure it does. [More]

But it depends on what the meaning of the term "great democracy" is.

Some of us note subtle differences between mob rule and a system where individual rights are unalienable no matter how many raving collectivists covet them.

Some of us aren't sympathetic to disarming at the demand of the former Gun Nut in Chief, particularly since you now aspire to be First Philanderer.

Oh, and by the way, Slick, how about an unequivocal  "Yes" or "No": 

Is Juanita Broaddrick a liar?

Sent:

[Via Bluesgal]

2 comments:

Crotalus said...

Still criminally stupid after all these years.

Ed said...

I live in a state that requires a state issued photo ID for voting. My driver's license suffices. The process of verifying my ID and that it has the correct address (crucial for establishing that they give me the correct ballot for my residence), checking that I am registered to vote and checking that I have not already voted in that election takes one minute. There is no charge.

To buy an AR-15 or similar weapon (which are not "assault weapons" as they are semi-automatic) from an FFL dealer, I must produce a photo ID and pay for a NICS check, which takes at a minimum several minutes. If the photo ID is a Concealed Carry of Weapons ID then I can take the weapon with me that day. Otherwise I must wait three days.

The second of the two is the more burdensome process.

To buy an "assault weapon" is an even more burdensome process.

We should be aware enough by this point to disregard much of what Clinton says even though it is expressed eloquently and with vigor, as it may not match reality.