The calls for more gun control are already starting - Page 2

Botswana · July 21, 2012, 07:53 PM

Again, avoiding any specific incidents, two of the recent proposals have been

- Limiting how many firearms can be purchased at one time
- Limiting how much ammunition can be purchased at once

I've been pondering on this and they both seem like reasonable proposals on the surface. Except too vague. It reminds me of the old poorly thought out software requirements -

"The system shall be fast"

The ammunition is the trickiest. Like most things, buying in bulk is often the best way to get a discount and ammunition is already expensive. To me, it looks like stealth gun control. "We can't stop the sale of guns, but maybe if we just make bullets prohibitively expensive no one can afford them."

Yeah, tell that to smokers.

I suspect a cottage grey market industry around ammunition reloading would unfold quickly.

Firearm sales could easily be limited per day, but I suspect the NRA would push back because it would impact gun shows.

You could make a good argument for "Well, you don't NEED to buy 4 firearms at once" but I'm not sure if there is a practical point.

Maybe I just haven't thought this through. Everytime I think of something that makes this seem reasonable I can either punch holes in it or the limit is so stringent it is an infringement or so large it is pointless.

scpapa · July 21, 2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Maybe I just haven't thought this through. Everytime I think of something that makes this seem reasonable I can either punch holes in it or the limit is so stringent it is an infringement or so large it is pointless.

Maybe because the premise is "shall not be infringed". Why should tools be doled out per a bureaucrat's idea of what's enough?

Rick

KyJim · July 21, 2012, 08:15 PM

An interesting observation from the Washington Post:

Quote:

Two of the top priorities for gun-control advocates are a ban on assault weapons and an expansion of required criminal background checks to include buyers at gun shows. But those measures wouldn’t have stopped James Holmes, the alleged shooter in Colorado, from buying most of his firearms. A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...2yW_story.html

So there you have it from one of the leading proponents of gun control. A ban on "assault rifles" would have made little difference. Of course, they would ban all guns.

I'll also add a link to the actual city ordinance on firearms in Aurora, Colorado. I've seen some online blogs and comments by pro-2A supporters referring to Aurora's "strict" gun laws. In all fairness, I would not use that adjective, especially in relation to ordinances like those in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

RaySendero · July 21, 2012, 08:43 PM

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people that didn't do it!"

William Burroughs

**Aguila Blanca** · July 21, 2012, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botswana

Maybe I just haven't thought this through. Everytime I think of something that makes this seem reasonable I can either punch holes in it or the limit is so stringent it is an infringement or so large it is pointless.

You might want to look up the definition of "infringement." The fact is, ANY limit is an infringement.

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say anything about allowing "reasonable" infringements. It plainly states that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." It's the Supreme Court who managed to somehow interpret that simple statement to mean "the RKBA shall not be unreasonably infringed ... but we don't know what unreasonably means yet." The problem is that, once the door is opened to "reasonable" regulation (which really means "reasonable infringement"), the arguments commence as to how MUCH infringement is "reasonable." What's reasonable to you may seem excessive to me, or vice versa. And so it goes.

"Hey, this slope is getting steeper, and why is it so slippery?"

jimpeel · July 21, 2012, 10:23 PM

The article read:

"A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks."

What they meant was:

A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks and therein lies the problem.

jimpeel · July 21, 2012, 10:30 PM

I said THIS in the L&P forum on March 7, 2000.

That opinion has not changed regardless of all of the wins we have gained in the SCotUS.

**Tom Servo** · July 21, 2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Four guns, a few thousand rounds of ammo, some magazines and some unrelated junk makes an "arsenal" in the eyes of the newsies

Man, that just sounds like a decent loadout for the weekend for me

There are going to be more calls for gun control. That's a given. I find it sick and opportunistic that one major group had a petition for such up on their site before the shooter's name was even known.

The question remains: how are they going to make new restrictions happen? The votes aren't there in Congress. We have two Supreme Court victories under our belt. The President shies away from anything but the most vague utterances about having a "conversation."

And, to some extent, the American public is aware and active regarding 2nd Amendment issues more than any time I can recall. Let a few activists and politicians crow--it amounts to nothing.

Calling for gun control makes for a good 5-second soundbite to appease some of the constituency, but it's a lie. The real questions we need to be asking cut deep into the fields of sociology and psychology, and they don't have easy answers.

**Tom Servo** · July 21, 2012, 10:48 PM

The 1st Amendment contains a prohibition against laws that abridge the freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court has often held that there can be some restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech.

There will always be some restrictions on the exercise of the 2nd as well. The question is where the boundaries lie, and we're a long way from hashing that out.

jimpeel · July 21, 2012, 11:57 PM

Two shootings, two outcomes -- both in Aurora, CO.

One gained local attention; and one gained national attention.

One created little comment; and one created a call for more gun control.

Only one got the attention of the President of the United States.

Only one got calls for more gun control from famous people and national news organizations.

Had the result been the same in the first incident as that of the second, all of the above would have been the same -- national attention, calls for gun control, the attention of the President, and the attention of the national press and famous persons.

The only difference between these two stories was the presence of an armed citizen on the scene to stop the carnage.

SOURCE

Quote:

Saturday, 21 July 2012 14:00
Two Aurora Shootings: One Widely Known; the Other Ignored
Written by Bob Adelmann

On April 22 of this year a convicted felon, just out of jail, went to an Aurora, Colorado, church and shot and killed a member of the congregation before being killed himself by a congregant carrying a gun.

...

No doubt the president was unaware of the other, less-publicized lethal shooting that took place earlier in the year in Aurora, when there was only one victim, thanks to the quick thinking and action of a responsibly armed individual.

<MORE>

**Aguila Blanca** · July 22, 2012, 12:06 AM

Thank you, JimPeel, for remembering that the church shooting was also in Aurora. I didn't connect the dots on that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KyJim

So there you have it from one of the leading proponents of gun control. A ban on "assault rifles" would have made little difference. Of course, they would ban all guns.

Don't tell them, but it wouldn't have made any difference. I bought an AR during the span of the late, unlamented Federal AWB. It was fully post-ban configured -- no collapsible stock, no flash hider, and no bayonet lug. It would still accept an aftermarket drum magazine, and since the shooter didn't bayonet anyone in the theater the lack of a lug wouldn't have mattered. And the bullets coming out the muzzle don't care how long the stock is.

Patriot86 · July 22, 2012, 12:38 AM

Criminals are intent on breaking laws by their very nature. If there was a law about owning X number of total guns, X number of guns per months, X rounds of ammo etc whats to stop a criminal; especially a very determined criminal from breaking the law?

Show me a GUN law that would have stopped any of the recent high profile mass shootings. A number of laws may have made it more difficult but I can't think of one outside an outright gun ban and confiscation that would have. When you have a determined criminal he or she will find a way to break the law to accomplish their goal.

The problem with "Reasonable" gun control is it ends up being unreasonable. While some laws may start with good intentions, inevitably gun-unfriendly states hijack the ideals to unduly punish lawful gun owners to score political points. Places like NJ, NY and CA are in a "race to the bottom" to see who can have the toughest gun laws. Not the gun laws that make an impact on criminals, or that "save the children" but just any law they can pass to give them the warm fuzzy when they go to sleep.

Patriot86 · July 22, 2012, 12:53 AM

@Tom Servo: An election could give control of the house to the anti gun types. It is unlikely THIS time that it will happen but if the trend in demographics of our population continues as it has, considering the party those growing demographic segments vote for, and that particular parties history of an anti second amendment attitude continues then sooner or later they WILL have the votes. It might be 2020, it might be 2050 but unless something changes in the political landscape of America over the next 20 or so years its going to be bad news of the second amendment. The only hope we as gun owners have is to work hard and to work with new segments of society to change attitudes towards gun ownership.

Next,

This next election WILL WITHOUT A DOUBT put either a staunchly anti gun president back in power, or will bring a president to power with a dubious history when it comes to the second amendment.

I don't see either presidential possibility making it a priority that anyone appointed to the supreme court in the next 4 years has a proper judicial record in regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

The moral of this story: We can never let our guard down, the votes may not be there today but who knows what tomorrow is bringing.

**JohnKSa** · July 22, 2012, 12:57 AM

Limit a person to 1 gun purchase a month and if they need 4, that just means one of the following is true:

1. They have to wait awhile to carry out their plan. If they're already expecting to have to plan long term then the wait means nothing to them.

2. They have to break the law to carry out their plan. If the plan involves mass murder then breaking the law again means nothing to them.

3. They have to acquire the additional guns via 3rd party purchases instead of from FFLs/dealers. That's not difficult to accomplish.

4. They have to figure out a way to carry out the plan with 1 gun instead of 4. If it's the right gun and the person plans well, that's not going to make any significant difference.

Ammunition is pretty much the same thing and the same points above still apply. Realistically it's unlikely that a person will use more than a couple hundred rounds of ammo even in a mass shooting. If we look at the North Hollywood shootout which was truly a statistical outlier, each shooter used about 1000 rounds of ammo. Any ammunition purchase limitations which were remotely reasonable wouldn't prevent a person from acquiring that amount of ammunition in a relatively short period of time.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 22, 2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot86

I don't see either presidential possibility making it a priority that anyone appointed to the supreme court in the next 4 years has a proper judicial record in regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

A lot of judges spend entire careers on the bench and never have an actual RKBA case go through their courtroom. RKBA record (unless the candidate is an avowed gun banner) is not crucial.

More important, IMHO, is that we urgently need the next couple or three justices appointed to be strict constructionists (or, in current parlance, "originalists"): judges who view the Constitution as the highest law of the land, not as a "living document" in need of constant reinterpretation to follow the tide of public opinion. Judges who don't think we should be looking at what other countries are doing when interpreting OUR Constitution. Give us judges who respect the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment will take care of itself.

rebs · July 22, 2012, 06:16 AM

The guy that did this was mentally deranged and a sicko, why not ban deranged and sicko people ?
If someone wants to shoot or blow people up they will fund a way regardless of more gun controls. He has explosives setup in his apartment, does this mean there should be a ban on fertilizer and fuel oil which can be used to make an explosive ? What about gasoline, ban that too ? There is a need to realize that there are sick people walking freely among us and this can happen at any time with or without more gun control.
The government says they need to protect us from ourselves, the police will protect us, well where was either one when these people needed protecting ? The proof in the pudding is that incidents like this can and will continue to happen, you cannot control every sick and deranged person with more gun controls.

Pilot · July 22, 2012, 06:30 AM

The liberal, mainstream media is already in a tizzy because they may not get more gun laws effecting only law abiding citizens.

Quote:

Despite periodic mass shootings - five slain in May in Seattle, 13 dead on an Army base in Texas in 2009, and the deadliest U.S. mass shooting ever at Virginia Tech in 2007 with 32 slain - the political calculus seems locked down. Most Republicans adamantly oppose tighter gun controls, and most Democrats would prefer to focus on other issues.

Since Democrat Al Gore's gun-control stance was said to have helped Republican George W. Bush edge him out in the 2000 presidential election, the movement to rein in firearms has fallen on hard times.

In 2004, with Bush in the White House, the assault-rifle ban expired after 10 years. The measure, passed when Bill Clinton was president, also banned high-capacity magazines for assault rifles; that provision, too, has now expired.

Note how he mentions Bush with the AWB sunset. Never mind Congress didn't vote to keep it.

It is media people like these that we need to out, and email as liers.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...n_control.html

Bartholomew Roberts · July 22, 2012, 09:08 AM

Frankly, I don't know that I would rather face one guy with one gun than a guy who has played too many video games and is trying to tote a rifle, precision rifle, shotgun, pistol and BUG along with assorted ammo. If someone wants to go on a spree killing, limiting their choice of firearms is not an effective way to mitigate damage.

The spree killing with the most fatalities to date was conducted with a handgun nobody is proposing to ban and he only needed one. More than a few of these spree killing have also involved the shooter reloading multiple times. If you spent the effort on mental health that we spend blaming Hollywood, video games and guns for these things, you might actually have some useful effect.

jmortimer · July 22, 2012, 09:14 AM

^ Foolish to think next election is not critical. One more Justice to join Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsberg and we are toast as far as SCOTUS goes. If Kennedy is replaced by nominee by current POTUS everything will change for the worse, possibly forever. The news just drives the agenda and at least four of the justices are waiting for another like minded Justice. Not much talk here about anything but "we got two victories" and ignore that both were 5-4.

**Tom Servo** · July 22, 2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

They have to wait awhile to carry out their plan. If they're already expecting to have to plan long term then the wait means nothing to them.

True. Anders Breivik originally went to the Czech Republic, thinking he'd get guns easily. When that didn't work, he returned to Norway and got his guns and ammo legally, enduring the waiting periods, hunting club memberships, and other restrictions present there.

These people are fundamentally broken. They are set on a course. Logistical and legal impediments are of little use stopping them.

Pilot · July 22, 2012, 09:25 AM

Agreed. Very critical next election due to the damage that can be done to, and through the SCOTUS. The next Pres will get to appoint two judges.

**Tom Servo** · July 22, 2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Very critical next election due to the damage that can be done to, and through the SCOTUS.

Well, then vote. I know the turnout numbers from 2006 and 2008.

There was no conspiracy involved. People apparently just couldn't be bothered.

Master Blaster 2 · July 22, 2012, 09:37 AM

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said

MLeake · July 22, 2012, 09:41 AM

With regard to voting, one of my pet peeves is that absentee ballots often will only get counted if an election falls within a certain percentage of closeness. This means that a candidate who would have received those votes, won't get them in time to enjoy the "bandwagon" effect - IE that of voters choosing a candidate because he is already doing well in the polls.

Of course, I'll be in Afghanistan this November...

I was on an aircraft carrier for the 2000 election, when the party that now wants to protect illegal aliens from disenfranchisement wanted to disallow military absentee ballots because the APO postal system had postmarked the mail bags, instead of each individual ballot envelope.

(Wonder if our illustrious AG plans to protect military voters this year, or only those voters who can't come up with photo IDs?)

I need to find out if Missouri allows early voting. I'd like to bypass concerns about postmarks, and possibly give my candidates some bandwagon impetus.

jmortimer · July 22, 2012, 09:42 AM

I'll take my chances as I know what will happen if nothing changes. The media would love nothing more than to keep things as they are after November and use unfortunate tragedies to "make things better."
MLEAKE thank you for your service and yes, a certain party has, for the past few elections purposefully attempted to stop your vote from being counted by going to court, slow-walking ballots etc. As far as I'm concerned, you all should get to pick the POTUS as he is you commander-in-chief and the rules of engagement put your lives at risk, not necessarily mine.

July 21, 2012, 07:53 PM	#26
Botswana Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2012 Posts: 203	When is enough considered enough Again, avoiding any specific incidents, two of the recent proposals have been - Limiting how many firearms can be purchased at one time - Limiting how much ammunition can be purchased at once I've been pondering on this and they both seem like reasonable proposals on the surface. Except too vague. It reminds me of the old poorly thought out software requirements - "The system shall be fast" The ammunition is the trickiest. Like most things, buying in bulk is often the best way to get a discount and ammunition is already expensive. To me, it looks like stealth gun control. "We can't stop the sale of guns, but maybe if we just make bullets prohibitively expensive no one can afford them." Yeah, tell that to smokers. I suspect a cottage grey market industry around ammunition reloading would unfold quickly. Firearm sales could easily be limited per day, but I suspect the NRA would push back because it would impact gun shows. You could make a good argument for "Well, you don't NEED to buy 4 firearms at once" but I'm not sure if there is a practical point. Maybe I just haven't thought this through. Everytime I think of something that makes this seem reasonable I can either punch holes in it or the limit is so stringent it is an infringement or so large it is pointless.

July 21, 2012, 10:23 PM	#31
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	The article read: "A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks." What they meant was: A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks and therein lies the problem. __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

July 21, 2012, 10:30 PM	#32
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	I said THIS in the L&P forum on March 7, 2000. That opinion has not changed regardless of all of the wins we have gained in the SCotUS. __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

July 21, 2012, 10:48 PM	#34
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	The 1st Amendment contains a prohibition against laws that abridge the freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court has often held that there can be some restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech. There will always be some restrictions on the exercise of the 2nd as well. The question is where the boundaries lie, and we're a long way from hashing that out. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

July 22, 2012, 12:57 AM	#39
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,986	Limit a person to 1 gun purchase a month and if they need 4, that just means one of the following is true: 1. They have to wait awhile to carry out their plan. If they're already expecting to have to plan long term then the wait means nothing to them. 2. They have to break the law to carry out their plan. If the plan involves mass murder then breaking the law again means nothing to them. 3. They have to acquire the additional guns via 3rd party purchases instead of from FFLs/dealers. That's not difficult to accomplish. 4. They have to figure out a way to carry out the plan with 1 gun instead of 4. If it's the right gun and the person plans well, that's not going to make any significant difference. Ammunition is pretty much the same thing and the same points above still apply. Realistically it's unlikely that a person will use more than a couple hundred rounds of ammo even in a mass shooting. If we look at the North Hollywood shootout which was truly a statistical outlier, each shooter used about 1000 rounds of ammo. Any ammunition purchase limitations which were remotely reasonable wouldn't prevent a person from acquiring that amount of ammunition in a relatively short period of time. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

July 21, 2012, 08:43 PM	#29
RaySendero Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2010 Location: US South Posts: 857	"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people that didn't do it!" William Burroughs

July 22, 2012, 12:38 AM	#37
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	Criminals are intent on breaking laws by their very nature. If there was a law about owning X number of total guns, X number of guns per months, X rounds of ammo etc whats to stop a criminal; especially a very determined criminal from breaking the law? Show me a GUN law that would have stopped any of the recent high profile mass shootings. A number of laws may have made it more difficult but I can't think of one outside an outright gun ban and confiscation that would have. When you have a determined criminal he or she will find a way to break the law to accomplish their goal. The problem with "Reasonable" gun control is it ends up being unreasonable. While some laws may start with good intentions, inevitably gun-unfriendly states hijack the ideals to unduly punish lawful gun owners to score political points. Places like NJ, NY and CA are in a "race to the bottom" to see who can have the toughest gun laws. Not the gun laws that make an impact on criminals, or that "save the children" but just any law they can pass to give them the warm fuzzy when they go to sleep.

July 22, 2012, 12:53 AM	#38
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	@Tom Servo: An election could give control of the house to the anti gun types. It is unlikely THIS time that it will happen but if the trend in demographics of our population continues as it has, considering the party those growing demographic segments vote for, and that particular parties history of an anti second amendment attitude continues then sooner or later they WILL have the votes. It might be 2020, it might be 2050 but unless something changes in the political landscape of America over the next 20 or so years its going to be bad news of the second amendment. The only hope we as gun owners have is to work hard and to work with new segments of society to change attitudes towards gun ownership. Next, This next election WILL WITHOUT A DOUBT put either a staunchly anti gun president back in power, or will bring a president to power with a dubious history when it comes to the second amendment. I don't see either presidential possibility making it a priority that anyone appointed to the supreme court in the next 4 years has a proper judicial record in regards to the right to keep and bear arms. The moral of this story: We can never let our guard down, the votes may not be there today but who knows what tomorrow is bringing.

July 22, 2012, 06:16 AM	#41
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	The guy that did this was mentally deranged and a sicko, why not ban deranged and sicko people ? If someone wants to shoot or blow people up they will fund a way regardless of more gun controls. He has explosives setup in his apartment, does this mean there should be a ban on fertilizer and fuel oil which can be used to make an explosive ? What about gasoline, ban that too ? There is a need to realize that there are sick people walking freely among us and this can happen at any time with or without more gun control. The government says they need to protect us from ourselves, the police will protect us, well where was either one when these people needed protecting ? The proof in the pudding is that incidents like this can and will continue to happen, you cannot control every sick and deranged person with more gun controls.

July 22, 2012, 09:08 AM	#43
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Frankly, I don't know that I would rather face one guy with one gun than a guy who has played too many video games and is trying to tote a rifle, precision rifle, shotgun, pistol and BUG along with assorted ammo. If someone wants to go on a spree killing, limiting their choice of firearms is not an effective way to mitigate damage. The spree killing with the most fatalities to date was conducted with a handgun nobody is proposing to ban and he only needed one. More than a few of these spree killing have also involved the shooter reloading multiple times. If you spent the effort on mental health that we spend blaming Hollywood, video games and guns for these things, you might actually have some useful effect.

July 22, 2012, 09:14 AM	#44
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	^ Foolish to think next election is not critical. One more Justice to join Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsberg and we are toast as far as SCOTUS goes. If Kennedy is replaced by nominee by current POTUS everything will change for the worse, possibly forever. The news just drives the agenda and at least four of the justices are waiting for another like minded Justice. Not much talk here about anything but "we got two victories" and ignore that both were 5-4.

July 22, 2012, 09:25 AM	#46
Pilot Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2000 Posts: 4,193	Agreed. Very critical next election due to the damage that can be done to, and through the SCOTUS. The next Pres will get to appoint two judges. __________________ Pilot

July 22, 2012, 09:37 AM	#48
Master Blaster 2 Junior member Join Date: May 29, 2011 Posts: 895	“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said

July 22, 2012, 09:41 AM	#49
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	With regard to voting, one of my pet peeves is that absentee ballots often will only get counted if an election falls within a certain percentage of closeness. This means that a candidate who would have received those votes, won't get them in time to enjoy the "bandwagon" effect - IE that of voters choosing a candidate because he is already doing well in the polls. Of course, I'll be in Afghanistan this November... I was on an aircraft carrier for the 2000 election, when the party that now wants to protect illegal aliens from disenfranchisement wanted to disallow military absentee ballots because the APO postal system had postmarked the mail bags, instead of each individual ballot envelope. (Wonder if our illustrious AG plans to protect military voters this year, or only those voters who can't come up with photo IDs?) I need to find out if Missouri allows early voting. I'd like to bypass concerns about postmarks, and possibly give my candidates some bandwagon impetus.

July 22, 2012, 09:42 AM	#50
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	I'll take my chances as I know what will happen if nothing changes. The media would love nothing more than to keep things as they are after November and use unfortunate tragedies to "make things better." MLEAKE thank you for your service and yes, a certain party has, for the past few elections purposefully attempted to stop your vote from being counted by going to court, slow-walking ballots etc. As far as I'm concerned, you all should get to pick the POTUS as he is you commander-in-chief and the rules of engagement put your lives at risk, not necessarily mine.