Thursday, August 30, 2012

Democrats announce opposition to gun-ID laws

(Dissociated Press) The Democratic National Committee today announced that it will include strong opposition to "Gun-ID" laws in the Democratic Party Platform for 2012.

Democratic Chairman Don Duck met this afternoon with reporters to emphasize Democrats' opposition to restrictive laws that require that handgun purchasers to present valid ID and submit to a background check. All states require ID to purchase handguns, which Homes pointed out is a blatant effort at "gun-suppression" by Republicans.

"We point out that it is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and requiring poor and minority and prospective gun-owners to show valid ID and submit to verification of their identity suppresses gun ownership among those oppressed groups" noted Mr. Duck. 
"There is a long history of gun-ownership suppression in this country. We should encourage unidentified individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Requiring photo ID to purchase handguns is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. It's like requiring photo ID to vote. It's obvious purpose is a racist attempt by Republicans to keep the poor and minorities from exercising their gun-rights".

In reply to Republican critics who point out that requiring proof of ID to purchase handguns simply allows a prudent check on the identity of the purchaser and on the legality of the purchase, Duck asserted that such requirements for ID are unduly burdensome for many poor and minority prospective gun owners.

"Many of our Democrat gun owners receive their government benefits anonymously and vote anonymously. Why can't they buy guns anonymously?" Duck noted, pointedly.
"We don't know who they are when they vote or when they pick up their benefit checks. Why should we know who they are when they buy guns?" 

Chairman Duck compared the efforts to require ID checks for gun purchases to Republican efforts to require voter ID.
"The only fair system is to have people walk into gun shops and give the clerk a name. Then the clerk gives them a gun".
"There must be no ID requirement for gun ownership, just as there must be no ID requirement for voting."
Mr. Duck fingered the Democrat National Committee ID badge on his lapel.
"To ask for ID is racist". 


  1. I love it. You got your point across.

    --Francisca S.

  2. Michael,

    Amusing as usual ... not. You do have a lame sense of humor, don't you? I've often been amazed that when you pick a joke from a website with many jokes, you manage to pick the least funny one of the lot, ignoring jokes which are much funnier.

    Anyway, the analogy of photo ID for voters and photo ID for gun purchase would be appropriate if prospective gun owners were required to register their intention to purchase a gun, and then, when they decided to purchase their gun weeks or perhaps years later, the clerk in the gun shop checked their names in the roll of eligible registered gun purchasers, and if not present, they wouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

    Of course, if such a system were in place, it would vary from state to state, similar to the way the ramshackle American voting system works. Some states would ban felons from registering to purchase a gun while on parole. Other states would ban felons from ever purchasing a gun for life. And some states would require prospective gun purchasers to show photo ID at point of purchase and allow the purchaser to walk out with the gun, no questions asked.

    Australia doesn't have voter ID. It also doesn't have a problem with electoral fraud. One possible reason is because we also have compulsory voting, or rather compulsory attendance at a voting booth and have your name and address crossed off, before being handed the ballot papers. If you really don't want to vote, it's easy to spoil your ballot and put in an invalid informal vote.

    But most people do vote, so instead of half the electorate in America voting, as is often the case, any fraudulent vote has less value and is more likely to be detected as fraudulent when the electoral commission goes through the electoral rolls to see who didn't vote without an adequate reason, and to issue an infringement notice with the enormous fine of $20 ( in Australia, you can be fined $2400 for blowing your car horn and waving to a friend as you drive off).

    If you're concerned about electoral fraud, voter photo ID wont stop it. There are many other ways of rigging elections. If someone wants to rig an election, they'll find a way. What makes you think that someone mightn't think of producing fake photo ID if the stakes are high enough?

  3. The fact is that over 20 million Americans that where eligible to vote in the last presidential election find themselves ineligible to vote in this next election, and about half of those, about 10 million, would find it very difficult and expensive to obtain an ID before the election because they don’t have the documentation to get an ID in the first place.

    If these voter ID laws where implemented over a longer period of time instead of rushed into place in the year before a presidential election, and where accompanied by robust programs to inform the public and provide programs to help those with difficulty obtaining ID to get the ID they need, this would be a very different debate. Of course this is what didn’t happen because that would undermine the intent of these laws, which is to turn away proportionally more poor and minority voters for partisan gain.

    The Gun analogy falls flat because it’s relatively easy to get a gun without ID. Personally I’ve hunted and shot all kinds of firearms for sport, including an AK-47 and AR-15, yet I’ve never bought or owned a single gun. I’ve fired many hundreds of rounds, and ID was never an issue. For the right amount of cash, I could call a friend and have a semi-automatic with a large magazine capacity tomorrow.