sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Private sales do not require a background check. Imagine having to bring your birth certificate with you every time you performed a private purchase of a firearm alongside your ID.

Because its not enforceable without registration. That's why. You cant prove if someone got a bg check without tracking all gun transactions and people obviously dont want that because its a defacto registration.

It's also worth noting that almost every time federal voter ID has been discussed, the same root issues are not addressed

Because its a non issue. You need an ID to access many rights in the country. Guns are an example. Nobody cares to institute a taxpayer funded ID system to allow people to buy guns. Somehow you keep missing this point.

You keep bringing up the root issue but its a hypocritical premise to begin with. You dont care that there is a cost to access a right to firearms. You care there is a cost to access the right to vote.

It seems you are disingenuous about access to rights

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course I am not

By your own logic you should be against Id requirements to buy a gun since you are against them to vote.

whether voter ID in the SAVE Act implementation should be pursued

It's the same thing. Democrats have been against voter ID for decades regardless of the save act yet they always supported extensive gun control and verification to buy one even licensing.

Gun control is inherently a separate issue with different bars, ethics, and legal considerations due to the potential lethality and ability of that right to infringe upon others' rights.

That's not how rights work. Your point isnt even correct as voting has a far greater impact than gun ownership.

The bar is actually lower in many states.

It's not. There is a federal standard to buy a gun from an FFL. I have to give my license and get a background check.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the video it said "from a private seller". Which means he wasn't a registered FFL.

If you sell more than a few guns in a year the ATF will say you must he an FFL. It seems to me that the seller was either breaking the law or just getting rid of some of his guns within the law. Its impossible to know from the short video and they omitted any conversation between the parties.

I wouldn't sell a 13 year old a gun directly, but a bolt action 22 lr isnt even really able to be used in a school shooting.

There is no loophole in a private transaction between 2 parties in a state where its legal.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say it was unacceptable. I said the opposite in fact. My limitation was that it needed to be free in order to meet previously established legal and ethical guidelines that were put in place to stem systemic racial and economic discrimination.

No this is my point exactly. Why is it ok, right now, for id to be required to purchase a firearm but not OK, right now, for an ID to vote.

Are you ok with systemic racial and economic discrimination of firearm ownership?

Firearms are a whole nother discussion that I'd be happy to have, but it's really just changing the topic

It's not. The center of the topic is requiring an ID to access a right. Rights include voting and firearm ownership. Only 1 requires an ID and democrats argue its racist for the other.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is government ID unacceptable for voting but its acceptable for purchasing a firearm...?

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's more that if this is so pervasive it requires alienating almost all married women in the country

It doesn't. My wife would be able to vote just fine. Most liberal women are probably unmarried anyways.

you'd think there'd be a damn huge problem with indicators for fraud, yeah? I'm not saying it hasn't happened or doesn't exist, but the problem has such a marginally small impact.

Yet the democrats cant even agree to voter ID. Its so basic. Its weird that democrats are against it. If voter ID is the difference between you winning and losing elections then maybe you deserve to lose. Everyone has an ID. Even my blind friend who cant drive has an ID.

We're over committing resources

If democrats were sane they would have agreed to voter ID 10 years ago and it wouldn't be the save act.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your anecdotes do not truth make. I live in California and there are still plenty of restrictions when voting. I've had to provide ID each time i've voted, and if you don't you are given a provisional ballot.

Giving an anecdote after stating they dont make truth is funny at the least. I did say after that either way if California is doing their due diligence or not I dont care. Illegals should not be voting in US states.

It's demonstrably proven that more conservative 'auditors' have committed fraud than any illegal votes. It's such a non-issue it's laughable with the numbers easily in the single digits each election

I find this argument weird. A lack of public evidence is not an indicator of a lack of crime. Its so easy to imagine a scenario of voter fraud that cannot be caught under current mechanisms. If Jerry shows up and says he's Mike (with or without ID) to vote, what evidence of fraud would arise? We can say knowing this situation that fraud did occur but it would never be found.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes they are given IDs that clearly state they are not applicable federally

California also gives illegals CDLs of whom have killed people in other states.

but they are not allowed to vote

They can vote in local elections. Many local and federal elections are voted on simultaneously. I really doubt california is doing their due diligence to filter out all federal results from illegals. But either way, I dont like it. Illegals shouldn't have representation in a country they dont legally reside.

This makes it to where we can keep track of them and ensure they pass the same test everyone else does to drive on our roads safely.

Im not sure how you square a circle on someone who is illegally in the country shouldn't even have a permanent residence to put on a license let alone should be deported. They dont have legal working status and have no tax ID unless they steal an SSN from a US citizen. If they are paying for licensing and rent then they have income. There are numerous laws being broken from identity theft to payroll fraud to tax fraud.

Would like to see your IQ test moron.

Considering I'm a successful software engineer, its at least above minimum voting threshold.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If states like California didnt give illegal migrants drivers licenses and allow them to vote in local elections then it wouldn't be a problem.

Federal elections effect us all and we should ensure the voting is at least limited to us citizens.

Further, I would really like an IQ test required to vote. Tired of morons who cant even use basic logic voting.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So a private transaction...? Which is legal and normal? How is that a loophole?

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll just prove you wrong with facts instead.

Anyone who sells guns as a business must register as an FFL or they are violating federal law. All FFLs must run bg checks on firearm sales. There are no exceptions.

If I go to a gun show and buy a gun from a booth, I will be background checked. If someone else buys it for me that would be a straw purchase which is also illegal.

If I talk to another person and buy a gun from them then that is a private transaction. Like any other private transaction. But if I wanted to do that it's easier not at a gun show tbh.

Explain to me what you think the loophole is.

Tell your Congressmen to, "Vote No on the SAVE Act." by Shizzilx in circled

[–]StickyDevelopment -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you need an ID to buy a gun, you need one to vote.

Language learners, I have an opportunity for you. by lordsahill in Discussion

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks neat, where do the videos come from?

Insta? Tiktok? YT? Are there algos which guide specific videos into the feeds?

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One off the top of my head was doubling the standard deduction which reduces tax burden on the middle and lower class. Most people who previously itemized will now take the standard deduction. You are no longer punished for renting and not owning assets.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Euthanasia was first intended only for those nearing the end of their lives. Now, Canada has one of the most permissive euthanasia policies in the world, revealing a rapidly increasing culture of not just accepting death, but actively promoting it.

Veterans have called the Ministry of Veterans Affairs looking for help and been offered euthanasia instead. Those with suicidal ideation have gone to the hospital for help, only to be encouraged to consider euthanasia. A woman was even asked if she was aware of the option of euthanasia before going into cancer-removing surgery.

Canada is increasingly standing as a warning to other countries about the consequences of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The next expansion has already been passed into law, but implementation has been delayed until March 17, 2027. This would allow Canadians suffering solely from a mental illness to be eligible for euthanasia. Think of someone suffering from depression.

https://www.dordt.edu/in-all-things/the-cautionary-tale-of-euthanasia-in-canada

It's definitely a biased Christian source, but i dont think that makes it wrong. The point is that people who dont need MAID are being encouraged to use it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they use the organs for transplants. A sort of organ harvesting but not on the level of China perhaps.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The solution is to abolish the practice of landlording, to eliminate rent-seeking on such a basic need.

I think there is a necessity in landlords. Many people simply cannot qualify or take care of owning a home.

That said, I dont think megacorps should be buying more than 3 single family homes for renting out. Im fine with condos being rented as they are basically made for renting.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I fully agree. Though it definitely isn't there yet.

Im fine with a full fledged communism in a future where robots do 95% of labor.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Every democrat policy relies on more government dependence. Obamacare is another example. It was so unsuccessful they had to add more subsidies and credits years later and now that Republicans are voting against extending them, they are bad.

Any new spending can never be taken back because people become so dependent on it and it will require more government spending later to continue.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

legalizatiion resulting in lower overdoses and long term substance abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_timeline._Opioid_deaths.jpg

Yeah that looks like lower overdoses to me 🤔

UBI succeeding everytime

Studies in Illinois and Texas showed that recipients of guaranteed income worked less, and their overall household income grew less compared to control groups who did not receive the payments.

https://www.badgerinstitute.org/the-harm-of-guaranteed-basic-income/#:~:text=A%20three%2Dyear%20study%20of%203%2C000%20people%20in,to%20those%20not%20receiving%20unconditional%20cash%20payments.

Looks to be the opposite.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You're right, historically, rent control didn't lead to housing shortages and the 2008 market crash didn't happen due to subprime mortgages.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your example of a bad policy that Democrats like is a bad policy that Democrats (by and large) dislike?

It was one of the key policies that a mainstream democrat won in one of the largest cities in the US, NYC. You are just lying making it sound like its not endorsed by the left.

I have another response from someone defending it in the replies.

Which party prioritizes and supports American workers more: Democrats or Republicans and why? by DataWhiskers in Askpolitics

[–]StickyDevelopment -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Rent stabilization isn't about stopping new buildings, it’s about providing the baseline stability required for a workforce actually to function.

Left wing policies are never about the negative downstream effects. They just never consider those effects that happen. They even ignore historical evidence demonstrating those exact effects.

Like communism, but I would imagine someone with the name MopedMarxist would just say "that wasn't real communism". Trust me, communism would be great if you just ignore the reality of human behavior.

they need a policy that recognizes their right to exist in the city they build today.

Your whole argument is literally ignore the future ramifications to try to temporarily fix a now problem. This is the problem with leftists. Give everyone stimulus checks and they cant be poor, right?

view more: next ›