WHAT REACTION DO GET WHEN YOU TELL PEOPLE YOU OWN FIREARMS?

[njpilot 671]

I honestly believe a Civics test should be given to prospective Voters.  Weed-out the Dipshit Extremists and Misfits!  And everybody should have to go camping, fishing, hiking, shooting, swimming, and visit a Museum and pass a test to EARN the right to vote.  Yeah I know I'm crazy, but in a perfect world............. 

 

Hell yeah. I've been saying this for years.

 

They should also not have any party affiliation after the candidates name. If people are to stupid or lazy to know who the candidate is without an "R" or "D" or "I" or whatever after their name, they shouldn't vote.

[Recon Racoon 49]

Most of the people I work with I know I own them. I've talked with my boss about them and he went from staunch neutrality to cautious pro gun. And I'm taking my best friend from high school out to shoot trap out at M&M on Saturday for my 23rd birthday.

 

I've only come across one person who was against owning them but that was more for her family then everyone in general. But I'm pretty much in Alabama as far as jersey is concerned so it's par for course

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I honestly believe a Civics test should be given to prospective Voters.  Weed-out the Dipshit Extremists and Misfits!  And everybody should have to go camping, fishing, hiking, shooting, swimming, and visit a Museum and pass a test to EARN the right to vote.  Yeah I know I'm crazy, but in a perfect world............. 

 

I think the anti's would attempt to declare that "unconstitutional," given similar "in place" amendments about "poll taxes," etc.... Similar argument as with all this "Voter ID" backlash. I think there should be some kind of voter ID verification at the polling place. DL, or voter reg card, just something simple to say you are who you say you are, and that you are eligible to vote.  At my place, they don't make you show ID, but if your signature in the registry book doesn't match your signature from previous voting, it might raise and eyebrow or two. Actually, in my town, the election officials are the same people, year after year. They get to know you, and you, them. In fact, until he retired, one of the guys was a co-worker of mine at my company (at the time).

[gunnarsport 13]

I an in the postdoctoral academic environment, so needless to say, I am quite careful with who I let know I am a firearms enthusiast. Very liberal mindset at my place of employment with 80% Obama supporters. I tread VERY lightly, as Walter White once said!

[magnawing 5]

I've been a P2P and FPID reference for 3 of my coworkers...1 who already owns guns and two newbies.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[SgtToadette 59]

I don't hide it, and if people ask what I do when I take off work or on weekends, I tell them. I have no reason to fear the truth. Treating it like a normal thing has a funny effect of making those less comfortable feel like the weird ones. Especially in NJ.

 

As a side note, I think Hurricane Sandy showed a lot of people what happens when you are on your own (without power, gas, emergency services, etc.). Nothing we say as gun owners about personal safety/self reliance can be as powerful as what Sandy demonstrated.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

Interesting that so many get a positive / want to learn more response.

[BD104X 1]

Interesting that so many get a positive / want to learn more response.

Exactly, this is one of the reasons why it hurts our cause to be all secretive - let people see that lots of normal fellow citizens own guns.

[SgtToadette 59]

Exactly, this is one of the reasons why it hurts our cause to be all secretive - let people see that lots of normal fellow citizens own guns.

The less we tell people the less people they'll think do it. Often when people have a face they can put to an issue it make it harder for them to vote against them.

[RUTGERS95 890]

tell everyone.....most want to go shooting

[jrfly3006 42]

tell everyone.....most want to go shooting

This...you'd be surprised how many love it after they try it

[Silphidae 33]

I am very open with it and focus on the competition aspect when it's first brought up. That seems to make people relax a little as it gets me out of the crazy prepper second amendment fanatic silo. Once they relax I have been very successful getting newbies or initially apprehensive people to come with me to the range.

 

I only share my true colors with people who are really aligned to my thinking.......if I told my neighbors how much reloaded ammo I have in my basement they're look at me a little differently.....but they don't need to know every aspect of my hobby. They all know I shoot and most of my neighbors have gone or expressed interest in shooting with me at some point. I'd say 50% of the people I talk with have a gun or would like to own one so it's not a big deal down here.

 

My old college roommates are all in N Jersey and 100% of them are against gun ownership......go figure.

[fumanchu182 23]

A few people want me to take them to the range, the majority have exited my life (thank god cause they were shitty people anyway).

[mikka1 2]

I have to admit I am in the game for less than a year, but I have not yet encountered any _outright negative_ reaction to what I do. I post pics and videos from USPSA matches on Facebook, I sometimes discuss it openly at work - several people honestly told me that they have "never been really into guns" and one of the guys just mentioned that he had always been "anti-gun" and that he believed in "guns only for army and police" idea - nonetheless I never heard any direct or indirect criticism from him or from anyone else at work. Some of my colleagues are avid tennis players, there's also a guy who used to be a pro musician - I don't yet see my "hobby" treated differently from any other ones...

 

Still my most remarkable example is not at my workplace, but with one of my neighbors. She is pretty much the only person in the whole building I talk to on a regular basis, so when I was looking for references for my initial FID I carefully approached her asking if she could be my reference - and she politely declined also telling me something like "well, it's NJ, you'll NEVER get it with or without references, forget about it, _they_ hate guns in NJ". This was more than a year ago. Fast forward ~10 months and I invite her to the local range on "my guns, my ammo, my everything - you just try it" conditions... and she's apparently thrilled! Some time later she asks me if I could bring her forms to fill in and tell her more about getting FID.

I obviously don't want to generalize based on only one case, but apparently "I don't have guns" does not necessarily mean "I am against guns at all costs" - it is sometimes "I know nothing about guns, how to get them, but if someone tells me about that and shows me everything I might well consider getting one at least for HD..."

[Newtonian 453]

I honestly believe a Civics test should be given to prospective Voters.  Weed-out the Dipshit Extremists and Misfits!  And everybody should have to go camping, fishing, hiking, shooting, swimming, and visit a Museum and pass a test to EARN the right to vote.  Yeah I know I'm crazy, but in a perfect world............. 

This country would turn around in about 15 years if we made the following changes:

 

* Voting age of 30

* Nobody (and no spouses) can vote if they take more than they pay in taxes. E.g. teachers, cops, social security recipients, welfare recipients, etc.

* Everybody had to take a simple civics test consisting of 5 questions out of a pool of 40 or so. I'm not talking PhD thesis material but real easy stuff like "name the three branches of government" or "Is Washington, DC a state?"

* Universal photo ID requirement

 

I can dream, can't I?

[HBecwithFn7 296]

This country would turn around in about 15 years if we made the following changes:

 

* Voting age of 30

* Nobody (and no spouses) can vote if they take more than they pay in taxes. E.g. teachers, cops, social security recipients, welfare recipients, etc.

* Everybody had to take a simple civics test consisting of 5 questions out of a pool of 40 or so. I'm not talking PhD thesis material but real easy stuff like "name the three branches of government" or "Is Washington, DC a state?"

* Universal photo ID requirement

 

I can dream, can't I?

 

#1 is a deal breaker from the onset!  There are movements now to lower the voting age even further (below 18), as it is their belief that they're the ones who will inherit the mess the world is left in by the present adult population. They want representation *now*, before he problems get any worse. This, and you'd also have to raise the "military service" age to 30 also. The whole point of lowering the voting age to 18 (as well as the "age of adulthood/majority") was that if 18y/o's could go fight and die in our country's wars, they ought to have the right to vote and be considered "legal adults."

 

#2 I assume you mean "government handouts" as opposed to "general income."  I would certainly hope that all of us take in a whole lot more "general income" in than we pay in taxes. 

 

#3  From an earlier post of mine, you're probably going to have some constitutional problems with this one. It can be seen as "discriminatory."  Remember the "poll tax" amendment?

 

#4 -  I don't have a problem with this one. I actually like it.

[10X 3,296]

Weed-out the Dipshit Extremists and Misfits..

I hear you, but that is a slippery slope we do not want to venture onto. In NJ, it is the gun owners who would be cast as the extremists and misfits.

[Newtonian 453]

#1 is a deal breaker from the onset!  There are movements now to lower the voting age even further (below 18), as it is their belief that they're the ones who will inherit the mess the world is left in by the present adult population. They want representation *now*, before he problems get any worse. This, and you'd also have to raise the "military service" age to 30 also. The whole point of lowering the voting age to 18 (as well as the "age of adulthood/majority") was that if 18y/o's could go fight and die in our country's wars, they ought to have the right to vote and be considered "legal adults."

 

#2 I assume you mean "government handouts" as opposed to "general income."  I would certainly hope that all of us take in a whole lot more "general income" in than we pay in taxes. 

 

#3  From an earlier post of mine, you're probably going to have some constitutional problems with this one. It can be seen as "discriminatory."  Remember the "poll tax" amendment?

 

#4 -  I don't have a problem with this one. I actually like it.

1. Do you remember the lyrics to the song "Eve of Destruction"? For more than a century voting was 21 and fighting was 17 and even lower. I don't see what one has to do with another. Never did. People are capable of different things at different ages. The under-30s I know are mostly quite intelligent but don't know anything about politics or government. They're like parrots. If their parents are liberal they talk like liberals, if conservative they talk like conservatives. But they don't know WTF they're saying and if you challenge them they burst into tears.

 

2. No I mean that if you derive your income from government at any level or obtain more in DIRECT benefits than you pay in taxes, you and your family don't get to decide how much money you make, i.e. vote for politicians who will give you everything you ask for. This is why local politics are so corrupt. You get a 15% voter turnout, half of whom are municipal or state employees and their families. Between apathy and sheer numbers the conscientious voting public doesn't have a chance. 

 

3. States are permitted, as far as I know, to set standards for voting which is a privilege not a right. I know damn well that courts would overturn such laws. I'm just dreaming here.

 

4. There is no valid for not requiring photo ID for voting. You can argue, albeit stupidly on the wrong side of many issues and maybe at some twisted level there may be a grain of truth here and there in your position. But there's not a single good reason for not requiring someone to demonstrate citizenship as a condition of voting. Seriously, I view anyone against this idea as an enemy of the United States. 

 

5. While I'm still dreaming: Repeal the 19th Amendment.

 

The cool thing about these suggestions is you don't have to be for or against anything in particular. OK, let's forget point #5. If only male and female citizens of at least modest intelligence, mature enough to understand the issues, and who are not net takers could vote, everything else would fall into place. You won't have to worry about democrat or republican, conservative or liberal. Things would pan out on their own.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

1. Do you remember the lyrics to the song "Eve of Destruction"? For more than a century voting was 21 and fighting was 17 and even lower.

That may have been "the way it was..." but it doesn't make it "right." At least, not from the teens' perspective. You can thank the Viet-Nam era and the MSM coverage of it for this. It kinda woke up the teens to say "Hey.... if we're the ones doing the dying, we ought to get a say in how things are run."

 

3. States are permitted, as far as I know, to set standards for voting which is a privilege not a right. I know damn well that courts would overturn such laws. I'm just dreaming here.

Then why are the words "right to vote" plastered all over the constitutional amendments? Voting *is* a constitutional right, it would seem. And since that "right" to vote "shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex (I really wish they'd have used the word "gender" instead... ), or age (if 18+), or failure to pay a poll tax," etc. etc... it's had to argue that it's just a "privilege." States may be setting standards for voting, but are they doing so constitutionally? Is it, perhaps, that no one has challenged them yet?

 

5. While I'm still dreaming: Repeal the 19th Amendment.

Do you have a death wish???? :D

 

[Newtonian 453]

 

Then why are the words "right to vote" plastered all over the constitutional amendments? Voting *is* a constitutional right, it would seem. And since that "right" to vote "shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex (I really wish they'd have used the word "gender" instead... ), or age (if 18+), or failure to pay a poll tax," etc. etc... it's had to argue that it's just a "privilege." States may be setting standards for voting, but are they doing so constitutionally? Is it, perhaps, that no one has challenged them yet?

 

No, no, no. Voting is not a right. Not enumerated anywhere. Requirements have changed over and over. Felons are not allowed to vote, nor are non-citizens (allegedly). At one time only those who owned property or could pay a tax could vote. Seems eminently reasonable to me. Women couldn't vote, and not because the constitution said it. It's just how the states handled it. 

 

"Right to vote" is one of those imaginary rights that entered the lexicon at one point but it is based on nothing. Like the "right to choose" whatever that is supposed to mean. 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

"Right to vote" is one of those imaginary rights that entered the lexicon at one point but it is based on nothing. Like the "right to choose" whatever that is supposed to mean. 

 

At this point in time, I think many if not most would argue that current practices (even with exceptions for felons, non citizens, etc) are so "institutionalized" that that they *are* now, DE-facto "rights," at least for those who "qualify." That is not to say that one can't ever be "disqualified" from exercising a right. Is that not what "Capital Punishment" is about? One does something so egregious that they forfeit their "right to life..."   Or they forfeit their right to "liberty"  by being incarcerated. 

 

Isn't that one of the arguments  behind  of all this "open border" policy? To allow those people in, magically make them citizens so they can exercise their "right to vote" for the govt. that brought them into the country (i.e. "dance with the <partner> that brung'em)???

[mikka1 2]

Sorry for interfering to this discussion but can someone explain me why people often speak about "no ID requirement to vote" thing?

I am not a US citizen, my wife is. When she was registering herself as a voter there were questions about her citizenship. Every time she comes to a polling place she hands her ID over to the officer, he/she finds her in a large register, where there is already an imprint of her signature placed. I am obviously not in this register at all.

 

That said I am quite lost:

1) How, let's say, can I technically vote (if I somehow wish to do this in a violation of the law) if I would most likely not be able even to register as a voter? (unless I falsify information on me)...

and the most important thing

2) Why would I want to vote being legally unable to vote and technically seriously violating the law that can potentially severely backfire on me in the future? 

I just simply don't get #2 from any standpoint...

[magnawing 5]

I don't believe the problem lies with people who have emigrated to this country through the proper channels. The problem is that some unscrupulous campaign personnel could be paying for illegal immigrants to vote for their candidate with a promise of amnesty for their illegal presence in the US.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[HBecwithFn7 296]

That said I am quite lost:

1) How, let's say, can I technically vote (if I somehow wish to do this in a violation of the law) if I would most likely not be able even to register as a voter? (unless I falsify information on me)...

and the most important thing

That's it.... you would falsify information... you could identify yourself as someone whom you were not, but who had legal credentials and may have registered but had died, or moved away, or something like that.

 

 

2) Why would I want to vote being legally unable to vote and technically seriously violating the law that can potentially severely backfire on me in the future? 

I just simply don't get #2 from any standpoint...

It might not personally benefit you, but it might benefit the person you voted for, or the political organization that sponsored the person you voted for (and who as trying to get elected). The who gets the most votes is the one who wins the election. And the voting machine doesn't know who's who. The "register book" is the last checkpoint.

 

In my polling place, a ID is not required for voting at a given election. As long as your name is in the registry book and the signatures match (you have to sign each time), you're good to go. Although, in my polling place, the officials pretty much know everyone. They've been at this for years.

[mikka1 2]

I don't believe the problem lies with people who have emigrated to this country through the proper channels. The problem is that some unscrupulous campaign personnel could be paying for illegal immigrants to vote for their candidate with a promise of amnesty for their illegal presence in the US.

 

But I don't get how that dirty campaign officer might place dozens of illegals to the registry of voters in the first place without it catching someone's attention?

I know that back in Russia there were well-developed ways to cheat during the voting process often involving so called "ghost voters" (e.g., an elderly person is actually dead for many years or someone else moved out a long ago, but still in the registry - someone comes to the polling place, claims that he is actually Mr X, signs on his behalf and votes) - but this actually requires the whole corrupted chain (people who can check vital records in advance, people who close their eyes on strange guys coming without IDs and so on) - not just one dirty campaign official...

[magnawing 5]

No one asks for ID at the polling places and very few registered voters bother to show up, pick an empty name and sign next to it. This works easier in larger cities/towns...in my town, most of the geezers running the polls know everyone in town so it would be harder to get away with.

 

If there's a way to cheat the system, you can be sure that someone has figured out how to advance their position by using it.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[mikka1 2]

(...)

 

It might not personally benefit you, but it might benefit the person you voted for, or the political organization that sponsored the person you voted for (and who as trying to get elected). The who gets the most votes is the one who wins the election. And the voting machine doesn't know who's who. The "register book" is the last checkpoint.

 

In my polling place, a ID is not required for voting at a given election. As long as your name is in the registry book and the signatures match (you have to sign each time), you're good to go. Although, in my polling place, the officials pretty much know everyone. They've been at this for years.

 

Well but clearly there should be a clear incentive for someone to commit a pretty serious crime. And as I mentioned before there should be the whole machinery to analyze/mine vital records, cross-check registries of voters etc. I guess it would be an epic fail if, let's say, Asian-looking guy in his 30s would come to a polling place and tries to vote for Mr Guillermo Lopez, 81 years old... Just a stupid example, but if that is true and happening on a large scale I am really impressed by the depth of corruption in the whole voting system. This all can't be run by a couple of individuals even from a technical standpoint...

[CMJeepster 2,778]

But I don't get how that dirty campaign officer might place dozens of illegals to the registry of voters in the first place without it catching someone's attention?...

Research Nucky Johnson and the Atlantic County Republican machine of the early 1900s.

[njpilot 671]

 

2) Why would I want to vote being legally unable to vote and technically seriously violating the law that can potentially severely backfire on me in the future? 

I just simply don't get #2 from any standpoint...

What makes you think it would "severely backfire" on you in the future?

 

You didn't hear about the woman on OH who admitted to voting for Obummer 6 times? Sure she spent a couple of months in jail on state charges, but she should've spent a few years in jail on Federal charges, but not with the corrupt AG Holder.

 

As long as you vote the way the corrupt want you too, nothing to worry about.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Well but clearly there should be a clear incentive for someone to commit a pretty serious crime. And as I mentioned before there should be the whole machinery to analyze/mine vital records, cross-check registries of voters etc. I guess it would be an epic fail if, let's say, Asian-looking guy in his 30s would come to a polling place and tries to vote for Mr Guillermo Lopez, 81 years old... Just a stupid example, but if that is true and happening on a large scale I am really impressed by the depth of corruption in the whole voting system. This all can't be run by a couple of individuals even from a technical standpoint...

I'm sure much of that is all "behind the scenes" work that is going on in order to ensure no mis-matches or issues, etc. Actually, since the voter registry doesn't store photographs, it is quite possible for an Asian person with a name Guillermo Lopez to come in and vote. Now, the age difference might be a problem if the voter registry stores birth dates. I don't recall seeing it on my record.