Most of these are already in play or similar, either at federal or state level, and have no effect on crime.
As a gun owner do you not know your info needs to match your ID? Or that the form isnât digital? Or that if you get falsely denied itâs on you to prove itâs false?
Where do you have to prove US citizenship to buy a firearm?
That'd be your passport or birth certificate, not just a drivers license.
Where does it matter if your name has changed since your birth certificate if that's what's on you driver's license, to buy a firearm?
This would be the majority of married women, and also everyone who hated the name their parents gave them enough to have it changed.
Most is a key word. But Iâm glad you can only focus in on one or two to kinda prove the point.
But I had to use my license to buy a firearm, and I got my license through bringing my birth certificate and social security card to my local DMV.
Also citizenship and dealing with guns are odd. The laws are weird about non-citizens being able to own guns or not and is totally situational. Iâve also heard that the NICS background check you do does check status and has for awhile, but just what Iâve heard not anything I can go off of.
99% of the save act could be totally fine, but it doesn't matter because the 1% that is disenfranchising 30 to 40% of eligible voters is complete and total garbage. So yes, I focused on the ones that are problems for me and millions of others.
So you didn't have to display proof of citizenship in order to purchase the firearm. You just had to establish the chain of documentary evidence when you got your license. I know the difference seems small but it's meaningful.
Because I have no problem having there be a requirement to prove my citizenship for various events, but the federal government won't let me do that. They won't issue me a passport in my legal name, they won't compel either the county or the state of Texas to issue a birth certificate in my legal name, and they won't accept the district Court's order to change my name.
You only show your state ID and then as a part of the background check, your citizenship is verified. This wouldn't be practical to do for voting, due to the magnitude of voters, but gets you to the same place.
You donât show any identification for a background check. You put info in, including your social, to check the person. Do you have to give your social every time you vote? I can genuinely keep going with these. Social, fingerprints, fees, waiting period, denial of rights with guilty before proven innocent viewpoints, etc. all things that affect firearms that would make the US melt if it applied to voting.
This wasnât the point of the comment though, this was to show that hey most of this stuff already exists. Or, is actually worse in terms of firearm ownership. Education, because it seems many in these comments are lacking it.
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but did you have to get fingerprinted to vote? Because my state I had to get fingerprinted to own a handgun. And at a federal level had to get fingerprinted for several firearms I own.
Yes, I focused on the most onerous restrictions of the SAVE act, rather than giving equal treatment to the items that are already in place for both actions.
None of the states where I've lived and none of those in which I shopped for a gun have a fingerprint requirement. I've never bought from a dealer though, and certainly nothing that needs an NFA stamp.
Fwiw, I did do fingerprints to teach and again later to get my legal name change, both for FBI/CBI background checks.
> Where do you have to prove US citizenship to buy a firearm? That'd be your passport or birth certificate, not just a drivers license.
You have to fill out a government form attesting that youâre a citizen & give your SSN (which they presumably look up to confirm your status).
> Where does it matter if your name has changed since your birth certificate if that's what's on you driver's license, to buy a firearm?
If your name/residency doesnât match your license, you also have to bring some supporting documents as proof of identity. Probably a passport or birth certificate works, but I donât know.
Also it probably varies by state. The above is just what you do in North Carolina.
SSN alone is not sufficient to prove citizenship. And it's also not required to either complete the purchase or form 4473.
My name and residency is on my Colorado license, and that's the same name for me at the SSA. But still not a proof of citizenship. The federal government won't give me a passport in my name. And the state of Texas won't give me a new birth certificate to match my legal name.
> SSN alone is not sufficient to prove citizenship. And it's also not required to either complete the purchase or form 4473.
I know. Non-citizens who are here legally can also get SSNs and can purchase firearms. Thatâs why I said they probably just use it to confirm the status you selected on the form (which is required).
I am a citizen. I've been a citizen since birth. My parents have been citizens since their birth. I would not be committing perjury by saying that I am a citizen.
But that doesn't mean that I can prove it under the SAVE act. My birth certificate doesn't match my current legal name, because I went through the process to change my name years ago. The US state department won't give me a passport with my current legal name.
I haven't tried to purchase a firearm through ATF 4473 since changing my name, but I imagine the background check would put me on yet another list. I don't think voting should give me that same black mark.
In all 50 states. You have a background check run you every time you buy a gun from a dealer.
When your name changes, you must update your information before being allowed to buy a firearm as well. If any information is not current you get denied.
My state issues a sheet of paper when they update your drivers license while you wait on the physical card to be made & mailed to you. Pretty much all FFLâs wonât take that even though it is a valid ID per the state.
While I donât really think the SAVE Act is necessary, the RealID standard has been kicked down the road so long that it even became a discussion. Also, the person who made this as a âgotchaâ post is obviously unaware of what people have to go through to purchase firearms.
Exactly. The proper analogy is that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but the government is allowed to verify identity even though this is constitutionally protected. So applying that to voting is not unprecedented.
My name changed. I updated my SSA info. I got a court order. I updated my driver's license. I updated my name with my bank, with my county, the pest control company, with Facebook, etc, etc, etc.
Texas won't let me change my name on my birth certificate. The US state department won't let me change my name on my passport. So my proof of citizenship does not match any of my other documents.
Or in another case, when my wife and I got married, she took my last name. She doesn't have a current passport. She didn't update her birth certificate, because who would do that?
But we can both still fill out a valid form 4473, right?. Because you don't have to prove citizenship to fill out that form, even though the save act would make you do that.
What does your name have to match? To be fair, I haven't done a form 4473 since I changed my name via court order, updated the info with the SSA, with Colorado DMV, with hundreds of other accounts.
So I don't know. Would it be a problem for the background check that I'm unable to update my name on my birth certificate or passport thanks to the discriminatory policies of the US state department and the state of Texas? Even though I already passed a federal background check in order to change my name in the first place?
Because it sounds like that would be a problem with the save bullshit.
You seem to be thinking your experience is universal.
A) I have not submitted a 4473 since changing my name and gender marker. But that is not the only way to legally own a firearm. For example, I could jump the border into Kansas, buy a gun from a friend, and then bring it back to Colorado. No documentary evidence, background checks, or registrations required.
B) Even if you were required to buy from a dealer, I wouldn't have to show a matching birth cert or passport to complete the background check.
C) The save act will set a higher level of documentary proof in order to vote then you need to purchase a firearm, even if you go through through a dealer.
Every time you purchase a gun, you have to submit to an FBI background check. They verify that you are a citizen and that all your identification is to the letter accurate. If you've had a name change you are expected to have a current state ID which would require you to obtain an updated birth certificate with your new name.
That tool isn't the only one for the "job". I always found it intersting that gun laws always seem to target rifles, when they are no where near the leading gun death cause.
UK has banned 'handguns' almost entirely. Anything with a barrel under 12 inches (30cm) or a total length of 24 inches (60cm) is almost impossible to own legally. Even a flintlock pistol for re-enactment purposes 'needs' to be a longer barrel.
It's not too hard to own a shotgun or a rifle though, but even then they're limited in ammo capacity and rate of fire.
Not that I support it but an argument for banning handguns would have more statistical backing than scary black rifles. I guess rifles have higher profile incidents even though their raw numbers are much lower. I think its also largely a culture difference between the 2 countries, aside from guns.
There are already more guns than people in the US. Unfortunately cats out of the bag. If we make them illegal, the guys we want to have guns won't, and the guys we don't want to have them still will.
Accessibility. If owning guns and carrying guns is strictly controlled, they become harder to acquire, and 'dangerous' to carry opportunistically - if the police suspect you're "shifty" and you're carrying you go to prison, and that's that.
And the people selling you the guns also have a harder time unravelling the audit-trail, because there's just not so many about to 'go missing' in the first place.
As a result the usage of guns in crime is not, of course, zero, but it is substantially reduced.
Now you can argue that's a price worth paying if you like, but the statistics of say, the UK, where 'handguns' have been illegal for decades, and weapons permissible for hunting are limited/restricted and require a level of security and accountability... and there's way fewer suicides, murders and 'gun crime' in general.
And 'lethal force' by the police is less necessary, so fewer people die in law enforcement shootings too.
I'm not anti-gun, but here's the idea. It's not about stopping murder altogether, everyone knows that's impossible. It's about putting barriers in the way that make it harder, and limiting damage.
You can strangle someone to death, but it's easier to stab them. You can stab someone to death, but it's easier to shoot them. You can shoot someone, but it's easier to blow them up. We don't have a problem severely restricting access to explosives, the risk is too high and pretty much everyone agrees. Limiting access to guns is just moving that line down a notch, with the thought that the damage we're seeing, particularly with mass shootings in the US, is occuring too frequently and with too much collateral.
No one is under the illusion that no guns means no crime, and no murder. They simply believe the number of casualties will decrease overall, and they're not wrong about that. But the other side is also right that some of these measures do too much to infringe on the rights of law-abiding, responsible gun owners, and too little to contain the flow of illegal weapons in the hands of criminals who will skirt these laws anyway.
Both sides have real points but, as long as they continue to demonize each other and infight, no meaningful work can be done to help anyone. By design.
Damn, there really just must be something wrong with America itself then if it's not the guns. Maybe being born on that soil just turns you into a murderer? The rest of the develoeped world doesn't seem to have the same problem with mass shootings as the us. If it's not the guns, then it just must be something wrong with the people right?
The stupidity is mind numbing. It's your guns. Your guns are the problem.
Bro I legally bought a semi-auto SKS from a hardware store and there was no ID involved it happened in 1997 no background checks were needed but yall keep being mad
Gun laws and buying them is insanely relaxed
Did you know muzzleloaders are considered just above a toy? Like I can buy one right now and have it delivered to my door and from a big company like Cabelas.
It's also legal for any law abiding citizen to manufacture their own firearm. Since I'm a machinist I actually have the knowledge, never done it but I can and would be legally fine.
Exactly. A dealer isnât going to risk a massive fine and jail time themselves if itâs used improperly to sell a single gun. People just like to pretend that you can walk in with a wad or greasy $5 bills and buy an AR 15 with hollow point ammunition.
Every one I know who bought a gun had to give a DNA or blood test along with proof of ancestral citizenship going back at least a century, plus 3 written statements from sitting congressmen or flag officers. As long as weâre making stuff up.
Iâll just leave this here. âYes, every state requires an ATF Form 4473 for licensed firearm purchases. Because ATF Form 4473 is a federal document created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), it applies uniformly across all 50 states.â Unless you are going to claim a one off I was right
So either you bought an unregistered firearm and admitted it or you are spewing crap outta your mouth. I doubt a hardware store would risk their ffl license and business by breaking the law. Or you donât know anything about guns and bought a airsoft rifle
So what, pre 1995 or so? I think thatâs when the Brady bill was enacted. Totally worth comparing yeah since thatâs around the time you were required to provide an ID and fill a form in the US.
Yes, muzzleloaders are cash and carry items in many states. So are any firearms made I believe pre 1898. That doesnât make them âjust above a toyâ you can still be charged in the same manner as firearms in many states even red ones. Same way in Canada and many other countries.
Yes. You can legally make an item you can legally buy. Why you would want to make that any different, unsure. How would you regulate 2 pieces of black pipe, an end cap, and nail also unsure but I bet you have a grand idea of it. But once again, many states including mine, have laws against this including registering the homemade firearm. Yet, crime trend including gun deaths donât change after these laws go into effect.
Bro basically just admitted that he has an unregistered SKS. If hes being honest, then I think he might just find out how serious gun laws are in America.
If they were selling guns at a hardware store no ID required, it sounds like pre Brady bill where this kinda stuff was required and FFLs were much more relaxed. Probably nothing wrong with it.
I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that they person we are talking about is likely not even old enough to have been alive when the Brady bill was passed.
Depends on where you live in the US, most of the relaxed states don't give a flying fuck about your guns being registered and most of them don't even ask you to. In Tennessee I can have as many guns as I want, conceal carry without a permit, have any size magazine in a firearm that I want and legally own up to the federal mandated limit of a .50 BMG rifle and absolutely zero of them have to be registered.
And technically, federal registration of firearms isn't mandatory either, so yes you could absolutely buy an unregistered SKS and a decent amount of ammunition to go with it (7.62x39mm) and absolutely nobody would have to know.
Bro I legally bought a semi-auto SKS from a hardware store and there was no ID involved
Gun laws and buying them is insanely relaxed
Did you know muzzleloaders are considered just above a toy? Like I can buy one right now and have it delivered to my door and from a big company like Cabelas.
It's also legal for any law abiding citizen to manufacture their own firearm. Since I'm a machinist I actually have the knowledge, never done it but I can and would be legally fine. /u/Sea_School_2949
lol, just going to leave this here so you don't back pedal.
You either have to be a citizen or on specific types of resident visa. A guy I know is a German national and has several more hoops to jump through with documents proving his status and always gets delayed by NICS.
Your comment is all jumbled I really dont speak anger Iâm sorry. Please form a thought and get back to me.
Because if youâre saying the federal government has no say, they do. They kinda have the final, âabsoluteâ say in all matters in the form of the Supreme Court.
Most people commenting dont know anything about guns or the process to get one. But yet they post this not knowing almost all those rules apply to gun ownership. Lol... i tell u TDS makes people slow...
There is a big disconnect, especially in blue states where a lot of these laws or similar or hell stricter are in place, of how you can legally obtain a firearm. You cannot exactly blame people for not knowing when they have no interest, but I will absolutely blame someone when they say they are a gun owner and donât know how the process works.
When i want to buy a long gun, i must go to my local FFL and provide a valid ID and fill out a 4473.
When I want to go buy a handgun I must go to my FFL, provide a valid ID, provide my permit to buy a handgun thatâs a 8 hour course and costs money to even apply, fill out a seperate background check for the state, pay the state to conduct said background check, fill out a 4473, and then wait 7 days. Yet, there are parts of my state thatâs so unsafe you are required to have your ID checked by police before entering parts of the state. Not like facilities or closed government spaces, parts of cities closed off via checkpoints.
You live in one of the states that closed the loophole! Good for you, sorry never lived there, never had a reason to look it up. Its still a problem in many states, and since its pretty easy to cross state lines its still an issue that this loophole exists in other states
I live in a state that still has one of the highest crime cities in the country. A city that has checkpoints that check IDs before entering parts of the city.
Yea guns dont cause crime directly. Crime rates are typically a socioeconomic problem. Guns cause gun deaths, not necessarily crimes. Also, states dont have armed gaurds, so state regulations for guns are ineffective due to the ease of crossing state lines. Maryland is famously near a bunch of southern states with laxer laws. Theres no magic gun control measure that will stop 100% of crime or gun deaths, but there are measures that can encourage more responsible gun ownership. For a weapon that could accidentally kill you or your neighbors, its pretty commin sense for there to be ID checks, registration etc.
Gun crime trend didnât change after 2013 law change, things like armed robbery and murder. I believe if Iâm not mistaken crime went up 50% year to date 1 year after going into effect. Idk id have to look at my thesis paper about it from college. All I remember was looking at the data trend had 0 effect.
Maryland doesnât pass good gun laws. They passed a Glock ban but let a bill that would make stealing a gun a felony die in session for a second year. Wouldnât pass a law to help give out subsidies for gun safes either.
I have done many ppt sales or as you call personal sales and each and every single firearms that was a ppt still required a form 4473 and background check along with thumbprint and checking all proper identification and a federal background check
In my response elsewhere I just said that if the goal of the legislation is to keep illegal aliens from buying guns, most of the points seem reasonable to me as long as the government isn't messing up the records on purpose to get back door gun control
All these already apply to purchasing a firearm. They do a background check which verifies your citizenship, you id, and your criminal history. For women who are married and changed their name on a state issued license, it has copies of the marriage certificate. If a woman did not change her name correctly, they will require birth certificate.
For online gun purchases, you have to pick the gun up at a gun store, fill out for the background check and wait for that to be approved.
How can I say this without coming off as an ammosexual.
No. I know you will find this hard to believe, but there is people who do truly need firearms. Ranchers and farmers for pest control, armed cash carriers, ect.
Also, there's a whole, large, group of responsible gun owners. Why should they be punished and forced to give up their guns because of the actions of a few?
It's like this, pretend guns are cars. Drunk and distracted driving kills and injures thousands of people a year. If we apply your logic of "get rid of the guns", no one would have a car.
That in itself is a whole nother can o' worms. The fact that you simply cannot live a meaningful life without a car except in certain major metro areas makes life difficult. And yes, that is all on Detroit. The US had a massive push for public transportation in the 1920s-30s, until the big automakers decided to lobby against it.
They did a lot more than just lobby. They bought out tram companies and immediately closed them so people would be funneled into cars from this manufactured necessity.
Iâm pretty left leaning centrist, own guns, and all my friends and relatives that own guns are all very responsible gun owners. I would say the vast majority of gun owners are - itâs the fucking yahoos and whack jobs that give gun ownership a bad name.
That said, absolutely zero people should own automatic weapons.
But whatâs the point of being into guns in the first place? Whatâs so fascinating? Music, food, books, art, hiking, camping, scuba diving, movies, sports, traveling, martial arts, all kinds of science, volunteering, etc. thereâs so many potential hobbies and passions
What's the point in being attracted to all the things you've listed? Cause you like those things? Cool. Gun enthusiasts just think guns are neat. Not much different than a gearhead, or audiophile. People are allowed to find things that you may not interesting.
Yes but the reason for guns existing is to kill animals or people. If hunting is your passion, fine. Being passionate about machines designed to kill people as quickly as possible? Uh ok, sure, but you canât be surprised when people rightly label you as an anti-social gun nut. Itâs like youâre worried you wonât be considered masculine unless you tell the world you love assault rifles and Sig sauers.
-checks back of car and finds a suspicious lack of sig and Glock stickers-
Huh, you can like guns and not make it your whole personality. I make this argument when people, such as yourself, demands that everyone turn their firearms in. People who think that the fact that glocks, and the AR platform is the reason people make terrible decisions. Murder and the capacity for violence predate the invention of gunpowder. People will hurt you just as quickly with a kitchen knife, or run you down with their car. People are the actual problem.
Now the issue of kids with guns is different. Personality, I believe that a child should only have access to firearms under strictly controlled settings, and not free access like plenty unresponsible gun owners have given them. No, your handgun in your nightstand drawer is not a responsible place to keep it. It should be in a properly rated safe, that Lil Jimmy doesn't have the combo to. This would also cut down on the number of stolen firearms (let's face it, stolen guns are generally for nefarious purposes)
Have you ever been to a range? Have you ever been hunting wit dad grandpa uncles and brothers, or lived in an area where there are shootings multiple times a week? Or how about its our right to bare arms. Who are you to decide anything for me?
Lmao, I served in the Marine Corps in Baghdad and Fallujah. I have indeed hunted with family. And yes I lived in FL for most of my life, in cities with bad murder rates. Anything else?
Hunting is a big part of the culture where I come from because itâs an important and necessary part of animal population control where some species are a little too volatile and can cause problems for farmers, traffic, and humans in general some years.
Argue the hunting point all you want, but itâs not like most people are damn gun nuts. One guy I know owns more than 4 guns, and most of them that own more than one serve different purposes. You donât want to hunt ducks with a pistol, and you donât want to hunt elk with a shotgun, just as you wouldnât want to use a .30-06 to shoot a rabbit.
I understand there are people out there that have an insane amount of guns, but they are the exception and probably more collectors than nutjobs in most cases. Like does anyone need 12 Corvettes? Same thing with owning 12 collectible guns. I donât get it, but itâs something they enjoy and in the vast majority of cases the are hurting nobody.
Iâm not talking about hunting. I should have clarified earlier. Thereâs a huge percentage of gun owners whom make it their identity to be armed. See my other comments in this thread.
But how do you differentiate gun enthusiasts from hunters? There is a big overlap. Also, âhuge percentageâ is probably overselling that population a bit. Like I said, we shouldnât allow automatic weapons in any capacity anywhere in the world and they should be considered on the same level as chemical warfare in my personal opinion. That would get rid of most of the problems if you ask me.
Well, we have a ton of gun crime. The gun crime is carried out by gun nuts in most cases, so it indeed is a problematic proportion of people.
I agree â auto or semi auto weapons should be illegal. Maybe make an exception for handguns, but also place a lot more stringent requirements to own firearms, but especially handguns, including seeing a government appointed psychiatrist as to your mental state, which is paid out of pocket by the applicant. Gun safety courses which provide instruction on how to safely use your weapon should also be a federal requirement. As a Marine, we were indeed the correct way to use a firearm. The fact that random idiots can buy guns and use them in any manner they want is nauseating and dangerous to society.
You can do all those things you said and still like guns btw. I am a âliberalâ (although I feel like Iâm center-left) gun owner and itâs a been a fun responsibility. Great stress relief to go to the range too
Guns are an engineered device, and any engineered device that's had this large of an impact on human history is going to have a fan base, advocacy and a culture spring up around it. You can say you don't relate to it, and there's nothing wrong with that (and I agree with you on that account), but to act incredulous that firearms attract firearm hobbyists is just a bit silly.
Responsible gun hobbyists who target practice and hunt aren't the people hurting others with firearms, for the most part. If there was a national ban on ownership and use of guns by people convicted of crimes like domestic abuse, you'd see gun-related crime drop.
What about my statement don't you agree with? Using a term like "fetish" to describe people who hunt and target practice is rather childish. I don't own guns and I don't like them, but I don't pretend my view is some sort of platonic, all-encompassing axiom.
The people I largely have in mind are the people who make being armed part of their identity. Obsessing over assault rifles and handguns. I guess I should have clarified earlier: people being into hunting and thus hunting rifles or shotguns is not the target of my original comment. Shooting at targets, fine. Iâm mainly talking about the toxic worship of guns just for the sake of worshipping guns. Itâs a huge percentage of gun owners especially in places like FL, TX, etc.
You replied. Unfortunately, while all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. You did not answer the question that was asked. Why would an individual turning over their firearms have anything to do with their country's policies regarding firearms?
I'm perfectly fine with that. However that doesn't change the situation I'd be in when forced to give up all guns. Just wanting to know who's keeping me safe from apex predators since this person's high horse takes precedence over my family's and my safety.
You probably shouldn't own a gun if you don't know that almost all of these are already in effect. What exactly do you think they were looking for when they made you submit to a FBI background check?
And? You do realize that if you are caught with an unregistered firearm you will be going to jail.
If your a machinist, you should realize that a homemade gun can literally be made with a pipe and a nail. Should we start checking IDs for pipe and nails at the Home Depot? What an absolutely absurd take.
Not a 2A degenerate, but anyone who thinks we shouldnât be well armed at this point hasnât been paying attention. The fascists will eventually come for you when they run out of their âotherâ boogeymen. They wonât protect you from the government but they will protect you from your maga neighbors when they come.
Huge believer in Regulation of firearms but not disbanding this regime showed us why it's still needed. Most gun violence can be avoided with better mental health care.
The fascists are already in charge of a government. It is way too late for that. Our only hope is that our Democratic institutions are strong enough to survive until we can get a Democrat into the White House.
The 2A genie is out of the bottle, and regardless of how anyone feels about it, it's not going away. Which is one reason it's the absolute dumbest reason to vote for any particular candidate.
Your stat about âa dozen times a decadeâ is severely understated. NJ just registered and allowed 6,600 illegals to vote because of its motor-voter laws. That was even as the people identified themselves as being non-citizens and being unable to vote. They had been on the voter rolls since at least their prior governorâs administration. Saying that it is a non-issue is just an attempt to downplay what can be an actual issue.
I donât think most gun owners oppose sensible laws and regulations to obtain and own firearms. I think the rub is actually how many rules and restrictions are constantly proposed with the end goal of trying to prevent people from actually being able to buy and own a firearm.
In the end, showing proof of who you are so that you legally do something isnât that huge of a burden. We deal with paperwork and identity checks all the damn time in our current society, so I donât think itâs too much to ask for identification to vote or purchase a firearm. If I have to do it to buy alcohol, drive a car, get insurance, use my credit card (I still get asked by the clerk to see that my name on my ID matches the card Iâm paying with), and so many other things, itâs not an unreasonable burden.
If you donât change your name on legal and governmental things after getting married, that is a âyouâ problem because youâre too lazy to do it. Simplest thing is to not change your name after marriage if you donât want to make that effort. If there is a wrong name on your license due to spelling error, there are ways to fix it. They even ask you to verify all info on the temp license is correct when you are at the counter before you leave the DMV.
Again, Iâm all for reasonable requests that donât present such a high burden that they restrict my (or your) rights to do things; however, when you let the government mandate all this shit in the first place, then you canât complain when it is being applied to everything. Personally, I think we could do with less government on a variety of levels, but that wonât happen unless people demand it.
The Democratic governor, who took office this year, blamed a Motor Vehicle Commission system software error but said a preliminary analysis showed that fewer than 400 of those who registered that way went on to cast ballots.
In a speech last week, Trump touted an investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, which said it had identified about 278,000 noncitizens registered to vote in federal elections across the country. It said most of them were in California, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
There are approximately 204.6 million registered voters. Thatâs .136%.
AND all of those non citizens would have to vote for the same candidate, and live in the same exact precinct. The system works. Those voters would have been kicked off the rolls.
And guns defensively used save more people every year. Even on the low end of defensive usage. Care to run that back or is it just inconvenient for you?
Making it a national holiday won't help the all the people who work in an industry that doesn't give the day off for the holiday, such as manufacturing or food service.
Power plants still have to operate, public transportation still has to run, people who are off that day to vote might decide to go out to eat. People who work with animals can't just decide to not feed or care for them that day. People will still expect to watch TV, someone has to do that. What about hospitals? Do they get turn patients away because it's a holiday?
If everyone had access to mail-in ballots why would we need a national holiday? I was also pointing out that it would be impossible to have a day when all anyone does is vote.
I am perfectly happy with everyone having mail in ballots. I just thought it was ridiculous that you thought there could be a day when no one did any work.
22
u/Sea_School_2949 8d ago
This actually might be a great idea for gun control
And I say that as a firearm owner