Voter ID Issue Query

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:

I just contradicted your claim...

#dropsmic

No, you didn't. Let's look at what you did do.

#teacheswhemblytoread

whembly wrote:
The point is... there's more than enough evidences that there are issues.

Voter ID wouldn't necessarily stop 'em all, but it'll help. Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.

Looking at the scant issues that exist, you have admitted that Voter ID laws will not even effectively address the problem. You've got some minuscule instance of in-person voter fraud and you're further saying that these laws won't even fully solve those few.

See, we don't even need to ask what kind of costs a Voter ID law has. All we have to do is ask if it will render a significant benefit.

And the answer remains "no."

I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:

Manchu wrote:
It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:

I just contradicted your claim...

#dropsmic
No, you didn't. Let's look at what you did do.

#teacheswhemblytoread
whembly wrote:
The point is... there's more than enough evidences that there are issues.

Voter ID wouldn't necessarily stop 'em all, but it'll help. Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.
Looking at the scant issues that exist, you have admitted that Voter ID laws will not even effectively address the problem. You've got some minuscule instance of in-person voter fraud and you're further saying that these laws won't even fully solve those few.

See, we don't even need to ask what kind of costs a Voter ID law has. All we have to do is ask if it will render a significant benefit.

And the answer remains "no."

That's your opinion... doesn't make it fact.

Evidently some states believe it's needed and survived challenges.

I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote:
It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.

So... what's the possible harm?

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:
That's your opinion... doesn't make it fact.

Ouze already explained to you why it is not an opinion but rather a fact.

Ouze wrote:
There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote:It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
So... what's the possible harm?

This is exactly why I advised you to read that ten times before responding. As you can see, I answered your question once again in the very post you quoted. The answer is, it does not matter. You know what harms could result and you disagree with that. So fine, for the sake of argument, let's forget the potential harm -- we don't need to talk about them so long as there is no reason for government to act. And this is just such a case.

Also:

whembly wrote:
So... what's the possible harm?

Forar wrote:
whembly wrote:
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
We had an entire thread on the matter.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/536036.page

Manchu wrote:
Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.

**SilverMK2**

I pity the Fu... Manchu for having to explain this so many times

**Ouze**

I kinda regret using italics so much now

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
That's your opinion... doesn't make it fact.
Ouze already explained to you why it is not an opinion but rather a fact.
Ouze wrote:
There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.

Still an opinionated statement. Which is fine... I only object to your assertion that it's factual.

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote:It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
So... what's the possible harm?
This is exactly why I advised you to read that ten times before responding. As you can see, I answered your question once again in the very post you quoted. The answer is, it does not matter. You know what harms could result and you disagree with that. So fine, for the sake of argument, let's forget the potential harm -- we don't need to talk about them so long as there is no reason for government to act. And this is just such a case.

I still reject that premise because it smacks to me that you're trying to tell me HOW to think...

You see... we're at an impasse. Let's just bob our head and move along.

Also:
whembly wrote:
So... what's the possible harm?
Forar wrote:
whembly wrote:
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
We had an entire thread on the matter.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/536036.page
Manchu wrote:
Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.

I'm not ignoring anyone... the questions that *I* asked weren't answered.

peregine asked for some examples, which I provided. Some threw that back at me by saying... it doesn't matter. I said, "fine" here's my followup question. So YOU decided to jump in and expouse "political conservativism" as if that directly answers my question.

Classic Goal Post Adjustment.

Again, Mexican Standoff.

...

Dammit, now I'm craving Mexican food.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Still an opinionated statement. Which is fine... I only object to your assertion that it's factual.

... Which part was an opinion? That 129 million votes were cast, or that 414 is so tiny a fraction of that number that it's nonsignificant?

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:

I still reject that premise because it smacks to me that you're trying to tell me HOW to think...

(1) Are you a conservative?

(2) Would you agree that a basic conservative premise is that government should not act when it does not have to?

whembly wrote:
Classic Goal Post Adjustment.

Not even close, unless you're talking about yourself. As eventually clarified by way of Ouze, Peregrine asked for evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually wrecking our elections. You responded with anecdotes. As was immediately pointed out to you by Ouze, and I'm paraphrasing, you're the one moving the goal posts. The question isn't whether there is any in-person voter fraud at all ever; the legitimate question, at least from a politically conservative point of view, is whether there is a significant enough problem to warrant government action.

This is why I reminded Frazz that it is dumb to enact gun control in the wake of a public shooting. I mean, he knows that. But then he forgets it whenever we're talking about Voter ID laws instead of gun control. You're beating the same partisan drum, heedless of the fundamentally non-conservative stance you're actually taking.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Still an opinionated statement. Which is fine... I only object to your assertion that it's factual.

... Which part was an opinion? That 129 million votes were cast, or that 414 is so tiny a fraction of that number that it's nonsignificant?

Buddy... that's misleading at best... disingenuous at worst.

414 isn't the total number of potential fraudulent votes. Peregine asked for any evidence, you decided to add them up, thinking no other evidences exists.

Check this out... keep in mind, they're NOT the only champion to the cause.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:

I still reject that premise because it smacks to me that you're trying to tell me HOW to think...
(1) Are you a conservative?

Define that first. Because that's a loaded question...

I'm Whembly!

(2) Would you agree that a basic conservative premise is that government should not act when it does not have to?

Actually... no. That's more a libertarian strain.

whembly wrote:
Classic Goal Post Adjustment.
Not even close, unless you're talking about yourself. As eventually clarified by way of Ouze, Peregrine asked for evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually wrecking our elections. You responded with anecdotes. As was immediately pointed out to you by Ouze, and I'm paraphrasing, you're the one moving the goal posts. The question isn't whether there is any in-person voter fraud at all ever; the legitimate question, at least from a politically conservative point of view, is whether there is a significant enough problem to warrant government action.

Therein lies our current stalemate...

You see... I'm a big 10th Amendment guy. I like the idea the States are test beds for new ideas. I like the idea that not all state are governed the same way and believe that the STATE'S officials are better equipped to deal with their issues.

VoterID is one of them. We have numerous states that has passed laws (or in the process) dealing with this. Hence, my question remains unanswered:

Again... what's the burden.

You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters

This is what we're discussing... NOT what's my political belief or worldview... or if I think the St. Louis Cardinals will win the World Series... if you want to know these things PM or startup another thread.

This is why I reminded Frazz that it is dumb to enact gun control in the wake of a public shooting. I mean, he knows that. But then he forgets it whenever we're talking about Voter ID laws instead of gun control. You're beating the same partisan drum, heedless of the fundamentally non-conservative stance you're actually taking.

Depending on what's your definition of what it means to be conservative.

I'm not beating the same drum... I asked a very simple (I think) question and you want to turn it into some sort of major desertation on political beliefs. I'm mean, it's interesting and all... but, let's acknowledge that that we have differences of opinions and respect it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I kinda regret using italics so much now

Dammit man... what do you have against the Eye Impaired?

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.

And you keep missing the point. Let me put it in simple terms for you. We have no evidence that the specific kind of fraud that a stricter ID requirement would prevent is happening frequently enough to matter. The proposed laws will do absolutely nothing about a wide range of potential fraud methods, such as people who are illegally registered to vote, rigging the voting machines to favor a desired candidate, etc. So, which is more likely:

1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections, even though the likely impact of these laws on voter fraud is nonexistent.

or

2) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes because they believe that it will shift voter turnout in favor of their party/ideology.

(Hint: if you have any clue about NC politics you know that the answer is #2.)

whembly wrote:
peregine asked for some examples, which I provided.

No you didn't. You provided the same old mix of tinfoil hat claims by partisan sources about "there must have been fraud we can't possibly have lost legitimately!!!" and random cases of fraud that have nothing to do with the laws we're discussing. For example, a convicted felon voting illegally will do so whether or not they have to show a driver's license, since a driver's license does not say "convicted felon, may not vote" on it.

What I want to see is evidence that the specific kind of fraud that stricter ID requirements could prevent is happening in meaningful numbers.

whembly wrote:
414 isn't the total number of potential fraudulent votes.

How do you know? Do you have proof that the number is greater than 414 by a significant enough margin to change the overall results of elections? Or are you just speculating based on tinfoil hat claims about how there must be fraud because Benghazi?

Check this out... keep in mind, they're NOT the only champion to the cause.

Yeah, because that's a completely unbiased source. It's a pretty impressive level of dishonesty when you have claims of "46 states have convicted people of voter fraud", and it turns out that something like this counts as a "conviction": http://www.ktiv.com/story/13777266/former-morningside-student-sentenced-for-voter-fraud?redirected=true . That's one person contributing one vote. Using this as an example of why we need new laws is just unbelievably dishonest.

PS: requiring photo ID on election day would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
So, which is more likely:

1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections, even though the likely impact of these laws on voter fraud is nonexistent.

or

2) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes because they believe that it will shift voter turnout in favor of their party/ideology

We don't need to make this determination at all. The guys behind this have no compunction admitting that these are parts of a strategy to use these things as roadblocks to likely Democratic voters. They're not even really pretending.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I'll put it this way,

You can have your national voter ID law if I get a national gun control law that takes all your guns away.

Yes.... because preventing an abuse of the democratic process with free IDs....

I still have not seen any evidence that abuse is occuring or if it is that it is effecting any national elections.

...is comparable to the mass confiscation of property

How about compareing it to mass disenfranchisement? Oh wait I don't have to because that's what it is.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.

And you keep missing the point. Let me put it in simple terms for you. We have no evidence that the specific kind of fraud that a stricter ID requirement would prevent is happening frequently enough to matter. The proposed laws will do absolutely nothing about a wide range of potential fraud methods, such as people who are illegally registered to vote, rigging the voting machines to favor a desired candidate, etc. So, which is more likely:

1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections, even though the likely impact of these laws on voter fraud is nonexistent.

or

2) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes because they believe that it will shift voter turnout in favor of their party/ideology.

(Hint: if you have any clue about NC politics you know that the answer is #2.)

Are you upset that the Judiciary has not yet overturned Voter ID laws?

whembly wrote:
peregine asked for some examples, which I provided.

No you didn't. You provided the same old mix of tinfoil hat claims by partisan sources about "there must have been fraud we can't possibly have lost legitimately!!!" and random cases of fraud that have nothing to do with the laws we're discussing. For example, a convicted felon voting illegally will do so whether or not they have to show a driver's license, since a driver's license does not say "convicted felon, may not vote" on it.

What I want to see is evidence that the specific kind of fraud that stricter ID requirements could prevent is happening in meaningful numbers.

You do know that's very hard to prove dontcha?

What would be an indicator(s) that such requirements works or does not work?

whembly wrote:
414 isn't the total number of potential fraudulent votes.

How do you know? Do you have proof that the number is greater than 414 by a significant enough margin to change the overall results of elections? Or are you just speculating based on tinfoil hat claims about how there must be fraud because Benghazi?

**Ouze**

Truly, you can't make a horse drink water.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Are you upset that the Judiciary has not yet overturned Voter ID laws?

Did you even read what you just quoted? That makes absolutely no sense as a response to the question I asked.

You do know that's very hard to prove dontcha?

And your point is? If it's hard to prove then get to work proving it. The difficulty in proving something doesn't mean we should lower the standards of proof to include ever tinfoil hatter that wants to rant about Obamacare.

What would be an indicator(s) that such requirements works or does not work?

You could start by demonstrating that the specific kind of fraud that the laws are intended to stop actually happens in the first place. Otherwise you're making the classic "my $500 dragon repellant charm works, I haven't been killed by a dragon yet" argument.

How do you know that there's not anymore?

Do you even understand the concept of a burden of proof? You don't get to just wildly speculate about how there might be more fraud and demand evidence that there isn't.

Look... we do have voter issues. There were numerous cases where the number of total votes vastly exceeds that census for a region. I mean, there are districts in Phillydelphia and in St. Louis where the total votes were MORE than the known census counts and a ridiculously high percentage all went to Obama. These sots of things happens at EVERY level. It doesn't pass the smell test.

And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.

Strictly speaking, the ID laws isn't the problem.

They aren't the entire problem. But they are part of the problem, and the problem is a blatant effort by republicans to rig elections through reducing turnout for groups that don't vote for them. The only way the ID laws have any rational purpose is if their goal is to influence the outcome of the election.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
Let me rephrase what I just posted (and you even quoted!) as it answers your question. I'll use italics, since you seem to like that: I don't need to prove a burden. Before we enact a law to stop fraud we need credible evidence of a fraud problem. It doesn't exist. You can't build that case anecdotally, as you have been trying to do and as the GOP has been trying to do.

It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.

Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.

Wait, no bolds? I can't be expected to read a post without Bolds! I should note, if I haven't, that this would just be part of a series of measures.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Are you upset that the Judiciary has not yet overturned Voter ID laws?

Did you even read what you just quoted? That makes absolutely no sense as a response to the question I asked.

Of course I did... but your binary choices didn't encompass all the choices.

Here, I'll modify one of your choice as the REAL answer:

1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections. <-- note the period.

You do know that's very hard to prove dontcha?

And your point is? If it's hard to prove then get to work proving it. The difficulty in proving something doesn't mean we should lower the standards of proof to include ever tinfoil hatter that wants to rant about Obamacare.

Wow... me... a tinfoil hatter. Real mature.

What would be an indicator(s) that such requirements works or does not work?

You could start by demonstrating that the specific kind of fraud that the laws are intended to stop actually happens in the first place. Otherwise you're making the classic "my $500 dragon repellant charm works, I haven't been killed by a dragon yet" argument.

Right... then prove there's actual voter's disenfranchisement.

How do you know that there's not anymore?

Do you even understand the concept of a burden of proof? You don't get to just wildly speculate about how there might be more fraud and demand evidence that there isn't.

Jesus... I've tried showing you some reported cases of fraud. Get your head of the sand once in a while.

Look... we do have voter issues. There were numerous cases where the number of total votes vastly exceeds that census for a region. I mean, there are districts in Phillydelphia and in St. Louis where the total votes were MORE than the known census counts and a ridiculously high percentage all went to Obama. These sots of things happens at EVERY level. It doesn't pass the smell test.

And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.

I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.

Strictly speaking, the ID laws isn't the problem.

They aren't the entire problem. But they are part of the problem, and the problem is a blatant effort by republicans to rig elections through reducing turnout for groups that don't vote for them. The only way the ID laws have any rational purpose is if their goal is to influence the outcome of the election.

Hook... line... sinker.

It's all the Republican's fault.

It's baffling to me that you think that there's segments of the population that is incapable of flashing an ID at the polls. If you believe it's not going to do jack gak, then what's the harm of having such requirements?

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:(2) Would you agree that a basic conservative premise is that government should not act when it does not have to?
Actually... no. That's more a libertarian strain.

Putting aside that you are wrong about what conservative means, at least in the American context, let me pose a further question: do you think that government should act even if it is unnecessary?

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:(2) Would you agree that a basic conservative premise is that government should not act when it does not have to?
Actually... no. That's more a libertarian strain.
Putting aside that you are wrong about what conservative means, let me pose a further question: do you think that government should act even if it is unnecessary?

Possibly.

Hey... that's my standard answer to just about anything... I work in IT.

The crux of this conversation Manchu is that it's just about IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to actually agree if a hypothetical act is completely "unnecessary".

**Manchu**

I'm not asking you a hypothetical question. I'm asking a conceptual question. The question has a premise: a given government function is unnecessary. You know the definition of unnecessary. So -- do you think the government, specifically the federal government, should undertake an unnecessary function?

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
I'm not asking you a hypothetical question. I'm asking a conceptual question. The question has a premise: a given government function is unnecessary. You know the definition of unnecessary. So -- do you think the government, specifically the federal government, should undertake an unnecessary function?

No.

However, the point I'm trying to make with you is that what I think is necessary or unnecessary can be completely opposite to what you believe.

**Manchu**

That's true; I understand it and accept it. So let's focus in on that with a hypothetical question.

Lets say for the sake of discussion that less than one percent of all gun crimes are committed by people with guns that they have legally obtained and privately own. Would you say that a proposal to more severely limit the legal private ownership of firearms is necessary or unnecessary?

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
That's true; I understand it and accept it.

Cool man!

So let's focus in on that with a hypothetical question.

Lets say for the sake of discussion that less than one percent of all gun crimes are committed by people with guns that they have legally obtained and privately own. Would you say that a proposal to more severely limit the legal private ownership of firearms is necessary or unnecessary?

False premise.

Because, you'd expect me to say "No".

Severely limiting private ownership to mitigate the less than one percent of all gun crimes does not EQUATE to simply showing an ID at a polling station.

Can we agree to disagree with this topic?

**Manchu**

It's not a false premise; it's a hypothetical premise. The question is meant to determine why a government function is necessary or not. You raise a good point: that the problem and response are both important to analyzing whether a government action is necessary or not. But all I really want to know is whether you think that, given the premise that less than one percent of all gun violence is committed with legally obtained privately owned firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government in any way to further restrict legal private ownership of firearms. I'm not talking about any specific policy response; I'm talking about generally making legal, private ownership of firearms harder in any way.

**Jihadin**

This Voter Idea ID has its good points and bad points. I mention before that they went about this all wrong. They should have gone with clearing the Voter Registration Book of the deceased and those who moved from out or to another districts. I can see that flying.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
It's not a false premise; it's a hypothetical premise. The question is meant to determine why a government function is necessary or not. You raise a good point: that the problem and response are both important to analyzing whether a government action is necessary or not. But all I really want to know is whether you think that, given the premise that less than one percent of all gun violence is committed with legally obtained privately owned firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government in any way to further restrict legal private ownership of firearms. I'm not talking about any specific policy response; I'm talking about generally making legal, private ownership of firearms harder in any way.

Okay... fair enough.

In this hypothetical case. My answer is "No" simply because that'll definitely infringe the 2nd Amendment... not because it's "unnecessary".

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:
In this hypothetical case. My answer is "No" simply because that'll definitely infringe the 2nd Amendment... not because it's "unnecessary".

Okay, that's a fine answer. It so happens that I agree. And I think a government action that violates the Constitution is even less acceptable than a government action that is merely unnecessary. Although I would remind you that gun control generally is not unconstitutional. As liberal Democrats often forget, there are already hundreds of gun control laws on the books. And those have been upheld as constitutional. So it's surely within the ambit of my hypothetical that further government action to limit private ownership of firearms is also constitutional.

So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
In this hypothetical case. My answer is "No" simply because that'll definitely infringe the 2nd Amendment... not because it's "unnecessary".
Okay, that's a fine answer. It so happens that I agree. And I think a government action that violates the Constitution is even less acceptable than a government action that is merely unnecessary. Although I would remind you that gun control generally is not unconstitutional. As liberal Democrats often forget, there are already hundreds of gun control laws on the books. And those have been upheld as constitutional. So it's surely within the ambit of my hypothetical that further government action to limit private ownership of firearms is also constitutional.

Sure... same thing goes for "free speech". (ie, no protection for screaming "FIRE" in a crowded establishment).

So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?

Nope, still infringes on the 2nd.

BTW... I know what you're doing... but, since we're all civil-like, I'll play along.

**Grey Templar**

If anything, the existence of all these gun control laws says that maybe we should have voting control of some sort. Just because. ya know. consistency

Might also help if Voting was a required duty of a Citizen as well as a privilege. Too many people don't vote.

**Jihadin**

Gun Control Facts: Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced

Why are we introducing more gun laws though....

The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.

In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks.

When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he asked, "can we honestly say that we're doing enough?" and answered, "If we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing enough," adding, "surely we can do better than this ... if there's even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation to try."

But President Obama has apparently forgotten the words of candidate Obama. President Obama would have to look no further than a mirror to see who is responsible for not doing "better than this." Strong enforcement of existing gun laws has not been a priority. CNN's John Avlon writes, "before the Newtown shootings, the Obama administration had not made enforcement of existing guns laws a political or policy priority" and cites Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 2006-11 who said, "during the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have."

Failing to fund NICS

During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through

Ensuring, for example, that NICS has the mental health data that includes documentation of whether an individual has been involuntarily committed, has strong bipartisan support. Yet state reporting of such data has a long way to go; 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS in the early 1990s. This should be a "no-brainer." A poll released in January 2010 showed 90% of gun owners’ support addressing such gaps. This is a prime example of not enforcing the existing laws, which candidate Obama said we need to do. This is where the administration is failing to "do enough."

Prosecute people who falsify background check information
The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.

There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators. This also has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law. This is another area where the Obama Administration can "do better."

The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued for years that it's not that more gun laws are needed, but that the existing laws need to be better enforced. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, "gun-rights activists [have] been saying for years and years [that] the existing laws should be enforced more effectively and proactively." In line with that, the NRA backed the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that President Bush signed into law.

Straw Man purchases & Illegal gun trafficking
Another area the Obama administration could enforce existing laws is prosecuting straw man purchases and illegal gun trafficking. The FBI states gangs engage in illegal guns trafficking (as well as narcotics). The ATF defines straw man as using another person to acquire a firearm specifically when the end user is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. "That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms." The straw purchaser violates federal law by making false statements on Form 4473.

Enforcing these existing laws is "common sense" and should be the "common sense" measures pursued, but President Obama has failed to take action. As noted in my previous article, rifles – which include bolt-action, semi-automatic, and so-called "assault rifles" - account for roughly 350 homicides that last few reported years (2.55-2.75% of homicides). Handguns account for nearly half of all homicides, or 6,009 out of 12,996 in 2010 (46%)and 6,501 out of 13,752 in 2009 (47%). Note that when candidate Obama referenced enforcing the current laws, he mentioned both mass shootings like Virginia Tech (in which the shooter was diagnosed with mental illness, but this information was not put into NICS in a timely manner, thereby allowing the shooter to buy guns legally) and less-sensational street crime, citing children "gunned down" in Chicago.

President Obama addressing the people of Newtown said, "are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" President Obama is not in fact powerless to make enforcement a priority. If he is serious about reducing crime, homicides and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons, then enforcement of these laws should be a priority.

edit

Whembly. You back up what you say with Manchu. Manchu your question, for lack of words, to broad.

This is not a beat stick on Obama because the same can apply to Bush Jr.