Obamacare has 2,000 pages. The fact that you can cherry-pick some of the "free" goodies (like kids stay on parents' insurance until age 26) and people like them does not mean people support the overall, 2,000-page bill. It means that the poll-takers are political hacks who are good at shouting, as you put it.

Regular people assume that guns are regulated just like everything in our society is... Regulated for our safety. Just like we have laws against murder while very few citizens are actually murders- we all assume that they are laws against bad behavior with guns for those who don't or won't behave well.

The second amendment is not in danger of being attacked, no one is going to send the black brigade after you once they take away your guns, and finally we're going to see some sense applied to an issue that should never have come up....

Jan,
We actually have thousands of laws already concerning guns (one of which is that you can't shoot another person unless in the act of self defense of your life, rape, or grave bodily harm either by threat of weapon or reputation) even though there are very few citizens who actually shoot others.
I agree with you, we don't need any laws further limiting our Second Amendment, enforce those which are already in existence.

Wrong Applejack: New Hampshire is one of 39 states that have a gun show "loophole," which means there is no federally mandated background check requirement for any weapon sold by an unlicensed dealer. The only identification required must show the purchaser is a state resident and over age 21. If FFL dealers sell at gun shows, they still must conduct a background check. http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120427-NEWS-204270419

Sonia,
Here is a fact for you, newspaper articles are not facts.
Other than FFL dealers, to sell a firearm in NH, you must be a NH resident selling to a NH resident who is known to you to not be a "prohibitive person."
Stop spreading misinformation and lies!

By all means Applejack, since you claim to be the know all professional expert on this topic, impress us with your facts! (Besides "all the people I know who own guns" statistic you offered)

Sonia,
I guess you only know how to find facts that suit your agenda...
New Hampshire doesn’t require you to have a license or a permit to buy or own guns, with one exception: if you buy a handgun (rather than a rifle or shotgun) from a private party — as opposed to a licensed dealer (FFL) — then by state law (RSA 159:14) you must either have a New Hampshire License to Carry or be “personally known” to the seller. That doesn't apply to rifles and shotguns, by the way, which can be bought and sold freely between NH residents, except for "prohibited persons."

Sonia,
For your continued education on gun law...
By law you can’t possess a gun if you’re a “prohibited person” — meaning someone who’s been convicted of a felony, or who’s been convicted of a misdemeanor “crime of domestic violence,” or who falls into certain other categories as well. (“Prohibited persons” are further discussed in another appendix to this article.)

Sonia,
In some ways, however, New Hampshire state law is actually more restrictive than federal law: per RSA 159:3, anyone who has been convicted of a felony “against the person or property of another,” or a drug felony, is prohibited from possession of not only firearms, but ANY “deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V,” which means “any firearm, knife or other substance or thing which, in the manner it is used, intended to be used, or threatened to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.” (So, unlike federal law, NH state law prohibits convicted felons from possessing muzzle-loaders.)

AppleJack, seriously do you think people just follow these rules? "be “personally known” to the seller? lol Yeah, has nothing to do with sales, all about being ethical and who you know...bet they gotta a lot of new best friends all of a sudden. Mass people come to NH to buy their guns and commit their crimes...just like in Nevada..ex. " In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-sandy-hook_n_2347420.html

Sonia,
Do you hear how baseless your argument is?
And it is so hypocritical!
The law doesn't work because people break the law, but you want MORE laws and MORE bans because it is going to help the situation!
But you have just demonstrated that CRIMINALS DON"T FOLLOW THE LAWS!!
No criminal cares how many laws and bans that people like you want to institute because they just aren't going to follow them anyway!

As supported and reinforced by your own comment!!!

But emotionally, you can pat yourself on the back and FEEL GOOD that at least you are trying, when all you are doing is limiting the freedoms and God-given rights of the Law-abiding citizens!

Yet, people like you and Jan Schmidt wonder why we can't "act like adults?" I would counter that this is a prime example of why we have no desire to listen to YOUR foolishness!

The 23 plans put forth by the administration have are reasonable and well thought out.

No "more laws taking away your freedoms" - a smarter and more balanced approach to dealing with something that's been shoved under the carpet for way too long.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/120649409/White-House-Gun-Proposal

I mean... Shouldn't insurance companies insure for mental health? Shouldn't we be allowed to study violence? And if we have laws about bad guys having guns shouldn't we allow the system to actually DO something about it... Like requiring 100% background checks? And funding resource officers for every school?

This debate is pointless when it gets down to yelling at each other... The fact is that last week at least 24kids under 16 in the best country in the world had their lives ended by guns...

If you think this is obscene as I do... Then you'll stop fighting with the talking points and help our country deal with this.

Jan,
I unequivocally reject your claim as to what is obscene or unpatriotic
As I mentioned in response to you elsewhere in this post, I don't believe that I have an issue with the 23 "orders". let's see how they develop.
Background checks are probably inevitable, however, I think that they are 100% flawed. Less 4,000 out of 60 million people were prosecuted for lying on the application.
What I do have a problem with is the "talking Points" of large capacity magazine bans, certain rifle bans, etc...
Are you fed up with the obscenity of he talk of such bans and ARE YOU ready to stop this rhetoric and start helping to deal with the real problems??

Also, again, have you yet formed an opinion about more widespread use of a law such as "Stop and Frisk"? Or does that go too far in stripping away the civil rights of a "criminal", i.e., a prohibited person who would be in possession of a gun. Or in other words, instituting a law that actually provided results in getting the guns out of the hands of people who already ILLEGALLY possess them!

Applejack, if you bothered to travel a little and understand what goes on in other states and countries, then maybe you'd understand statistics.... buy back programs reduces the number of guns that are in circulation for criminals or anyone else to get their hands on (ex. children), tagging at sale with background checks will help authorities know who has guns...like in California, they cross check their lists and if anyone has been to court or develop mental health problems, the police visit and go get their guns. Really, it's very simple. For every instance there is a gun used in self defense in a home, there are seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides (Emory University Arthur Kellerman study of guns)

Sonia,
I am well-traveled and have Majored in Computer Science with a Math minor so statistics are actually a strong point of mine. Neither of these two traits (I am not aware of your background in either math or travel) helps support any of your arguments or statistics in your approach to gun control.
If anything, they show just how ignorant of firearms and firearms law you are!
I asked you about Stop and Frisk...no answer. As I mention, I am sure you are concerned about the civil rights of the criminals.
You respond with Buy Back programs. Sure buy back all you want if you have the money available...most guns "bought back" are non-functioning or broken anyway. But at least you can all feel better that you are "getting guns off of the streets!
Did you know that Pluto isn't a planet? It has been changed to be a planetoid! What does that have to do with mitigating gunn violence? About the same as your suggestions of banning AR-15's and High-capacity magazines!

Court Rules There Is No Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-bodine/court-rules-there-is-no-r_b_2756525.html

Yes, Sonia. It is a state issue. Where it should be.
Your comments are so transparent, just 'fess up already that you are anti-gun and ultimately, you want them all banned, instead of pretending it is just about background checks and 10 round magazines!

Dear Applejack, I want REGULATION not banning all weapons. I guess you can't read. Just like cars, make the situation where people have guns safer to reduce gun violence. Facts are painful to you I see. No, it doesn't have to be a state issue. That's a typical Republican cop out when they don't want something...they say "leave it up the the states"; many countries have regulations nationwide on many topics....if it's good enough for one, it's good enough for all. You'd probably say that about healthcare too, even though EVERYONE needs it.

Sonia,
You are so presumptuous every time you respond to me! I actually offer a heavily subsidized insurance plan to my 20+ employees. I think it is utterly important and believe that Obamacare is going to lessen the quality of healthcare.
Here's my thoughts on Government programs. The bigger the government involvement, the more waste involved...however, things like defense, interstate commerce, Interstate highways, etc... need to be dealt with federally.
Things like education, Healthcare, drinking age, state roads, etc.. are better handled with less waste at the State level.
Cities and towns, likewise with local issues.

Mass healthcare that was designed by Romney is far from Obamacare, in fact, it is far better and was managed fine by MA...even though my employees were covered in-house and we still didn't participate in it.

Gun Control should remain a State right as the governors and police know the local needs far better than some bureaucrat sitting in Washington DC

Applejack: Canada/France/England offers great care! The few horros stories that were told were paid by Fox news to scare Americas so insurance companies could keep making record profits. Canada and France are very happy with their healthcare system! I'm glad that you give your workers insurance. You will get a good tax break and finally be able to compete with corporations who got away with no taxes and the better employees because they could offer better benefits for their employees. It doesn't matter if it's a state run program or government program, sickness doesn't care in which state you live in. Another ridiculous Republican rhetoric. If the government is good enough to run things like you mentioned: "things like defense, interstate commerce, Interstate highways, etc... need to be dealt with federally"
Then they are good enough to run other things like "education, Healthcare, drinking age, state roads, etc.. are better handled with less waste at the State level." There is no difference. Many governments in other countries run the education system and beat our system by a mile; that is just another Republican fed line!

Sonia,
This was one of your most well thought out responses and I appreciate it, as it wasn't filled with a bunch of talking points.
I think that if the States run the healthcare, it would be better than Federal.

As far as nationalized healthcare though, it will never be of the same quality as private.

While I can't speak firsthand about other countries programs, I can tell you that I have many doctor friends and they speak of other nationals (Canadian, European, etc...) who make it a point to come to our doctors in the US and personally pay for the treatments as it is far superior to what's available for them in their own country.
Unfortunately, there will be two types of medical treatment, those that are available under the National Plan and another, more improved version for those that can afford to pay for it out of pocket.
This is truly the unintended circumstance of Affordable Health.
Regarding the tax break, there is no real tax break. I just get to deduct the cost from my gross revenues. Unfortunately, employer subsidized healthcare is another source of untaxed benefits that the government is going to try and tax. While I (the employer) get to still write off the expense,we are having to report those benefits on employees' W-2's...which, the next logical step is now the employees are going to have to pay a tax on the benefit to help shoulder the increased burden of AHC.

So Maggie Hassan promises UNH how many millions in the state budget? All of their polls are full of crap as far as I am concerned

Try our Governor wants to give UNH 165 Million in her proposed budget.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130215/GJNEWS_01/130219439

UNH Polls are bought and paid for.

And you know this because.....???

See if all of you non-believers think ALL polls are wrong....talk about denial...All these polls found that 80-90% want background checks/gun control. Most americans support background checks for gun sales http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/13/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-overwhelming-majority-/
Here's another...
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
Here's another.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/gun-background-checks_n_2637530.html
And another...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207

I stood on Main Street today and asked everyone who walked by if they wanted to sign a petition for background checks on all gun purchases. 11 said yes, three didn't say anything...that's mini poll not paid by the government!

A mini poll that was a waste of everyone's time, including mine for taking the time to read your comment!

Stood on Main Street ? What, nobody needed your expert fiscal coaching today ?

Here's a few more Tim; same results: I suppose you think ALL polls are wrong because you are in the minority on this topic?....talk about denial...All these polls found that 80-90% want background checks/gun control. Most americans support background checks for gun sales http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/13/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-overwhelming-majority-/
Here's another...
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
Here's another.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/gun-background-checks_n_2637530.html
And another...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207

Then the other poll that is run by a democrat selectman from Taxachuseets.

Uh, Jane the UNH poll is not taken among students...

That's a non sequitor if I have ever heard one.
Emotion based exploitation of those poor children to push your radical agenda.

Apple--and your radical agenda is "what"?????

RG,
My "Radical Agenda" is preservation of my Constitutional rights. Pretty Radical by your standards, huh?

Apple--so what about the rights of the children in CT??--Oh wait there is nothing in "your" constitution about the "right to life"...........................

RG,
There is one US Constitution that applies to both of us. It is not something that I have tailored for my convenience as you and your anti-Constitutionalists are trying to do.
I have cried for those children and their parents and I pray that we can mitigate these types of tragedies...BUT, taking away my guns, rifles, or high capacity magazine will not make anyone safer except for the potential intruder into my home. And his safety should not come by removing my Godgiven right of self defense and my Constitutional right to bear arms.
How do you not see the hypocrisy of pretending to stand for "the right to life"for children, but turn a blind eye to abortion when the difference between the two can be but a few hours?

RG, what are your thoughts on "Stop and Frisk"? Do you see it as an effective measure?

OK, perhaps it would be best if we federalized gun rights and gun control. But rather than adopt the gun laws of murder-city Chicago, perhaps we should nationally adopt the gun rights of the state with the lowest murder rate, which happens to be New Hampshire. Let's compromise: I'm OK with universal federal checks on gun buyers, provided that those checks come with no charge and are instant; and in return, having jumped through this hoop, I should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the US except for legitimate gun-free zones, such as at airports and court houses. At the same time, the federal government should outlaw fake "gun-free zones" -- all places posted as "gun-free zones" must be real gun-free zones, having manned metal detectors at entrances, or armed guards within any such building, to protect the disarmed people inside from any lunatics who might show up. Schools could go either way: either allow teachers and administrators who can carry concealed everywhere else, carry in school, or have armed guards in any school building that's a "gun-free zone." This way we can protect the children while not ignoring our Constitutional (and preexisting) right to armed self-defense. Let's do it for the children. If you don't agree with me, you're just a leftist who hates children! (Does that last sentence convince you? I thought not.)

Apple--you see a black and white constitution. I see a general rule of law to live by, with limits, which is what our founding fathers intended. They did not know we were going to have military assault rifles, drones and other more deadly weapons available for the general public to "play" with. They are all dead now and they were not people that had any more special knowledge than anyone else today. So which amendment gives you the right to live your life as "you" see fit, but denies me the right to have a safe life away from "gunslingers", who need guns to make "themselves" feel safe. God has given me the universal right to live my life, where ever I might chose to live--the constitution does not--and it doesnt even give me a right to life.

RG,
You are correct when you say that I see a B&W document, however, that doesn't mean that I don't accept that there are legislative mechanisms in place to AMEND the Constitution. (As has happened 27 times). It is a living document that can be can changed but those changes are not arbitrary nor emotional.
The term "arms" may seem vague but it really isn't. The term is limited to what can be hoisted to the body and fired <<paraphrased>>. It doesn't protect cannons, ied's, 50 cal machine guns, etc... Anti-gun advocates and gun grabbers try to complicate the argument by mentioning drones, automatic weapons, etc. These aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment.
If you research the background of the Constitution, it's signors, and the debates, you will see that it was about a control over an oppressive government. The Constitution was not designed to control us as subjects of a government. Understand, that they were just victims of an over-reaching Monarchy!!
It is true and you do have God-given rights, and NO ONE, has the "right" to take those from you. One of those rights is to defend yourself. you have answered your own question that there is no Constitutional right to life but there is one to help you protect it.
I can assure you that no gun control will ever change the fact that you need not fear to have your right to life challenged by a responsible gun owner, unless you threaten ours!

yeah ...emotions are bad!! Really Applejack? That's where compassion comes from; you should try to find some! What's radical is an idiot getting his hands on a gun that's not his and shooting up a bunch of children and teachers....

Have you found your second amendment bayonet Applejack?What's next, you'll want the right to park an army tank in your driveway? Where's the limit? Just like you are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre even if you have freedom of speech, you should be allowed a semi-automatic weapon that's sole purpose is to mass kill.

Sonia, None of my comments suggest a lack of compassion. I just try not to let my emotions cloud my judgment!
I have plenty of empathy and compassion for all people but emotions make bad law.
Enforce those that we have, seek better, more effective wherever possible if they don't exist... But instituting ineffective laws that strip law abiding citizens of their rights so that people like you can "feel good about doing something" is unacceptable.

Sonia,
I don't need a bayonet as I have other contingency plans in the event of close proximity fighting, but thank you for your interest in my right to defend myself.
However, your comment goes awry when you start to speak of tanks, etc... as they are NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
You lose credibility (whatever may be left of yours) when you speak of unrelated matters such as that. There are limits.
In fact, there are far more limits placed on the Second Amendment rights of individuals than there are on First Amendment rights.
So yes, there are limits that have been legislated thus far. But don't corrupt the issue with tanks, drones, fully automatic weapons, etc... as those aren't up for debate.

Maybe if the president would spend time instead of campaigning, we wouldn't be seeing all of these polls which a) mislead the public with terms like military assault rifles b) are being taken at a time when the tragic wounds are still very deep c)can be manipulated quite easily d) in the end don't really matter much as to amend the Constitution takes far more than a small sampling poll that is used by Anti-gun groups to push their agenda.
I too could walk around Bedford and get a far different result from my poll than you got yours while you were standing on your street corner.

Just what do you think will be accomplished by having 100% background checks?
How do you propose to insure that every gun sale is subject to a background check?

Nashua is a pretty big city and Main Street is a pretty good sample, in front of Kelly Ayotte's office! Proud Conservative, if I have to explain to you what would be accomplished with background checks, then I guess you also don't understand the words "criminal backgrounds" and "mentally ill".

Sonia, do you really believe that all private firearms sellers would comply with a background check requirement? If you do, you're further out in left field than I imagined. Furthermore, there is no way to monitor or enforce 100% background checks without mandatory firearms registration - and there's no way that will ever happen.

Proud conservative...don't take my word for it. Look at countries that do have background checks....they have control. California is one state for example, California tracks gun owners who have convictions using a database system that’s unique to the state. It’s helped them confiscate thousands of guns. CNN’s Randi Kaye saw firsthand how law enforcement uses the program to find and seize illegal firearms. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/06/tonight-on-ac360-california-goes-after-illegal-guns/ Canada...examples you can relate to....Va. data show drop in criminal firepower during assault gun ban http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203452.html

Sonia,
it's actually laughable that still not one "liberal/progressive" poster like yourself has yet to opine on the "Stop and frisk" style of law. It must really create a conundrum of what's more important, the civil rights for a criminal vs. violence against children.

Have you ever tried to comment in these sections with some applied logic?

Your two links are worthless to support any opinion that you have mentioned. The California program is a great program that any responsible gun owner would support. It is like a sex offender registry allowing police to go after pedophiles living near a school. I say more states than CA should do it!
As for the other about "firepower", the article mentions nothing about violence. We know the assault weapon ban was ineffective against gun violence; in fact gun violence increased during the ban. But 30 round magazines did decrease, of course. But there is zero correlation between a 30 round magazine and gun violence.
No different than sugary beverages larger than 16 oz. are going to decrease if not disappear due to Bloomberg's ban. it is an effective ban that will have zero effect on obesity!

Simple math applejack, there is a direct correlation between the number of gun deaths and the number of guns in circulation. The more guns CA take of the street, the less deaths that occur.

Wrong applejack, the California list is checked against a continual current list of new felons, record of domestic violence, new people who have developed mental health issues, etc.

Sonia,
You need to learn how to read instead of just having kneejerk responses based on what you think people say.
I repeat, the link that you sent about CA going after illegal guns possessed by prohibited people who have been mandated to turn in their guns IS A GOOD LAW AND I FULLY SUPPORT IT.
In fact, I wish more people would do it!
We should employ these laws as well as those currently on the books!
Unfortunately, Liberal Judges are consistently letting accused felons who have used a gun while committing a crime plea bargain and they are not prosecuting the gun felonies.

Yes Seamus, you are quite correct but the Gun Grabbers mislead the uninformed.

Sonia,
See above...same story. Stop spreading misinformation about firearm sales in NH

So what's the story about high capacity magazines?
"A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were used in 31 of the 62 mass shootings we investigated. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

By their own admission, assumptions are made about the cases and the data. This is an opinion piece.
In fact, quickly changing a 10 round Magazine or a 30 round magazine is not difficult and it doesn't require extensive training!
Educate yourself about firearms before you just accept opinion as fact!

Jan,
You are correct. I don't necessarily have an issue with the 23 orders (at least as they appear on the surface) as they deal more with increasing data in the background check and also addresses some mental health issues.
It is the other talk of high capacity magazines, rifles, etc... That I have an issue with. That isn't rhetoric. People, like the author of this post as well as many commenters hers, are pushing for these very controls apart from the presidents 23 "points".
Personally, I don't know of ONE person who has purchased a gun without a background check, so I think your call to action for 100% background checks is based somewhat in ignorance to what the real problems are.

"stand up and deal with this like adults?"

It is shameful that a state rep (D-Nashua) communicates in this fashion to the citizens of the state.

Jan,
I didn't realize you were a State Rep. You actually sound like a paid lobbyist by the Obama Campaign which is still continuing in spite of our need for him to govern on more germane matters to his presidency like the Economy, Taxes, Defense, etc...
Maybe if you look in the mirror, you may see that it is actually you that is responding less like an adult and more like a starry eyed child that has yet to realize that there are anomalies of evil in society which should not set the bar for law abiding citizens!

Applejack, are you claiming that you know every gun owner that's ever purchased a gun from an unlicensed dealer? Your words don't hold any weight, this is an entire state...you said "Personally, I don't know of ONE person who has purchased a gun without a background check, so I think your call to action for 100% background checks is based somewhat in ignorance to what the real problems are"...are you saying that you are a police officer or investigator and have real life statistics? "you personally" doesn't hold much weight; but it made me chuckle! "New Hampshire is one of 39 states that have a gun show "loophole," which means there is no federally mandated background check requirement for any weapon sold by an unlicensed dealer. The only identification required must show the purchaser is a state resident and over age 21. If FFL dealers sell at gun shows, they still must conduct a background check." http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120427-NEWS-204270419

Yes Sonia, I personally know very gun owner. I know where all 300 million guns are in the country...
I hope you are being sarcastic and not that crazy to think that I was suggesting that!
Your link was a waste of time.
The gun show loophole statistics are oversated as most people who use it to support there views already know:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/08/background-checks-and-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole/
I am glad I made you chuckle, as we should keep these comment sections somewhat entertaining!
In NH if you did your homework, you would find that in order to sell a gun, you can only sell to someone you know that you know not to be a felon. No one can just sell a gun to anyone at anytime.

Applejack's words: "No one can just sell a gun to anyone at anytime"....but then he can't read when the rules are "there is no federally mandated background check requirement for any weapon sold by an UNLICENSED dealer. The only identification required must show the purchaser is a state resident and over age 21." So I guess since everyone you know never experienced this, then it must mean there are no UNLICENSED dealers because you said so, right?

Again Sonia, same lies and misinformation.
Read a little more factual information instead of spewing forth the same BS that you have heard or read from uninformed sources.
A NH resident would be breaking the law if they sold a gun to someone who was a felon or prohibited person!

By all means Applejack, since you claim to be the know all professional expert on this topic, impress us with your facts! (Besides "all the people I know who own guns" statistic you offered)

Sonia,
Ask and ye shall receive...see above for follow up facts.

Actually, it is only the Second Amendment which has and will continue to prevent Socialism and/or Communism!

That's because it's not a problem Jack...we don't waste our time...The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-11/politics/35494053_1_voter-id-laws-registration-fraud-voter-impersonation

For the same reason we don't bother drug testing poor people when it's less than 2% of the population who take drugs and it would cost a state $200 000 to run the program...ask Florida http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple

Go back to drinking liberally and have a cocktail

The Pistorius events happen when anyone is allowed to have a gun...do you want to be South Africa where 15 000 murders a year? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/26/south-african-guns-are-us

Now something like that is not something I have a problem with.