Election fraud prosecutions

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
To hacp and jhhnn -
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d...INION01/707230327/1008

READ!

seniors, the disabled and the poor may obtain photo ID from the secretary of state's office for free.

In Michigan.

"Undue burden".... :roll:

The question is not price, its time. Some people don't have the patience to waste X amount of time.

Then don't vote. If you don't have enough time to get a valid ID then you don't have enought time to look over the issues either.

People in Afghanistan and Iraq are risking their lives to vote and Americans can't spare a few hours to get an ID so they can vote? How pathetic of an arguement that is.

Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens. Take the right of arms for example. If we make everyone wait 10 years and pay huge fees for the right to own a weapon, we would be seriously hampering the rights of law abiding citizens to own small arms.

 

[Jhhnn]

OMFG! Eight dead people voted in the Washington Governor's Race! Sweet Jesus, this threatens the very foundations of Democracy!

Quick! revamp the whole system. We've got to address this widespread and insidious problem immediately!

This is one of the lamest tempest in a teapot scams ever perpetrated by the rightwing. As usual, they're trying to make a big deal out of a truly minor problem, find ways to discourage voters from showing up at all...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
OMFG! Eight dead people voted in the Washington Governor's Race! Sweet Jesus, this threatens the very foundations of Democracy!

Quick! revamp the whole system. We've got to address this widespread and insidious problem immediately!

This is one of the lamest tempest in a teapot scams ever perpetrated by the rightwing. As usual, they're trying to make a big deal out of a truly minor problem, find ways to discourage voters from showing up at all...

You are the one expecting some big grand scenario - I'm not. Dead people voting is only a part of the many problems we have with the current system. But if you insist, then the whole electronic voting issue is nothing but a tempest in a teapot(using your "logic") and something that the Democrats are making a big deal about.

Again, I am for addressing ALL of the problems regarding the system - not just one or two like you and yours are.

BTW, there are more examples of dead people voting but you have shown time and time again you won't give up no matter what is presented to you. Meh, have fun with your "it's the GOP disenfranchising voters" BS...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
To hacp and jhhnn -
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d...INION01/707230327/1008

READ!

seniors, the disabled and the poor may obtain photo ID from the secretary of state's office for free.

In Michigan.

"Undue burden".... :roll:

The question is not price, its time. Some people don't have the patience to waste X amount of time.

Then don't vote. If you don't have enough time to get a valid ID then you don't have enought time to look over the issues either.

People in Afghanistan and Iraq are risking their lives to vote and Americans can't spare a few hours to get an ID so they can vote? How pathetic of an arguement that is.

Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens. Take the right of arms for example. If we make everyone wait 10 years and pay huge fees for the right to own a weapon, we would be seriously hampering the rights of law abiding citizens to own small arms.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
To hacp and jhhnn -
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d...INION01/707230327/1008

READ!

seniors, the disabled and the poor may obtain photo ID from the secretary of state's office for free.

In Michigan.

"Undue burden".... :roll:

The question is not price, its time. Some people don't have the patience to waste X amount of time.

Then don't vote. If you don't have enough time to get a valid ID then you don't have enought time to look over the issues either.

People in Afghanistan and Iraq are risking their lives to vote and Americans can't spare a few hours to get an ID so they can vote? How pathetic of an arguement that is.

Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens. Take the right of arms for example. If we make everyone wait 10 years and pay huge fees for the right to own a weapon, we would be seriously hampering the rights of law abiding citizens to own small arms.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
To hacp and jhhnn -
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d...INION01/707230327/1008

READ!

seniors, the disabled and the poor may obtain photo ID from the secretary of state's office for free.

In Michigan.

"Undue burden".... :roll:

The question is not price, its time. Some people don't have the patience to waste X amount of time.

Then don't vote. If you don't have enough time to get a valid ID then you don't have enought time to look over the issues either.

People in Afghanistan and Iraq are risking their lives to vote and Americans can't spare a few hours to get an ID so they can vote? How pathetic of an arguement that is.

Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens. Take the right of arms for example. If we make everyone wait 10 years and pay huge fees for the right to own a weapon, we would be seriously hampering the rights of law abiding citizens to own small arms.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
To hacp and jhhnn -
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d...INION01/707230327/1008

READ!

seniors, the disabled and the poor may obtain photo ID from the secretary of state's office for free.

In Michigan.

"Undue burden".... :roll:

The question is not price, its time. Some people don't have the patience to waste X amount of time.

Then don't vote. If you don't have enough time to get a valid ID then you don't have enought time to look over the issues either.

People in Afghanistan and Iraq are risking their lives to vote and Americans can't spare a few hours to get an ID so they can vote? How pathetic of an arguement that is.

Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens. Take the right of arms for example. If we make everyone wait 10 years and pay huge fees for the right to own a weapon, we would be seriously hampering the rights of law abiding citizens to own small arms.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution.

Hey, it's your "logic" that I was using. So is it or is it not "tedious" to have to show an ID to buy a gun?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
To hacp and jhhnn -
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d...INION01/707230327/1008

READ!

seniors, the disabled and the poor may obtain photo ID from the secretary of state's office for free.

In Michigan.

"Undue burden".... :roll:

The question is not price, its time. Some people don't have the patience to waste X amount of time.

Then don't vote. If you don't have enough time to get a valid ID then you don't have enought time to look over the issues either.

People in Afghanistan and Iraq are risking their lives to vote and Americans can't spare a few hours to get an ID so they can vote? How pathetic of an arguement that is.

Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens. Take the right of arms for example. If we make everyone wait 10 years and pay huge fees for the right to own a weapon, we would be seriously hampering the rights of law abiding citizens to own small arms.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution.

Hey, it's your "logic" that I was using. So is it or is it not "tedious" to have to show an ID to buy a gun?

Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

ignorant straw man. 2nd amendment right to bear arms does not apply to nuclear weapons as they are not arms.

are you talking about assault weapon as in shorter-barreled infantry weapons designed for assaulting strongholds or as in the federal assault weapons ban of guns that look scary? either of them, of course, is a small arm, so the fact that you differentiate them in your post makes me think that, again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.





and 1700 known fraudulent registrations is a big deal when the governor's election was won by an order of magnitude fewer votes than that.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp
Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

ignorant straw man. 2nd amendment right to bear arms does not apply to nuclear weapons as they are not arms.

are you talking about assault weapon as in shorter-barreled infantry weapons designed for assaulting strongholds or as in the federal assault weapons ban of guns that look scary? either of them, of course, is a small arm, so the fact that you differentiate them in your post makes me think that, again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

You argument here is pathetic.

Might as well say ?your right CAD, I was wrong.?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

You argument here is pathetic.

Might as well say ?your right CAD, I was wrong.?

Not really. I was trying to make a point, and I think I made it. You can't compare restrictions on voting to restrictions on guns. They are two different things. My previous point was that excessive restrictions bog down voter turnout, and might even have the effect of denying a voter's right to vote, just like an excessive amount of wait time for a gun(and I spun out an excessive number, 10 years) would have a bad effect on gun ownership.

CAD tried to turn it into another argument, comparing apples directly to oranges. Just like you can't directly compare regulations on voting to regulation on guns, you can't compare gun regulation to the ban on nuclear weapons. Just because I said that I thought ID requirements on the day of the vote would hamper voting turnout does not mean that I supported the idea of removing of ID requirements to purchase a gun.

 

[ProfJohn]

Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

I don?t really buy the ?making people show an ID will lower turnout' argument.

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

You argument here is pathetic.

Might as well say ?your right CAD, I was wrong.?

Not really. I was trying to make a point, and I think I made it. You can't compare restrictions on voting to restrictions on guns. They are two different things. My previous point was that excessive restrictions bog down voter turnout, and might even have the effect of denying a voter's right to vote, just like an excessive amount of wait time for a gun(and I spun out an excessive number, 10 years) would have a bad effect on gun ownership.

CAD tried to turn it into another argument, comparing apples directly to oranges. Just like you can't directly compare regulations on voting to regulation on guns, you can't compare gun regulation to the ban on nuclear weapons. Just because I said that I thought ID requirements on the day of the vote would hamper voting turnout does not mean that I supported the idea of removing of ID requirements to purchase a gun.

Actually, the point here is that you used the "right" to vote as your reason to not make it "tedious". So the logic follows that anything that is a "right" should not be made "tedious" if your "logic" is to be followed all the way through. I happen to think it's an absurd "logic". This is the second time now that we have clashed over your "logic" because you used bad reasoning for backing up your position. I'm just trying to make you think about what you are saying. You need to think your positions through or we'll be back here doing this same thing in the next thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

To be very honest about all of this, I need to say that I have very strong issues wrt trust in the voices calling for so-called "reform".

As we've seen time and again, those same voices usually have ulterior motives, often employing bait and switch tactics to arrive at the ends they seek.

Take, for example, the title of this thread- "Election Fraud". The truth is that no fraud has been shown to exist in the election itself, but rather in registration of voters, there being a world of difference. It has been shown, however, that the intent of the perps was never to actually affect the election in any way, but rather to enrich themselves by scamming their employer. Because those false identities didn't vote, they were automatically stricken from the rolls, and the potential for real abuse averted by the existing system.

The whole bit wrt dead people voting is much the same. It's always existed, and has been a very minor problem in the greater scheme of things. Nor has it been shown to be a partisan phenomenon, at all. Statistically, it's completely insignificant, and those raising the current hue and cry know it.

So there must be other reasons for all the attention provided to this subject, because the stated reasons are insufficient grounds for any action at all... and certainly aren't any kind of effort to encourage voting, either. It's not so much a question of some people falling through the cracks, but rather of them being intentionally sifted out- something we should all object to, regardless of the political leanings of ourselves or those so affected...

 

[Butterbean]

There are only commotions and accusations when Dems lose. Did you see armies of lawyers last election? NO - because the sore, desperate losers didn't need to get sore and desperate.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
There are only commotions and accusations when Dems lose. Did you see armies of lawyers last election? NO - because the sore, desperate losers didn't need to get sore and desperate.

I seem to remember plenty of whining, bitching, moaning Republicans (and their lawyers) surrounding the 2000 election. And the whining was quite prevalent in 2004, even when the Republicans WON. All those vast liberal conspiracy theories that turned out to be a few idiots slashing tires...remember that? 2006 was an aberration (for both sides), probably because nobody in their right mind would have believed that the Republicans had actually won.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
Of course. I support the right to bear arms, especially nuclear armaments. Everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons, its in our constitution. It IS too tedious to show an ID to purchase a gun. It is also tedious to try making a nuclear weapon in the US for personal use. Lets get rid of all these phoney government regulations. If everyone has a nuclear bomb, then the world will be much safter. MAD has proven that no one wants the end of the world.

I think that all the supporters of arms, especially the neo-cons, should support me on this. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, small arms, assualt weapons, or nuclear arms.

You argument here is pathetic.

Might as well say ?your right CAD, I was wrong.?

Not really. I was trying to make a point, and I think I made it. You can't compare restrictions on voting to restrictions on guns. They are two different things. My previous point was that excessive restrictions bog down voter turnout, and might even have the effect of denying a voter's right to vote, just like an excessive amount of wait time for a gun(and I spun out an excessive number, 10 years) would have a bad effect on gun ownership.

CAD tried to turn it into another argument, comparing apples directly to oranges. Just like you can't directly compare regulations on voting to regulation on guns, you can't compare gun regulation to the ban on nuclear weapons. Just because I said that I thought ID requirements on the day of the vote would hamper voting turnout does not mean that I supported the idea of removing of ID requirements to purchase a gun.

Actually, the point here is that you used the "right" to vote as your reason to not make it "tedious". So the logic follows that anything that is a "right" should not be made "tedious" if your "logic" is to be followed all the way through. I happen to think it's an absurd "logic". This is the second time now that we have clashed over your "logic" because you used bad reasoning for backing up your position. I'm just trying to make you think about what you are saying. You need to think your positions through or we'll be back here doing this same thing in the next thread.

First of all, yes. We have rights, and we need to protect them. Voting, just like gun rights, should not be made too tedious. The problem with your argument is that you tried to compare the procedure to vote DIRECTLY with the procedure to purchasing a gun. Two different things. Apples to oranges. You need to revisit the strawman you put up on page two. Here it is.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

This made me bring up Nuclear Weapons. I was hoping that you would notice that my strawman about nuclear weapons is about as valid as your strawman. Of course, you didn't.

This is the second time now that we have clashed over your "logic" because you used bad reasoning for backing up your position. I'm just trying to make you think about what you are saying. You need to think your positions through or we'll be back here doing this same thing in the next thread.

In that thread, I hinted that that dependancy is a necessary evil in the fight to prevent unnecessary deaths that are caused by being poor.You tried, again, to compare apples to oranges, comparing coporations to people. You can't do that. Corporations/Buisinesses and people are two different things.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Wrong, it was your "logic". Your "rights" and "tedious" - I simply applied the same "reasoning" to another "right" we have which is gun ownership.

 

[dyna]

Voting is a pain whether you have an ID or not. I wish it were more accessible.

 

[piasabird]

Well if you are too old to drive, and live in a nursing home, you may not have a need for a driver's license. Your affairs may be taken care of by other people at that point. It took me like 10 minutes to vote last time and every time I have gone to vote. Maybe the problem is the local officials in your district.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit wrt dead people voting is much the same. It's always existed, and has been a very minor problem in the greater scheme of things. Nor has it been shown to be a partisan phenomenon, at all. Statistically, it's completely insignificant, and those raising the current hue and cry know it.

for large elections with hundreds of thousands or millions of voters and margins of victory of tens of thousands, no, it's probably not significant.

but for elections of just thousands of voters or elections with very narrow margins, then it can be very significant. for city council seats, county commissioners, judges, state representative seats, primaries that are effectively the general election, etc., a couple hundred votes either way could be very significant.

LBJ's 1948 democratic primary (which was the general election, for all intents and purposes) is a great example. 202 ballots cast in alphabetical order came in at the last minute from a missing ballot box. all the signatures were in the same hand. LBJ's margin of victory was all of 87 votes. and that was a US senate seat!

and even small elections can have big outcomes on the national stage. look at what happened when the republicans took the texas legislature for the first time since reconstruction. they changed the US house districts from being gerrymandered for democrats to being gerrymandered for republicans.

the 2004 washington governor's election (margin of victory, 129 votes) was a mess. the fact that ballots were found underneath mail tray (224 ballots) or lost in warehouses (150 ballots) should not make anyone confident in the election machinery.

one person should have one vote and that vote should be counted.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Wrong, it was your "logic". Your "rights" and "tedious" - I simply applied the same "reasoning" to another "right" we have which is gun ownership.

Again, read from above. You tried to compare the process of getting a gun to the process of voting. Two different things. That is where your bad logic comes in.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .