# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 281
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5601 "2014-06-19T13:09:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why are you allowed to use “likely number” and “probably” but my side of the argument must be “documented cases?” Because it’s rather simple to show that ANY additional burden on the registration process will result in fewer people registering proportional to their lack of resources to meet that burden. It’s rather difficult to poll those people about what kept them from registering because they probably don’t have the time to deal with the poll either. And who cares enough about them to spend the resources to find out anyway? I don’t require documented cases. Even if you had them and I did too, that would just be anecdotal. Are you suggesting that the number of fraudulent voters are greater than or equal to the number of voters inhibited by additional registration requirements? And I’m not asking for proof, I’m asking for your judgment of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5602 "2014-06-19T13:59:33Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Because it’s rather simple to show that ANY additional burden on the registration process will result in fewer people registering proportional to their lack of resources to meet that burden. It’s rather difficult to poll those people about what kept them from registering because they probably don’t have the time to deal with the poll either. And who cares enough about them to spend the resources to find out anyway? > > I don’t require documented cases. Even if you had them and I did too, that would just be anecdotal. But: > [@AlienVessels](#): > > Even if the effect is small the likely number affected is probably vastly larger than\*\* documented cases of fraudulent voting.\*\* (Emphasis added) > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that the number of fraudulent voters are greater than or equal to the number of voters inhibited by additional registration requirements? And I’m not asking for proof, I’m asking for your judgment of the situation. No. But “inhibited,” is not the same as “unable.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5603 "2014-06-19T17:54:43Z")
OK, so it is definitely wrong to _prevent_ prospective voters of a selected demographic from voting. But “inhibiting”, obstructing and harassing those voters is _kosher_ because voter confidence? Unseemly, perhaps, unfair, not stricly aligned with our alleged principles of equality before the law, but still! _acceptable_, in support of the all important principle of voter confidence? And in a very close election, an election that the Democrats might have won if the lazy, indolent and feckless demographic had voted? The Democrats should simply take comfort in knowing that their sacrifice has offered reassurance and comfort to those who worry themselves sick about felons and other illegal voters? Who are, by all available evidence, Republicans. How very partisan of Democrats! What a pity that they cannot emulate the selfless civic virtue of Republicans. Alas. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5604 "2014-06-20T00:24:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Very newly passed laws,” would mean what, in terms of time? I dunno, kinda new? But… the entire “Burden of Proof” discussion is just a distraction. “Burden of Proof” is a rigorously defined and in fact vital concept in a criminal trial. It’s only vaguely defined and in fact fairly irrelevant in a discussion like this, at least the thread as a whole. If two intelligent and well meaning people are debating an even remotely interesting topic in an SDMB-like setting, neither one of them is ever going to say “well, clearly YOU have the burden of proof so I’ll just sit here and say nothing until you make your argument, and if your argument is not persuasive, I’ll just declare myself the winner by fiat”. Even in a pretty contrived example, like, someone claims that there should be no laws against murder, unless you think that person is a troll you don’t respond by saying “OK, you have the burden of proof, go”, you say “well, here are some pretty basic and obvious reasons why laws against murder are near-universal… what’s your counterargument”? (I mean, I’d expect someone who made that claim to actually start by making an argument, and if they just said “there should be no laws against murder” and left it there I’d assume they weren’t interested in serious debate… but I wouldn’t frame that as “they have the burden of proof”, because that ascribes to the entire situation a more rigorous courtroom-y legal framework than it really has.) So instead, please respond to my other recent post, #5597. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5605 "2014-06-20T02:24:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. But “inhibited,” is not the same as “unable.” Fine. How about we change the poll location for your precinct to something interesting and see if you still think “inhibited” isn’t a significant issue? It’s the old “think locally, act globally” thing in action it seems. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5606 "2014-06-20T02:58:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, so it is definitely wrong to _prevent_ prospective voters of a selected demographic from voting. But “inhibiting”, obstructing and harassing those voters is _kosher_ because voter confidence? Precisely. Confidence that the _right sort of people_ are the ones voting. Don’t you think patriotic Americans white enough to carry a gun, and with the wherewithal to obtain a gun and concealed carry permit will have no problem getting voter ID? You Democrats just want to coddle semi-humans too unmotivated to even get voter ID. Next you’ll want right to vote for your pets and animal-sodomy partners. Bahh!! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5607 "2014-06-20T03:00:43Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > …It’s the old “think locally, act globally” thing in action it seems. Think Globally, Act Loco. Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5608 "2014-06-20T03:11:32Z")
Bricker isn’t this stupid. He’s just a complete asshole. He’s failed so much in this thread, that all he’s doing is looking for distracting issues. Once his most recent failure is three or four pages back, he wins again! It’s a magical thing self-delusion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5609 "2014-06-20T04:01:27Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > …Burden of Proof" is a rigorously defined and in fact vital concept in a criminal trial. It’s only vaguely defined and in fact fairly irrelevant in a discussion like this, at least the thread as a whole… but I wouldn’t frame that as “they have the burden of proof”, because that ascribes to the entire situation a more rigorous courtroom-y legal framework than it really has… A common sense approach. But this is a matter of law, wherein such strictures do not always apply. Its perfectly sensible to assume that a debate over a law is the same whether or not the law has been enacted, it either is or is not a good thing, no side to the argument has any special burden of proof. But no. All of that would be true up to the point where the law in question is actually passed, but at that very moment of legislative sanctification, it becomes _law_, it gets an extra special bonus of presumption, and the burden of proof is miraculously generated to defend it! You see, legal life begins at the moment of legislation… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5610 "2014-06-20T13:21:29Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Well, some states have non-partisan redistricting commissions, which I believe is a step in the right direction. For instance, California has such a commission. (Note, by the way, that California is of course a massively left-leaning state, so if liberals in general were eager to constantly eke out every electoral edge you’d think that we’d constantly be gerrymandering its congressional districts, and yet we’re not.) I agree that parts of California are massively left-leaning, but I’d suggest other parts merely slightly tilt. Still, I agree. California’s scheme is about neutral as it’s possible to get on paper, and I have no reason to think it doesn’t work that way in practice as well. I would only note that other, more strongly Democratic bastions have not followed suit, which makes me question your overall premise: liberals in general are not adopting California’s scheme. And I’d further point out that California’s scheme came into being via California Proposition 11 in 2008. The California Democratic Party was [virulently opposed to Prop 11 and campaigned hard against it](http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_9659179?nclick_check=1). So did Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. And the NAACP both opposed it and funded opposition ads against it. > [@](#): > > State Democratic Party officials are being accused of a campaign of intimidation against fellow Democrats who support the ballot initiative that would give power to draw political boundaries to an independent commission. > > There has been an “attempt to bring everybody into line” now that the state party has come out against the redistricting measure, said Kathay Feng, the measure’s main author and director of California Common Cause. The initiative qualified for the November ballot last week. > > “There’s tremendous pressure on any person who’s intimated they’ll come out in support of the measure, to back away from that,” Feng said. “And there’s been a tremendous amount of lobbying, going after people who’ve already taken a position to try and silence them.” > > She cited the case of John Smith, a Southern California regional director for the state party who had been vocal in his support of the measure until the party’s executive board voted overwhelmingly last week to oppose it. Smith’s voice, among others, Feng said, has been important in convincing voters that the ballot measure is not a Republican power grab, as Democratic Party leaders have charged. > > “He was approached before and after the vote and encouraged to fall in line with (the party),” Feng said. “He feels very uncomfortable about speaking up about it now. In the last few days, he’s been noticeably reluctant to assert his position. I can’t say what’s been said, but for him to feel he has to slink around about what he feels passionately about is unfortunate.” > > Smith was denied a bid for a seat on the Democratic National Committee at the executive board meeting. He declined to comment for this story. By the way, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the measure. So… while I agree with you that the idea is a good one, I flatly reject the picture you try to paint that this was supported by the political left. In fact, the establishment Democrats tried desperately to kill the measure. (more follows) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5611 "2014-06-20T13:22:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Nonetheless, clearly your larger point stands. So… how does that affect our current debate? My position is that I personally hold laws-affecting-elections to a high standard of ethical scrutiny, and I suggest that others do so as well… you seem at least understanding of that position, but it is not one you subscribe to yourself? Me, too. But just as you don’t abandon support of the Democratic party because they tried to scuttle Prop 11 in 2008, I don’t abandon the Republican party because they try to scuttle early voting… > [@](#): > > Again you seem to be arguing with something I’m not saying. I’m not saying “I have proven that these laws MUST be found illegal”, I’m saying “I personally find these laws to be ethically lacking, for the following reasons, and I believe that others should subscribe to my same views. I think the people proposing these laws acted unethically, and the US would be better off if people did not do so, and I expect someone to be able to say that while they support the putative aims of the laws they are also troubled by the precise circumstances”. Part of the problem here is that you and I are not speaking in a vacuum. I am responding to other posts besides yours.[sup]\*[/sup] You are, I agree, not saying anything I find unsupportable as far as demands that the law be abolished or flat statements of the law’s lack of legitimacy. But in turn, please recognize that I am responding to the more definitive tone offered up by others in this thread. Your position is perfectly defensible: you are troubled by the motives surrounding the laws, and think them an absolutely unwise governance policy. I don’t agree they’re unwise, but I do agree that the motives from some, perhaps most, of the legislators supporting them are indefensible. > [@](#): > > Do you think that’s a black and white issue? There’s a wide spectrum with “literally devoted maximal human effort to voting and still failed” on one end and “put zero effort into it due to nothing more than laziness” on the other end. There are certainly going to be people near the first end of that spectrum who could have conceivably prioritized some things differently and sacrificed something and been able to vote, but were not UNABLE to vote. For you to divide things into “voted” and “chose not to vote” trivializes the issue. That’s the proper division in these particular cases, because (in my opinion) none of the obstacles raised are severe. If someone chooses not to vote because of the mild obstacles under discussion, I am absolutely comfortable with trivializing it as “chooses,” because the obstacles themselves are trivial. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that at all. We SHOULD start. But we should start in a fashion that doesn’t have negative side effects. And, while we’re at it, we should also start with a big and important step, such as auditable voting machines. I absolutely agree that auditable voting machines are an extremely worthy goal. But I don’t agree that they are definitively the first step, and that choosing another step invalidates the stated purpose. > [@](#): > > Ummm, I’ve lost track of what you are saying. I think Gerrymandering-for-electoral-advantage is scuzzy and antidemocratic, and I decry it. Do you think that Gerrymandering is just so totally routine that it’s now “everyone always does it at all times”? (Or are you taking issue with my distinction between gerrymandering-for-electoral-advantage and gerrymandering-to-ensure-a-majority-black-district? If so, that’s an interesting topic worthy of debate but seems outside the scope of this thread.) Yes, I do think it’s so routine that everyone does it, so much so that when California tried (successfully) to curb it, the chief opponents were the majority party in California. And it’s only a topic that needs to be moved if we want to explore the nuances in depth – for this thread, it’s relevant because part of the general oppositional argument has been that messing with election rules for partisan advantage is uniquely Republican, and the counter-example shows that this is not the case: it’s a generically invidious practice by both parties, done whenever they can expect to realize gain and avoid too much bad publicity. - I appreciate it, as always, when you take a moment to respond to other posts which agree with your position but mangle the rules of logic. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5612 "2014-06-20T16:33:11Z")
So, now, after 113 pages, it turns out its all about gerrymandering and equivalence. Who gnu? Turns out, everybody is guilty, therefore nobody is guilty, therefore the Republicans are innocent. There’s something wrong with that, but I can’t quite put my finger on it, young Methodist boys seldom get any training in the rigors of Jesuitical reasoning. But for this: gerrymandering is mostly about divvying up voting districts, hence, voters. It tends to be a bi-partisan bargaining for the benefit of the Incumbency Party, the party composed of incumbent politicians who would prefer to remain so. As such, it depends on the actual fact of voting, it _derives_ from voting. It is not about harassing voters to limit their political power, it is not about obstructing voters. And voting is the essential fact of democracy, it is the crux of the biscuit, the essence, the thing itself. Now, I admit my opinions are somewhat radical. Well, maybe “admit” isn’t precisely the right word, but never mind. I only mention that to cushion the blow of my moonbat extreme position, which is as follows: Voting is so central, so crucial, that it even exceeds the importance of (gasp!) voter confidence! I’ll give the reader a moment to absorb that astounding suggestion, as it is admittedly a wildly radical notion… But where there is no voting, there is no confidence. In a condition of celibacy, there is no difference between good sex and not-quite-so-good sex. Because there is no sex. Gerrymandering can, and often is, little more than whore’s trading or it can devolve into a sordid exercise. Hindering, obstructing and harassing voters cannot be anything _but_ sordid! It strikes at a principle so central to democracy that not even the sacred value of voter confidence can overrule it. It is the ingredients of the stew, the stock of the soup, the Holy Gruel. > [@](#): > > …but I do agree that the motives from some, perhaps most, of the legislators supporting them are indefensible… Thank you, the witness may step down. No, quite all right, we need not delve into the fascinating topics of gerrymandering and equivalence, you are excused. You may shut up now. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5613 "2014-06-20T16:47:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Voting is so central, so crucial, that it even exceeds the importance of (gasp!) voter confidence! I’ll give the reader a moment to absorb that astounding suggestion, as it is admittedly a wildly radical notion… Then remove all restrictions on voting. Let anyone who wants to vote do so as long as they can find a way to check the box off. Lets see what that’ll do for voter confidence and voting patterns. If you’re worried about how dastardly those republicans are by putting extra requirements in place just imagine how well they’d do without any at all! Really, though. It is about the level of requirements that are in place because any requirement will stop at least someone from voting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5614 "2014-06-20T16:49:41Z")
Interesting, but not as efficient or as effective as the current GOP plans, of “one dollar = one vote”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5615 "2014-06-20T16:54:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Now, I admit my opinions are somewhat radical. Well, maybe “admit” isn’t precisely the right word, but never mind. I only mention that to cushion the blow of my moonbat extreme position, which is as follows: > > Voting is so central, so crucial, that it even exceeds the importance of (gasp!) voter confidence! I’ll give the reader a moment to absorb that astounding suggestion, as it is admittedly a wildly radical notion… > > But where there is no voting, there is no confidence. In a condition of celibacy, there is no difference between good sex and not-quite-so-good sex. Because there is no sex. > > Gerrymandering can, and often is, little more than whore’s trading or it can devolve into a sordid exercise. Hindering, obstructing and harassing voters cannot be anything _but_ sordid! It strikes at a principle so central to democracy that not even the sacred value of voter confidence can overrule it. It is the ingredients of the stew, the stock of the soup, the Holy Gruel. No, I don’t agree. We, the voters, have an absolute right to place into being restrictions that will ensure the confidence in the result. Yes, you disagree. But your position is moonbat extreme, as you yourself concede. So in the exercise of the more correct position, voters have approved Voter ID, long may it stand. What are you going to do about it? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5616 "2014-06-20T17:10:26Z")
Wow! A humorless _ad hominem_, a irrelevant tangent, AND a “neener-neener”! Classic **Bricker** , deserves a place in your Greatest Hits collection. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5617 "2014-06-20T17:14:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wow! A humorless _ad hominem_, a irrelevant tangent, AND a “neener-neener”! Classic **Bricker** , deserves a place in your Greatest Hits collection. Sure, sure. I’m the worst. So about the Voter ID laws. What are you going to do about them? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5618 "2014-06-20T17:17:14Z")
Could I actually make your position more ridiculous than you already have? Perhaps, but the challenge is daunting, and my son has left his Xbox unattended… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5619 "2014-06-20T17:36:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Could I actually make your position more ridiculous than you already have? Perhaps, but the challenge is daunting, and my son has left his Xbox unattended… From what I gather so far, your plan is to inveigh against me, and hope that your entreaties will change my mind. If that’s correct, I can share with you the sad news that this strategy is unlikely to be effective. So what else are you going to do about the Voter ID laws? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5620 "2014-06-20T18:16:49Z")
Well, we see how Bricker got 1000+ posts in the thread: Redundancy. The following posts were issued back-to-back-to-back. I assume it was a cut-paste job. > [@Bricker](#): > > What are you going to do about it? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be? > [@Bricker](#): > > So about the Voter ID laws. What are you going to do about them? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be? > [@Bricker](#): > > So what else are you going to do about the Voter ID laws? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be? I’ve called you on your cognitive dissonance before. Just answer Yes or No, please. Do you see why these responses appear to have the form _Nanner Nanner nanner nanner!! Right and wrong is irrelevant; my side is winning , Ha ha!_ Anyway, I think I finally got my answer about Bricker’s mentality, albeit from a different thread. In defense of a bunch of assholes who “needed” to enter a restaurant heavily armed, Bricker wrote: > [@A Bunch of nervous Nellies who don't feel safe eating in a Sonic where they can't carry guns.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-bunch-of-nervous-nellies-who-dont-feel-safe-eating-in-a-sonic-where-they-cant-carry-guns/689423/8): > > I think you and I disagree on what “not feel safe,” means. > > I have a concealed carry permit, and live in a state that permits open carry with no permit. I won’t argue the idea that all Americans between the ages of 7 and 70 be armed – that principle is apparently as American as apple-pie, lynchings, and larcenous dog-eat-dog health costs, but Bricker’s defense of the assholes and his admission that he needs a concealed weapon reminds me that cognitive models vary dramatically. Blame it on my time in the Marxist town of Berkeley, but despite decades spent in America, AFAIK I only met one American with a concealed gun. That was at a bridge tournament, with the guy proudly showing it to us when he sat at our table. (Perhaps he was trying to intimidate us if a bidding battle began. 😛 . I do remember my partner scoffing “surrogate penis” in the guy’s face.) Anyway, I wondered why the intelligent-seeming Bricker had such strange political beliefs. It appears that the many psychological studies are right, at least in his case. His beliefs are molded by fear, perhaps fear of Kenyans, etc. Charlton Heston, presumably up there with Karl Rove as one of Bricker’s idols, gave two reasons for his guns: [ul][li] “Because I can.”[/li][li] “America has ethnic diversity.”[/li][/ul] Which is it with you, Bricker? Celebration of the Second Commandment written by the Finger of God? Fear of little brown men? Or fear of liberals? 🆒 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=280) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=282)