# 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:** 537
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10721 "2017-12-23T21:45:28Z")
Oh, I quite take your point. I’ve voted mostly for Dems ever since I knew better, and haven’t voted for a saint yet. Not sure I would, just to see them chewed up and spit out. We been running an experiment in electoral politics for a while now, so Darwinism has taken hold, we have evolved well adapted scoundrels and whores. They would demolish the benign and well-intended without raising a sweat. And if it comes to pass that the Dems become dominant, double vigilance is demanded. Then ambitious reptiles will pretend to be progressive and forward-thinking, simply oozing with social hygiene. It is _perhaps_ more difficult to fool the humane and intelligent, requiring more agility. But we have evolved a talented group of ambitious hypocrites who need only pick which political persuasion would best serve their interests. For a generation, they’ve been scuttling to the dark side. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10722 "2017-12-24T00:21:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To forestall your seemingly inevitable next queries: it’s also not relevant to supplying weapons to ursine mammals, or wearing clothing that exposes the skin of our upper extremities. What about ursine mammals wearing short-sleeve shirts carrying automatic rifles? huh? HUH? On a serious note, you mentioned that “keep and bear arms” refers to only arms that a person can carry. Do I have that right? Has that definition been codified in any law? I can carry and fire a Stinger missile. Is that “arms”? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10723 "2017-12-24T03:04:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Second Amendment speaks to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. While the word arms, standing alone, has been applied to other things, the _phrase_ “keep and bear arms” steers us towards the understanding that the right encompasses firearms that are borne by people. Because that’s what it says. Seems pretty arbitrary. A ship could bring cannons to bear, so bearing doesn’t specifically require limiting to what one person could reasonably carry, and even if it did, what about the heavy restrictions on machine guns? And if there really was such a holistic approach to defining the complete phrase “keep and bear arms”, why did it stop there and disregard the part about “well regulated militia” ? Could it be that legal interpretation is… arbitrary? Heck, you’re right to say that no specific “right to privacy” is delineated in the U.S, constitution, but so what? Should we infer that no such right actually exists? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10724 "2017-12-24T19:34:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > On a serious note, you mentioned that “keep and bear arms” refers to only arms that a person can carry. Do I have that right? Has that definition been codified in any law? No, you do not have it quite right. Although I mentioned “person” and “carry,” I didn’t intended that one sentence correctly and completely described the breadth of the protected conduct. But it’s a relatively useful and generally correct shortcut, so I’d say you’re mostly right. > [@](#): > > I can carry and fire a Stinger missile. Is that “arms”? If not, why not? Yes. Arms. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10725 "2017-12-24T19:41:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Seems pretty arbitrary. A ship could bring cannons to bear, so bearing doesn’t specifically require limiting to what one person could reasonably carry, and even if it did, what about the heavy restrictions on machine guns? “Bringing to bear,” is an idiomatic usage, and not the same meaning as ‘bear’ in the phrase “keep and bear.” I illustrated this point with “bay mare,” and “San Francisco Bay.” To which recipe I’ll add a bay leaf, and some baying hounds, and hopefully that will keep you at bay. > [@](#): > > And if there really was such a holistic approach to defining the complete phrase “keep and bear arms”, why did it stop there and disregard the part about “well regulated militia” ? "The _militia_ comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. " > [@](#): > > Could it be that legal interpretation is… arbitrary? Heck, you’re right to say that no specific “right to privacy” is delineated in the U.S, constitution, but so what? Should we infer that no such right actually exists? We should infer that no such federal constitutional right exists. Certainly such a right may exist, but not one of federal constitutional dimension. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10726 "2017-12-25T15:29:12Z")
No question, **Bricker** is totally right on this one, as is so often the case. No such ambiguity exists, save for the fevered imagination of leftists conjuring up new “rights”. fanciful notions to lend Constitutional legitimacy to vapid conjectures. (_Felice Navidad,_ hoss. Sorry, used up all the ribbon…) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10727 "2017-12-25T19:00:56Z")
You do have to wonder if this Federalist Society thing he’s proud to be a member of is really a historical reenactment club. When they get together, do they wear frock coats and dip snuff, while denouncing the perfidy of the abolitionists, and the colored servants bring fresh glasses of sherry? Will they still be doing that in a couple of decades, or will they have moved on to debating bimetallism, tariffs, and the Yellow Peril? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10728 "2017-12-25T20:58:06Z")
Grinch. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10729 "2017-12-27T15:16:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Arms. Ok, cool. Does that mean that in your view, someone should be legally allowed to own and bear Stinger missiles? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10730 "2017-12-27T16:41:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Grinch. I prefer “Grouch on the Couch”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10731 "2017-12-27T16:59:50Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Ok, cool. Does that mean that in your view, someone should be legally allowed to own and bear Stinger missiles? If not, why not? People are legally allowed to own them, with an FFL, and I have no problem with that. Bear them too. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10732 "2017-12-27T17:19:25Z")
So, is the FFL "shall issue or “may issue” ? Is it difficult to get one? Difficult enough to border on infringement? It looks like a Stinger would count as a “destructive device” as well as “arms”, and I don’t see a “collector” category for such, just manufacturers, importers and dealers. I see the FIM-92 Stinger was first produced in 1978 so by 2028, the earliest ones will reach 50 years old and potentially qualify under the “Curio & Relic” rule. Here’s hoping! ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10733 "2017-12-27T17:28:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > People are legally allowed to own them, with an FFL, and I have no problem with that. Bear them too. It’s possible for a civilian to legally own and carry around a functioning Stinger missile? What about an RPG? I may have to change any objections I have to open carry. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10734 "2017-12-27T17:49:33Z")
Umm, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles? > [@](#): > > [18 U.S. Code § 2332g - Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g) > > (a) Unlawful Conduct.— > (1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use— > (A) an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to— > (i) seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or > (ii) otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft; > (B) any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or > (C) any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B). > (2)Nonweapon.— > Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon. > (3)Excluded conduct.—This subsection does not apply with respect to— > (A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or > (B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof. > (b)Jurisdiction.—Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if— > (1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce; > (2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States; > (3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; > (4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or > (5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section. > (c) Criminal Penalties.— > (1)In general.— > Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life. > (2)Other circumstances.— > Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life. > (3)Special circumstances.— > If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life. > (d)Definition.— > As used in this section, the term “aircraft” has the definition set forth in section 40102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code. Nows I amn’t no law dog but ain’t that say ya can’t own one? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10735 "2017-12-27T17:50:07Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > It’s possible for a civilian to legally own and carry around a functioning Stinger missile? What about an RPG? Both should be covered by a Type 8 or 9 FFL. As every state has its own laws, I can’t say what rules might exist locally, ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10736 "2017-12-27T17:54:25Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Umm, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles?Nows I amn’t no law dog but ain’t that say ya can’t own one? > > CMC fnord! It says you can if you are acting pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof, which is generally what you need to have to get a Type 8 or 9 FFL. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10737 "2017-12-27T18:13:17Z")
That must’ve been in the 2nd Amendment’s fine print. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10738 "2017-12-27T23:51:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It says you can if you are acting pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof, which is generally what you need to have to get a Type 8 or 9 FFL. I don’t see types of FFL as promulgated by the ATF in the Constitution. Can you point them out? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10739 "2017-12-28T05:06:45Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t see types of FFL as promulgated by the ATF in the Constitution. Can you point them out? No. The Constitution does not mention FFL licenses. But of course the Constitution does not mention law licenses when it says the accused is entitled to counsel of his choice, either. And? ---
**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:** [December 28, 2017, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10740 "2017-12-28T06:39:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … It was always the Doctor and Sarah. What happened to the thread? **Brickhead** finally realized how indefensible his support for voter suppression is, so wants to convert this thread into yet more whining about America’s Most Pressing Problem™? The Witch of Benghazi wants to confiscate his surrogate penis? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=536) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=538)