Every damn time

PJ Media : Clear and Present danger

So, another dysfunctional young man kills people and afterward we learn that he should not have been able to purchase firearms yet slipped through the system.

First we heard that the Highland Park shooter was ‘known to police’ and now we learn that police were called to the home because he was threatening to butcher the family with a sword.

No arrest, no report to the NICS database. And in less than a year, the father signs off on an underage purchase of the firearms used.

Over and over, when these things happen, we later learned the family and the police knew he was a time bomb waiting to go off and nothing was done to protect him or the public.

At the very least, the involved police officers should be fired and the parents should go to prison as accessories.

VA Tech, Parkland, Buffalo, Uvalde, and many others should have been stopped by the NICS system if not the mental health system, but the system was sabotaged.

I guess it’s just easier to blame guns than cowardly parents and liberal officials.

104 thoughts on “Every damn time

  1. Let’s stipulate that people are not perfect and sometimes will either not understand things which are clear with hindsight or may fail to act for other reasons. It is not about finding blame. It is about minimizing these kind of events in the future. It is almost self-evidenc that if the Brady Bill ban on such weapons had remained in place, this sicko would not have been able to get them and whatever his murderous intent, it is likely to have resulted in less death and maiming than it did. The price of tolerating these weapons in our midst is clear and it is too high.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Once again, shotgun. ARs (if that’s what was used) are not the worst alternative.

      But what was that father thinking?

      They had to call the police because he was threatening to chop them up with a sword yet the father gets the kid released with no charges and within a year is helping him buy firearms.

      Was he just hoping he’d kill someone else instead?

      I follow Scott Adams on Twitter, and he is going down a really dark road on this today.


      1. “Once again, shotgun.”

        Other countries essentially similar to ours allow responsible adults to own shotguns. They do not have weekly mass murders. So, actual evidence of what actually happens does not support what you can imagine.

        More specifically, in this case, the shooter was not suicidal and chose a firing point and a plan that would allow him a chance to escape. Your imaginary shotgun massacre does not work from the top of a building and firing into a crowd across the street.

        It is worth noting that he almost got away to repeat the slaughter with a second gun. The archaic record system you people have forced on us almost failed. The murder gun was in hand with the serial number. He should have been identified in seconds. Instead it took hours and the lucky happenstance that the gun store was staffed at the moment needed so that someone could go through the mandatory paper records to get his name. Paper records! An obvious reform sorely needed.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. serially numbered paper records can be searched in seconds.

          As far as the shotgun reference, First, he did not have to shoot from a building, the rifle influenced that choice, Second, a bag full of Molotov cocktails would have worked just fine from the roof.

          Fixating on the weapon assumes the monster will just give up and go home if he can’t get the weapon of his choice.

          We had the warning from this guy, and like so many before, we wouldn’t do what needed to be done.


          1. “serially numbered paper records can be searched in seconds.”

            Utter bullshit.

            You know better so you are not being honest. In this case, what should have taken seconds took hours. It often takes days.

            1. By law only ATF agents can trace guns. So first an ATF agent had to be called in. On the 4th of July.
            2. The ATF agents are limited by law. All they can do is ask for a trace.
            3. The ATF has a special center in Florida for tracing work.
            4. They had to be working on the 4th of July.
            5. They had to contact the manufacturer with the serial number of the gun.
            6. The manufacturer had to have people working on the 4th of July.
            7. With that serial number they provided the store which bought the gun.
            8. The proprietor had to been found and asked to physically search his 4473s
            9. This had to be done by hand. It is illegal for the store to keep a database.
            10. They FINALLY got to search their paper records BY HAND and come up with the name.

            While all of this was going on, the killer was on the loose and armed with a second rifle and eager to do it again.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. And in two hours, the killer had driven to Wisconsin and back. I thought you said “seconds” to search a data base?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The search of the paper records once the shop owner was looking would indeed be seconds.

            But considering what the CA AG just did, a national, searchable database isn’t going to happen.


          4. Any excuse to prevent easy ID for gun owners.

            One county, in one state, leaked (or was hacked) a few hundred gun owners and there goes the rationale.

            You don’t want a solution that saves lives, just the appearance of caring.

            Keeping pushing while Americans keep dying and you may not like what fed up people will do to end this charade of keeping a “Stalin” at bay.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. No, it was the number form one county reported, it was the database for the whole state, published on the AG’s website, supposedly in error, but coincidentally right after the Bruen decision the AG opposed.

            It’s not about how many, its simply proof that government cannot be trusted to act within the law, as leaking has become standard practice for the left.

            Oops doesn’t cut it any more.


          6. “And yet they knew who they were looking for in about 2 hours.”

            Funny they did not go public with that information until 6 hours after the shooting.

            Shooting over – about 10:30
            Press conference announcing person of interest – about 4:50

            In any event, it should have been minutes after the gun was found. That it was traces in a few hours required a lot of luck finding people on a holiday. Several failure points as outlined above.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. What difference would it have made?

            Government has proven it will not be retrained by the Rule of Law. It cannot be trusted with the unlimited power the ability to disarm the citizens registration would create.


          8. “What difference would it have made?”

            First of all six hours is not two hours. Your made-up facts are really a pain in the ass. You should stop.

            In this case, it would not have made a difference. By extraordinary effort and a lot of good luck no further murders occurred. But they well might have in the UNNECESSARY delay in developing the lead provided by the gun.

            Your blather about the government and the Rule of Law as a reason to handicap the capture of dangerous criminals borders on – or into – insanity. It makes no sense at all from any rational point of view.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Once again, shotgun.”

        If shotguns are so much better for public mass murder as you keep telling us, why are they so seldom the weapon of choice by those intent on public mass murder? It is almost always rifles or handguns and more than half with high capacity magazines. Another obviously needed reform. Ban them.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Thank god not too many people indulge in magical thinking.

            Do you really believe that a monster out to inflict pain of society will just give up and go home if he can’t get the exact weapon he wants.

            And yes, I have seen a close range shotgun wound, That does give you a different perspective.


          2. You have simply dodged the question and ignored the evidence. Ignoring evidence is a sign of the magical thinking you accuse me of.

            You ignore that many other countries where people own shotguns do not have weekly mass murders with them. You ignore the fact that mass murderers in this country rarely choose shotguns. You ignore the fact that in some mass murders – such as the most recent or such as Las Vegas – a shotgun would not work. You ignore the fact that the dropping of the Brady Bill ban on these weapons of war has cost lives.

            Instead of accepting the overwhelming evidence against your pet theory about the horrors of shotguns, you try to substitute the undisputed fact that a shotgun blast from close range does devastating damage. And, golly, you once personally saw a ghastly wound from one.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Actulally 2, one fatal. The other in about the only place one would not be fatal.

            True, in Las Vegas a shotgun would not have worked from that perch, but do you seriously think that once the nutcase decided to commit suicide by cop he would have just abandoned the plan had that particular firearm not been available. or would he have just chosen a different place and time?

            That’s just magical thinking.


          4. You still have not answered the question, much less provided any evidence at all.

            Would a person bent on killing a lot of people out of hate or madness simply give up if he had to settle for a different weapon than his first choice?

            If you think that would stop him, then yes, magical thinking.


          5. I have raised several points. You addressed one. Glibly.

            1. Many countries allow people to own shotguns. They are not subject to weekly mass killings.
            2. Mass murderers seldom choose shotguns. Your glib answer – TV.
            3. This and other past scenarios would not even work with a shotgun.

            You want to maintain that shotguns are even more dangerous for maniacs than assault weapons and pistols. Your conclusion – don’t ban them. The more rational conclusion – if you are right – is to ban them all. We – meaning a majority – are sick of massive death tolls and mass murder as the price of your fantasies and insecurities.

            But, you are not right. Maniacs may still want to kill a lot of people. They can do it “better” with military weapons designed to kill people than they could with hunting weapons designed to kill ducks. I do not bow to your “expertise” no matter how many people have been killed or wounded in your presence with a shotgun.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Mentally unstable people are everywhere. We don’t have a monopoly on them (despite what the last regime would have us believe😇). We do, however, have a monopoly on guns sold at the local 7/11…truthful hyperbole, don’t you know😇. And not just guns, but high capacity semiautomatic AR-15’s firing battlefield rounds that tear people up so badly that ID is tough.

    You would never agree to more effective screening, especially if it takes more time or relies on local community law enforcement and other sources of validation that we can ensure some modicum of sanity. You wouldn’t even allow screening of people receiving SS Disability for mental illness.

    So we are stuck. 400 million guns and ineffective verification based on a huge database that is dependent upon hundreds, thousands really, sources with or without effective record keeping and personnel to keep it up to date.

    If 40,000 gun deaths, many times that in injuries and even more trauma of families losing fathers, mothers, children, friends, employers and employees, are not enough to wake up the gun enthusiasts, I don’t expect a spate of random mass shootings will either.

    More and more Americans are losing patience with your thinking. Losing patience with grown men playing army in the woods and glorifying violence with AR-Penises that attract nut jobs like garbage attracts flies with diseases.

    It is becoming more obvious that as a nation, we cannot handle firearms anymore than children because we keep killing each other with them over pointless, but heavily promoted, crap.


    Liked by 2 people

      1. No, it is the gun enthusiasts buying guns. And militias. The gangs that are “patriots” that want European Whites only on the restroom doors.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Still about the same percentage of gun ownership, 43%, as 1972.

            We have more people now.

            I am guessing, of course, but think some are trying to defend themselves if the pond scum militias decide to attack our nation again. And they will.

            And militias were supposed to be for the security of our nation. Not to attack it.


            Liked by 2 people

          2. With people getting shot in their own homes by violent gang members and robbed, raped and carjacked regularly in all our large cities by criminals the police had in custody the day before, you think people are arming themselves against the militias who haven’t killed anyone.

            You really see everything through partisan lenses.


          3. A fine example of the logic you employ.

            What have first time buyers got to do with it?
            Uh, that would be nothing.

            How many got rid of their guns?
            How many gun owners died?

            The percent of gun owners is no more than it was 50 years ago.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. It is truly amazing how hard you guys will work to avoid addressing the issue. All you can see is gun control and yu won’t even look at anything else.

    The shooters family knew he was dangerous and didn’t get him into involuntary treatment, which would have put him in the NICS database. On the contrary, his father perjured himself to help him buy the firearms.

    The police were called to the home because he was “a clear and present danger” and did not arrest him. They did not need the parent’s approval to do so, assault with a deadly weapon is a crime against the state. But they didn’t and that kept him out of the NICS database.

    We have a good system but it can’t work if we don’t use it.

    It happens over and over, nearly all these shooters who legally bought weapons had previous disqualifying events that were simply unreported.

    That is a problem that can be solved. Fire every police officer who lets a disqualifying offense slide. Charge every perjurer on form 4473 or state equivalents. Jail parents as accessories if they hide a dangerous kid.

    Use the law we have.


    1. “ We have a good system but it can’t work if we don’t use it.”

      Well, then the system is no good. If the process requires perfect coordination among thousands of entities and institutions in real time, from sleepy police stations or schools in rural areas to huge bureaucracies in major cities, states and federal levels and then allow just a few hours to verify when staffed it is prone to not working.

      Like airbags in cars, seatbelts were wonderful except people , being human, didn’t use them.

      Anonymity and nut jobs plus 400 million guns is the problem.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Did I say that?

          I said that if we want screening to be effective we need to utilize local recommendations and investigations. This would take time and money, but help reveal anomalies that escape the current system. Social media posts, school officials, neighbors and peers would source what we know to be all too common threads of these lone wolf attackers.

          A permit should show that the firearm purchaser is a trustworthy citizen whom the community can expect to not kill the members.

          NICS relies way too much on timely input by relatively uninterested parties who are often too busy to prioritize information over other duties.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I don’t know if that degree of spying on citizens is justified.

            Nearly all of these ‘lone wolves’ have had contact with police that should have resulted in charges or protective orders, and were just brushed off, often at the parent’s request.

            If the police are called to a home because their weirdo son is threatening to hack the family up with a sword, and he indeed has a sword, that should result in prosecution whether the parents want it or not.

            The Parkland shooter put a gun to his foster brother’s head in the presence of the police, and yet was not arrested.

            Including juvenile records in background checks as in the recently passed compromise was a good step. Perhaps funding a dedicated employee for localities to manage that reporting would be a good addition.

            But enough of these young people have committed disqualifying felonies that went unprosecuted that we don’t need to spy on everyone’s private life. Simply getting the police and courts to follow the law should be sufficient.


          2. Simply getting people to buckle up should have been sufficient too.

            But it wasn’t.

            When the underlying philosophy of gun ownership according to gun lobbies is anonymity of ownership and a free flow of 400 million guns, sufficient is just not working.

            Terrorism can bring down a nation. We are having a pandemic of terrors attacks and unless we curb that, the security of our free nations at risk, to paraphrase the 2nd.

            We just had a violent attempt to install an election loser, so our Rule of Law is already at risk via what a vocal minority considers acceptable. In addition to the idea that guns are to take out “tyranny”, not prevent its inception. And the tyranny has little to do with human rights violations and all to do with wanting to solidify extra-Constitutional power.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. And how would you ensure that?

            What you are saying is exactly what the last president tried to do, only the VP and ethical state of officials stopped him.

            So where were you? Not defending the Constitution against the attackers working for the president.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Peaceful? You want to tell the Capitol Police Force that January 6th was peaceful? Or do you just ignore as Democratic propaganda ALL of the video evidence concerning the violence that occurred that day?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Again, the civil authorities were able to restore order and all that happened was a delay in the proceedings.

            The system worked. It was not necessary for armed citizens to throw Trump out.


          6. The “armed citizens” were the ones that didn’t go through the magnetometers that wanted to keep him in. If his “order” to allow them in without screening had been followed, there would have been a true bloodbath, with the majority of the victims being police officers. The civil authorities that were able to restore order DESPITE being overwhelmed by a mob.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Deterrence means little unless you are willing to use it.

            How would you use it?

            Do you envision some stealth force that is loyal to the president, but not the Constitution, attacking your compound.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. I wasn’t looking for secrets.

            It was kind of rhetorical since you have yet to ever describe a scenario that makes sense or what the tipping point is. Red Dawn is not a plan of action.

            More interesting, however, is whether or not you would defend the country against an attack by militias, gangs, on a grander scale than 1/6.

            You accused Obama of trying to create a “socialist slum” that you imagine describes Europe. What would you do if he passed a healthcare bill that might lead to Medicare for All? Hypothetically, of course.

            You don’t seem to grasp the simple concept of why we have to endure 40,000 gun deaths and unending domestic terrorist attacks with easily available high powered weaponry.

            Deterrence is not an answer. It is a dodge.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. “And I would be every bit as willing to stand down a GOP power grab as a Dem one.”

            I do not believe you. You have never shown any evidence that such would be the case. When violent insurrectionists did their best for a GOP power grab, you offered nothing but cover, excuse, and support.

            In a rational system, someone who constantly and publicly talks about his weapons as a means to control the government should be on top of the list of people who should not be allowed to buy them. One of the defined powers of Congress is to “suppress insurrections.” That power trumps your right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of insurrection. IMHO.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “It’s to preserve the Constitution from gradual subversion by authoritarians.”

            Then we should have taken up arms against every single election denying, stop-the-steal, conspiracy believing moron, including their Dear Leader.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. One side did. Or, at a minimum, attempted to. And it wasn’t a bunch of Social Justice protesters, on some occasions infiltrated by provocateurs from the opposite side of the discussion, fighting against unlawful actions by police officers. IT was a mob of self-proclaimed patriots who violently attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power that has survived in this Constitutional Republic since its inception.

            But, hey. Trespassers.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “You don’t go to war until the peaceful options have been exhausted. The system worked.”

            You didn’t have to go to war. You could have spoken out in defense of democracy and the Constitution. You did NOT do that. The opposite, in fact. You STILL have not done that and STILL try to spin this vital process of airing the truth as a partisan witch hunt.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Baloney

            I said the week of the election that it had been successfully stolen and that it was too late to raise the objections to the methods after the fact.


          14. Baloney?

            The election was NOT stolen. You are full of shit as always.

            Whatever life-saving adjustments in procedure were made in the face of the pandemic were available for the benefit of ALL voters. The fact you are STILL trying to push that Big Lie bullshit simply confirms the points made about your willingness to fight for the Constitution and oppose either party grabbing for power.

            You have repeatedly minimized and excused the violence that we now know was orchestrated as part of an attempt for Trump to stay in power even when he knew that the election was lost decisively and fairly. You have opposed the vital work of the Select Committee and have carried water for the criminal Trump by pushing the LIE that it is a partisan witch hunt and totally uncalled for.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Even were the motive for the changes intended to protect people, they were unlawful, and facilitated ballot harvesting and fraud.

            But as I wrote at the time, they should have sued before the election and not waited for the results.


          16. “… and facilitated ballot harvesting and fraud.”

            An open bank facilitates bank robbery too. A car parked on the street facilitates car theft.

            The harvesters were so good they almost elected a Republican House.

            SCOTUS has a case that could end elections next year. Independent State Legislature theory, bogus but now being looked at. What that means is the legislature has the last word on any matter, in this case elections, and state supreme courts are no longer the guardian of the state constitutions. Worse, it destroys the concept of balance of power by isolating the legislatures onto a pedestal answerable to no one except extremely gerrymandered districts.

            No there is your threat to the nation worth fighting against.

            And this is after what is arguably the fairest, most transparent and most scrutinized election probably in our history.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. Little things like down ballot wins mean nothing in support of the Big Lie. Those pesky little facts are ignored to the point that I wonder if they even realize it.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Darn Democrat cheaters. We could have had filibuster proof Senate and a huge majority in the House if all the votes switched to Biden included down ballot “corrections” too.

            If we are going to be accused of voter fraud, the let’s make it VOTER FRAUD and own the country. 😇

            Liked by 2 people

          19. Every time the down ballot results are brought, crickets.

            Prima facie evidence that there was no fraud other than the usual few dozen hapless folks who tried to vote for their dead mothers and the like.

            I always hated the snobbery of not “suffering fools”, but I’ll be damned if I’ll “suffer liars”.

            Liked by 2 people

          20. Are you for real?

            So we have harvesters who now have to elect Republicans in order to oust Trump. And this has to be done on ballot by ballot without anyone knowing about it. Maybe a few hundred thousand times to cover the swing states.

            So how would this “standing” change after the election.

            This is conspiracy 101 and you are full into it.

            But I will give you credit for trying hard, really hard, to come up with that.

            I do think you have been radicalized and I am sorry to see that.

            Liked by 2 people

          21. “Are you for real?”

            In a Libertarian utopia, probably. But here, where the rest of us reside, he is so desperate to be right he ignores reality.


          22. The point is that we’ll never know.

            With ballot harvesting there is no chain of possession, no possibility of knowing if the ballots belong to those they are supposed to.

            Even if there were not enough fraudulent ballots to make a difference, the public trust in the election system is destroyed.

            Less than half of Americans believe the upcoming election will not be affected by fraud.



          23. “With ballot harvesting there is no chain of possession, no possibility of knowing if the ballots belong to those they are supposed to.”

            With all of the audits done, whether ordered or done in the normal course of elections, there has been ZERO evidence to convince me that what you are saying is accurate. Anecdotal evidence don’t feed the bulldog.

            The majority of reported fraud has been by Republicans voting in more than one jurisdiction or casting a ballot for a dead family member. Three at The Villages in Florida alone.

            So with all of the evidence presented showing NO fraud to the level that would overturn the results in any of the battleground states, you continue to fall on the sword of fraud.

            And the one half of the people that believe the upcoming election will not be affected by fraud are the ones that believe, with ZERO PROOF, what they have been fed by TFG. Including members of this forum. If you tell a lie enough times, people will start to believe it. Even with all of the evidence telling them otherwise.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. You cannot ‘audit’ harvested ballots.

            That’s the point, even if the harvesters were honest, there is no way to know.

            As they say, the absence of proof is not proof of absence


          25. “…there is no way to know”?

            If you were accused by your neighbor of screwing sheep, but no one saw you, even if you deny it, there is no way to know.

            That is Stalinesque thinking, which is probably better than our democratic system, no?

            Liked by 2 people

          26. …”and facilitated ballot harvesting and fraud.”

            No mattrer how many timesw you repeat a lie, it is still a lie.

            You have only ever defended democracy when the outcome is to your liking. Repeatedly.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. I support democratic processes within the limits of the Constitution. Consistently

            And I oppose extraconstitutional tyranny of the majority. Consistently


          28. You do realize that in many cases the GOP members of the several state legislatures would have been suing themselves as the majority of the safety pritocls put in plae were approved on a bipartisan basis.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. And that doesn’t answer my assertion. Admit it, the GOP has no leg to stand on when they pass laws and then try to sue themselves out of a situaion of which they were heavily involved.


          30. Your partisan opinions about what is lawful do not have the support of the huge number of courts who have ruled on the election. BTW, both Red and Blue states made emergency adjustments to procedures. And, except for Trump, many Republicans did very well in 2020.

            Your continuous assertions of wide-spread ballot harvesting and fraud – all done for Biden but not for other Democrats – is part and parcel of the Big Lie. And yet you want to be believed when you tell us your arsenal is there to protect the country against a GOP grab for power. As I said earlier, I do not believe that for a minute. If the coup had been successful and people had taken to the streets to support the Constitution, you would not have been with us. You would have convinced yourself it was all legal.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. “The point is that we’ll never know.”

            We will never know lots of things that did not happen and for which there is no evidence. It is virtually impossible to prove things didn’t happen. And doubly so when doctrinaire partisans and known liars refuse to accept the complete lack of evidence as proof that their claims are baseless.

            For example, there is no direct evidence that Donald Trump enjoys golden showers. But maybe he does. It could be true. Can you prove that it isn’t? “The point is that we’ll never know.”

            Liked by 1 person

          32. “Down ballot fraud would have created standing for lower level candidates to sue in state courts.”

            Absolutely laughable.

            So now your explanation for the fact that Trump got trounced while down ballot Republicans did well is because these clever organizers of massive, election-altering fraud were worried that state courts would get involved if they did not let Republicans win? But those same courts would be OK with Trump losing by fraud.

            Here is a pro tip – when you have to make a fool of yourself to explain evidence you do not like, don’t even try. It does not help.

            Liked by 1 person

          33. Harvested ballots are absentee ballots collected by groups or individuals that return them to voting precincts or whatever other site they are supposed to be delivered to. If they are absentee ballots, there are protocols IN EVERY SINGLE STATE that have to be followed for the treatment of absentee ballots. Including signature matches, which is alwasy contnetious.

            So saying that “harvested ballots” cannot be audited is just not true. Unless you can prove that they were ALL mishandled at every step of the process, including forging of voters’ signatures.

            Liked by 1 person

          34. Not matching signatures was one of the temporary changes,

            And simply dropping ballots into an unsupervised drop box does not provide a chain of custody.


          35. The only key states, PA (20), WI (10) and NM (5) that did not require or utilize signature matching in 2020 would not have been enough to give Trump a win. WI had exhaustive recounts, an audit and a big investigation that turned up nothing except scolding for those Republicans (by a Republican) for fund raising on the Big Lie.

            And the ex-president still tried to force his VP to cheat through violence and state election officials to cheat through phony numbers by extortion and threats.

            Liked by 2 people

          36. WI supreme court just ruled that the 2020 election was held illegally.

            It’s not going to change the outcome, but it is now clear it was unlawful.


          37. A very conservative court said:

            “State law does not address ballot boxes, but, in the 4-3 ruling Friday, the court’s conservative majority said the absence of an outright ban does not mean they are legal. “Ballot drop boxes appear nowhere in the detailed statutory system for absentee voting,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote.”


            The opinion stated that the absence of a ban, in their opinion, does not mean it was not banned. Go figure.

            Multiple investigations found no fraud, so the point is moot. All they have done is opine that in future elections they can’t use drop boxes. They did not say the election was illegal.

            Liked by 2 people

          38. If the law says you can mail a ballot or bring it in person, those are the permissible methods. The fact that the law does not prohibit voting by firing your ballot into the registrars office on a cannon ball does not mean that you can.


          39. I will admit I laughed out loud at the image of a cannon delivery.

            Of course the individual voter can’t decide how to deliver his ballot other than options provided by local election officials. I checked and could find no details regarding using firearms to deliver votes. Excepting, of course, the old fashioned way of using guns to prevent or alter voting. Unfortunately, that scenario is probably coming soon to a polling station near you.

            Liked by 2 people

          40. No. THey ruled that drop boxes can’t be used for upcoming elections.

            However, the WI Supreme COurt is more partisan that even SCOTUS, so any ruling about legality of the election is biased and not based on law.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. Those ballot boxes aren’t flimsy cardboard, used AMazon shipping boxes. THey are more secure than Mailboxes (I still remember the old blue boxes on many street corners). ANd only accessible for pick up by election officials.

            Liked by 1 person

          42. “Doesn’t matter, they were not allowed under WI law”

            An absurd after-the-fact ruling by activist “conservative” justices does not render the reasonable accommodation to life-threatening viruses retroactively “illegal.” IMHO. Losers who cannot accept that Dear Leader was thoroughly rejected by the voters are welcome to clutch at any straw that floats their boats.

            Liked by 1 person

          43. The margin in WI was only about 20,000, very close for a large state.

            But I agree that after-the-fact was too late to object. Lesson learned.


          44. No doubt the Republicans expected to win, so why dispute whether or not drop boxes, not specifically banned by statute, were not acceptable. After all, it could affect them too. And, for all we know, it might have given the GOP thousands more votes then they would have had without the boxes.

            I don’t think it was a “lesson learned”, just a ploy to challenge the results if they lost. Sort of like lawyers who allow questionable rulings by a judge during a trial so there would be grounds for appeal.

            Liked by 1 person

          45. You cannot ‘audit’ harvested ballots.

            What do you mean by “audit?”
            What do you mean by “harvested ballots?”

            Absentee ballots are surrounded by a paper trail that can be and is audited – that is checked and cross-checked against requests and in-person votes. etc.

            You people want to criminalize helping people exercise the franchise even down to the “crime” of distributing water to people stuck in a manufactured hours-long queue. Shameful really.

            Liked by 1 person

          46. I have no problem with giving people water if the line is long.

            I do have a problem with “assisting” people in nursing homes for dementia fill out their ballots.

            I have a problem with a social worker or teacher or other person who can do you harm helping with voting.

            And I have a problem with unrequested absentee ballots.


          47. Yet you have a no beef with people receiving SS Disability for mental illness owning firearms.

            Ok, 9 states automatically sent absentee ballots to eligible voters: CA, CO, MT, NJ, OR, UT, NV, VT, WA. Several had done it for years with no issues. None, except NV, was a swing state.

            All the rest, including the key swing states required a request for an absentee ballot.

            Your other “problems” are equally specious.

            Dementia? How demented? Do you have a benchmark for your approval. A poll test of some kind?

            Social workers, etc. helping those who need assistance is a nice feature.

            In a democratic society, all citizens, poor, smart, rich and dumb have a right to have their voice heard. That bothers conservatives who live in Ozzie and Harriet land.

            Liked by 2 people

          48. “How about being sufficiently engaged to request a ballot of their own volition?”

            So, if someone says, “Would you like to apply for an absentee ballot?” the voter is disqualified.

            You need to try again.

            Liked by 1 person

          49. If it is not an election official, that ballot is disqualified, though if he subsequently requests one of his own volition that is acceptable.

            Choosing not to vote is a valid decision, and pressuring the voter to vote is still intimidation, especially if the ballot will then be in that person’s possession.


          50. “I have no problem with giving people water if the line is long.”

            Enough of you do in one state to make it illegal. The same people who make sure those lines are long in non-white neighborhoods.

            As for the other things you have a problem with, I frankly don’t give a shit how many nefarious deeds you people can imagine that cause you problems. Now your overactive imagination is conjuring up diabolical care givers in nursing homes torturing their helpless charges to cast votes for Biden, but not down ticket Democrats because, you know, local courts.

            I would be more sympathetic if there were evidence of any significant amount of such deeds and that they were all done by one side, but there isn’t. So, really, it is just your way of continuing the Big Lie. Sad.

            Liked by 2 people

          51. According to Republicans, just wait until Mom has passed, then vote for her.

            It was the method used by them in PA and OH after the Texas Lt. Governor’s million dollar challenge to expose voter fraud. And he reneged…probably because they were not Democrats.

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s