Question for those that oppose requiring a photo ID for voting

[g5000]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Wow. This is like whack-a-mole. You destroy a logical fallacy in one topic, so the person committing the fallacy starts a NEW topic!

We should probably make free speech require an ID to make an ass of yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Wow. This is like whack-a-mole. You destroy a logical fallacy in one topic, so the person committing the fallacy starts a NEW topic!

I see you still suffer from delusions of relevance.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Voting is a fundamental right; owning a firearm is not – two different standards of judicial review.

Also, one’s citizenship is confirmed at registration, there’s no need to confirm it again and again with every vote, year after year.

Last, the state can offer a compelling governmental reason for checking ID when purchasing a firearm, which is not the case with voting – i.e., addressing ‘fraud.’

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Ya wanna try again, Junior? Oh, and it's the SECOND Amendment, way before voting was addressed: VOTING AMENDMENTS

1. 15th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (1870)

2. 19th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. (1920)

3. 24th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of people pay poll tax or other tax. (1964)

4. 26th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. (1971)

 

[Crackerjack]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Voting is a fundamental right; owning a firearm is not – two different standards of judicial review.

Also, one’s citizenship is confirmed at registration, there’s no need to confirm it again and again with every vote, year after year.

Last, the state can offer a compelling governmental reason for checking ID when purchasing a firearm, which is not the case with voting – i.e., addressing ‘fraud.’

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Ya wanna try again, Junior? Oh, and it's the SECOND Amendment, way before voting was addressed: VOTING AMENDMENTS

1. 15th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (1870)

2. 19th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. (1920)

3. 24th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of people pay poll tax or other tax. (1964)

4. 26th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. (1971)

Great. Now you're going to force him to break out his bar/bri book and quote some more case law.

 

[g5000]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Okay, for retards who need things explained to them more than once, here it is.

The evidence that supports the necessity of a law is not evidence that supports an entirely unrelated law.

So if it can be proven that felons are buying guns and that the BEST or ONLY way to prevent felons from buying guns is to ask for ID when anyone buys a gun, then the necessity of an ID law for buying a gun has been supported.

That felons are buying guns in no way supports asking for an ID at the voting booth.

Geezus. How dumb to you have to be to need that explained to you?

 

[gallantwarrior]

if one person who is not actually eligible to vote, votes, it negates MY fucking vote. So even 1 fraudulent vote is too many.

What makes your vote so special? There are eligible voters who will be turned away on a mere chickenshit technicality, are their votes worth it to you? Does the possibility that many of those will be democratic votes bother you in the least? By your logic every democratic vote turned away makes your vote count for more but I guess that is the point in the first place.

The question is, are their votes worth that much to them? They have almost a year to comply with a reasonable request to obtain proper identification. Where there is a will, there is a way. Hell, where are all the public service agencies that pick them up off their park benches and take them around to all the local polling places to cast their votes?

 

[g5000]

It has not been shown by anyone anywhere that people are voting fraudulently in such a way that voter ID is the BEST or ONLY way to fix the problem. Every case of voter fraud that is cited is best fixed by repairing existing voter registration requirements.

For some reason, this very uncomplicated point is not capable of penetrating some very thick skulls.

Instead, they throw out logical fallacies about gun control.

It's all very bizarre. But that's what unsupported paranoia about imaginary problems does to you.

The Supreme Court itself has said this is an imaginary problem.

So go figure. Whack-A-Mole. Enjoy. But just remember, you can't argue with someone who does not know they are beaten. Waste of time.

 

[ladyliberal]

"Voting is more fundamental to our democracy than is shooting" was not a premise- it was a claim that I then supported. You seem to disagree, so let's expand on it:

As I said - that one fudamental right deserves greater protection than another is unsupportable. Your premise is flawed, and your defense of that premise does nothing to change that. You dont get to simply pick and choose what rughts get what level of protection - fundamental rights are, well, fundamental, whaever they may be.

Now, you say that the purpose of ID is to "verify that the individual is who we says he is". I agree that that is by definition "identification". However, identification is a means, not an end. We don't go around identifying people for its own sake. Indeed, forcing someone to identify themselves is a (minor) invasion of their privacy, and is to be avoided.

Apparently not, as you are OK with it in regards to buying a gun.

You also say that the

right to vote inherently necessitates that you are who you claim to be, whereas the right to own a gun does not.

I'm not sure how you conclude this.

Quite simple - the efficacy of your right to vote -depends- on the people who cast a vote being who they claim; the efficacy of your right to own a gun does not.

That is, If voters are not who they claim, then your right to vote is diminished, potentially to the point of meaninglessness -- the very nature of the right to vote -depends- on people being who they say they are, and the government has a compelling interest to ensure that this is the case as much as possible. This should be abundantly obvious.

In contrast, your right to arms is diminished not in the slightest if someone else claims they are someone who they are not when the buy a gun as your right to arms does not depend on and is not affected by the actions of others.

Of course different rights deserve different protection. We require licensing for guns but not for votes. We require registration for votes but not for free speech. We require a demonstrated lay ability to apply the law in order to serve on a jury, but not to practice religion.

When I said requiring identification was to be avoided, I didn't mean it should never be done. I meant that it should not be done without good reason. As I said earlier, I believe there is a good reason when purchasing a gun- because guns are dangerous in certain hands.

I'm not saying that voter impersonation is harmless, I'm saying it is much less harmful than certain individuals fraudulently obtaining guns. If a billion people cast a billion fraudulent votes then that would be much more dangerous than a single person fraudulently obtaining a single gun. Again, I'd like to see how you quantify the reduced efficacy of your vote from fraudulent votes.

If certain individuals obtain firearms, it absolutely affects the ability of others to obtain firearms. Certain people, given access to firearms, will kill people, and thereby deny them their life and all attendant rights.

 

[gallantwarrior]

New Study Finds Voter ID Laws Reduce Political Participation - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

ID requirements decrease political participation by illegals, dead people, cartoon characters, and people with multiple personality disorder. Oh, well, and brain-dead, lazy, racist Democrat voters.

 

[daveman]

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

A person with a gun that's registered to someone else can kill someone, wipe the prints off and ditch the weapon... thereby taking a human life and putting the person who's name the shooter used in a potential Criminal situation....

A person who votes without ID can, at the very worst....screw up a local, or perhaps(with a huge amount of luck) a State election.

Huge difference.

Welll sure.

"Screwing up the election" devalues the rights of, and thus, harms -everyone- that voted in that election -- as such, it's far, far worse than what you decribed in regards to the gun.

So, what was your point?

Now wait, I've read elsewhere on this forum that if just ONE legitimate vote is saved by TEN fraudulent votes, that's acceptable.

That's odd...I thought it said if just ONE Democrat is elected by TEN fraudulent votes, that's acceptable.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?

yes

If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

a) You can't kill anyone with a vote
b) being denied the opportunity to purchase a weapon because of an administrative issue doesn't silence your voice in government like being denied the right to vote for the same reason.
c) far more people have been illegally killed by people with guns than have illegally cast votes.


Though I would support a fingerprint on the ballot approach that would allow authorities to identify when someone has voted twice.

 

[daveman]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Okay, for retards who need things explained to them more than once, here it is.

The evidence that supports the necessity of a law is not evidence that supports an entirely unrelated law.

So if it can be proven that felons are buying guns and that the BEST or ONLY way to prevent felons from buying guns is to ask for ID when anyone buys a gun, then the necessity of an ID law for buying a gun has been supported.

That felons are buying guns in no way supports asking for an ID at the voting booth.

Geezus. How dumb to you have to be to need that explained to you?

That people are voting fraudulently at the voting booth, however, DOES support asking for an ID at the voting booth.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Okay, for retards who need things explained to them more than once, here it is.

The evidence that supports the necessity of a law is not evidence that supports an entirely unrelated law.

So if it can be proven that felons are buying guns and that the BEST or ONLY way to prevent felons from buying guns is to ask for ID when anyone buys a gun, then the necessity of an ID law for buying a gun has been supported.

That felons are buying guns in no way supports asking for an ID at the voting booth.

Geezus. How dumb to you have to be to need that explained to you?

That people are voting fraudulently at the voting booth, however, DOES support asking for an ID at the voting booth.

Who is voting fraudulently at voting booths?

 

[daveman]

It has not been shown by anyone anywhere that people are voting fraudulently in such a way that voter ID is the BEST or ONLY way to fix the problem. Every case of voter fraud that is cited is best fixed by repairing existing voter registration requirements.

For some reason, this very uncomplicated point is not capable of penetrating some very thick skulls.

Instead, they throw out logical fallacies about gun control.

It's all very bizarre. But that's what unsupported paranoia about imaginary problems does to you.

The Supreme Court itself has said this is an imaginary problem.

So go figure. Whack-A-Mole. Enjoy. But just remember, you can't argue with someone who does not know they are beaten. Waste of time.

How do you know the person voting is the person who registered?

None of you have ever answered that question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

Okay, for retards who need things explained to them more than once, here it is.
The evidence that supports the necessity of a law is not evidence that supports an entirely unrelated law.

Again, you proceed from a false premise.

No matter how many times this is explained to you, you continue to ignore this fact - a fact that will never, ever change; your continued repitition of your false premise only denotes your lack of intellectual honesty.

Please - continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being at your leisure.

 

[daveman]

Okay, for retards who need things explained to them more than once, here it is.

The evidence that supports the necessity of a law is not evidence that supports an entirely unrelated law.

So if it can be proven that felons are buying guns and that the BEST or ONLY way to prevent felons from buying guns is to ask for ID when anyone buys a gun, then the necessity of an ID law for buying a gun has been supported.

That felons are buying guns in no way supports asking for an ID at the voting booth.

Geezus. How dumb to you have to be to need that explained to you?

That people are voting fraudulently at the voting booth, however, DOES support asking for an ID at the voting booth.

Who is voting fraudulently at voting booths?

So far, 113 people who voted in the 2008 Minnesota Senate election.

 

[gallantwarrior]

For either a ballot or a firearm, requiring photo ID makes it more difficult to obtain. To me, under the practical constraints that currently exist, this is unacceptable for the former but not for the latter. There are a number of reasons:

Thank you for at least trying to explain your double standard.


false premise. Both are fundamental rughts protected by the Constitution.
In that, they are equal; there is no sound argument that one demands greater protection than the other.


Incorect. Both have the same puurpse - to verify that the individual is who we says he is.
One could easily argue that this is -far- more necessary in regards to the right to vote than the right to arms as the right to vote inherently necessitates that you are who you claim to be, whereas the right to own a gun does not.

Your "dangerous voter" argument holds no water -- the "danger" in allwoing people to vote w/o an ID is that a fundamental tenet of the right to vote - that you are who you say you are when you cast a ballot- is not secured. This injures everyone and gravely diminishes the right.

"Voting is more fundamental to our democracy than is shooting" was not a premise- it was a claim that I then supported. You seem to disagree, so let's expand on it:

- Far from a right plainly guaranteed by the Constitution, the individual right to own a handgun was not recognized (and indeed was derided by a conservative chief justice as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud" Washingtonpost.com:) for hundreds of years. It was not until a few years ago that a bare majority held that there was even a limited right in this respect (District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

- Even under Heller, enormous restrictions still exist on gun ownership. The government can still ban bearing a gun in public and can ban certain models of gun. Further, requiring licensing, training, and denying guns to certain people not convicted of crimes (eg, the mentally ill) are all still permitted. These latter requirements would be plainly unconstitutional if applied to ballots.

- Even if we believed that constitutional jurisprudence treated gun ownership and voting the same, they still wouldn't be equally fundamental to our democracy, in that they don't protect other rights in the same way. The ballot serves as a good guarantor of, eg, the right to free speech, since one can vote against an official that denies it. In contrast, as I asserted earlier, gun ownership simply is not terribly effective in this respect.


Now, you say that the purpose of ID is to "verify that the individual is who we says he is". I agree that that, pronoun choice aside, is by definition "identification". However, identification is a means, not an end. We don't go around identifying people for its own sake. Indeed, forcing someone to identify themselves is a (minor) invasion of their privacy, and is to be avoided.

You also say that the

right to vote inherently necessitates that you are who you claim to be, whereas the right to own a gun does not.

I'm not sure how you conclude this. It seems to me much the opposite. By modern sensibilities, voting is done by secret ballot because we hold that this is the best way for voters to be free from intimidation and bribery. Then, it seems fundamental that the voter identifies him or herself to the least extent possible, not the greatest. (Of course, in other settings, such as Congress, public votes are necessary to hold those voter accountable). In contrast, the licensing of firearms seems to admit the necessity that a gun owner is who he or she claims to be.

You also say "This [voter impersonation] injures everyone and gravely diminishes the right." Can you expand on that? How does it injure people? To what degree? Can you quantify it, or identify a flaw in my own quantification?

Firearms are not licensed (yet), although some classes of firearms dealers must acquire a license. To date, we still (fortunately) do not have an official firearms registry, although the requirement of dealers to indefinitely maintain the Form 4473 filled out at the time of purchase constitutes a de-facto registry.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It has not been shown by anyone anywhere that people are voting fraudulently in such a way that voter ID is the BEST or ONLY way to fix the problem. Every case of voter fraud that is cited is best fixed by repairing existing voter registration requirements.

For some reason, this very uncomplicated point is not capable of penetrating some very thick skulls.

Instead, they throw out logical fallacies about gun control.

It's all very bizarre. But that's what unsupported paranoia about imaginary problems does to you.

The Supreme Court itself has said this is an imaginary problem.

So go figure. Whack-A-Mole. Enjoy. But just remember, you can't argue with someone who does not know they are beaten. Waste of time.

How do you know the person voting is the person who registered?

None of you have ever answered that question.

The IRS has never asked me for my id, yet I've received thousands of dollars in tax returns from them. How do they know I'm not someone else claiming tax returns under a name that isn't mine? The biggest way they can tell is that only one return with my name and SSN on it is submitted! If two showed up, they would know there is a problem. A fingerprint on ballot could catch double votes.


There are only two categories of adults in this nation that may not vote - felons (in some states) and people who are not citizens - neither of which has any real motive to vote illegally. Its not a crime that pays, at all! You're risking years in prison or deportation to your home country - and the return on your risk is almost zero.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It has not been shown by anyone anywhere that people are voting fraudulently in such a way that voter ID is the BEST or ONLY way to fix the problem. Every case of voter fraud that is cited is best fixed by repairing existing voter registration requirements.

Thus, your false premise.

You continue to refuse to understand that the compelling interest to verify the identity of a prospective voter exists regardless of any demonstable existence of voter fraud.

You also continue to refuse to explain how 'repairing' the registration process does anything to ascertain the identity of the person claiming to be on the registration roll, pursuant to the previously mentioned compelling interest.

And so, your arguments are defeated. Again.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It has not been shown by anyone anywhere that people are voting fraudulently in such a way that voter ID is the BEST or ONLY way to fix the problem. Every case of voter fraud that is cited is best fixed by repairing existing voter registration requirements.

For some reason, this very uncomplicated point is not capable of penetrating some very thick skulls.

Instead, they throw out logical fallacies about gun control.

It's all very bizarre. But that's what unsupported paranoia about imaginary problems does to you.

The Supreme Court itself has said this is an imaginary problem.

So go figure. Whack-A-Mole. Enjoy. But just remember, you can't argue with someone who does not know they are beaten. Waste of time.

So, if those who are pro-ID cite "isolated" instances of voter fraud, those cases should be disregarded as having no statistical significance. But, when the anti-ID people cite their isolated instances of poor, elderly, crippled, or whatever strawman argument du jour fits, each and every citation should carry the weight of an entire civilization?
Double standard much?