Question for those that oppose requiring a photo ID for voting

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting - but invalid.
You cannot "undo" a ballot after is has been cast, should you find the person who cast it was not legally able to do so.

The damage from a gun is evident, and no it cannot be undone
The damage from an illegal vote cannot be measured or undone.

A gun used illegally might bring harm a small number of people.
A vote cast illegally directly harms everyone that voted and indirectly harms everyone else.

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The damage from a gun is evident, and no it cannot be undone
The damage from an illegal vote cannot be measured or undone.

A gun used illegally might bring harm a small number of people.
A vote cast illegally directly harms everyone that voted and indirectly harms everyone else.

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

Your post does nothing to invalidate mine - thus, it remains sound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. A gun can be used to kill
2. A vote can be cast illegally
3. Number one can not be undone
4. Number two can be vetted and disallowed

Interesting - but invalid.
You cannot "undo" a ballot after is has been cast, should you find the person who cast it was not legally able to do so.

Of course you can. A ballot suspected as being cast by a suspected cheat can be provisional and held from the count until the voter has been vetted.

Only if you have reason to suspect the person in question is trying to vote illegally and then give him a provisional ballot rather than allow hom to cast a ballot normally.
How do you do that without some sort of ID that verifies who the person is?

If the ballot is cast in the normal manner and then it is later found out that the person who cast it did so illegally, there's no way to undo what was done.

And thus, your argument fails.

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you ignore the studies have found so little of this tyoe of claimed fraud.

The right wants this country to waste millions of dollars on a non exsistant problem.

WHY??????

 

[IndependntLogic]

Both licenseing and regstration infinge on the right to arms; there is no compelling state interest met by such things.

I would respectfully disagree. I register my car. I also have to prove I've been trained to use it properly and safely. I think that should be required of gun owners or that they should should that like me, they have had such training while in the military.

Also, unless you are part of a well-regulated militia, there is nothing that says you are entitled to own a gun. Well, that's one interpretation. And that's the thing with the USC - there's no escaping it must be interpreted. Those who say otherwise, simply claim that their interpretation is the only valid one.

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?
And of course, you feel that my Muslim neighbor is entitled to own a nuke! How wonderful of you. I'll let him know.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I would respectfully disagree. I register my car. I also have to prove I've been trained to use it properly and safely. I think that should be required of gun owners or that they should should that like me, they have had such training while in the military.

Also, unless you are part of a well-regulated militia, there is nothing that says you are entitled to own a gun. Well, that's one interpretation. And that's the thing with the USC - there's no escaping it must be interpreted. Those who say otherwise, simply claim that their interpretation is the only valid one.

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?
And of course, you feel that my Muslim neighbor is entitled to own a nuke! How wonderful of you. I'll let him know.

More government control and intervention. The well-regulated militia is proof against the tyranny of government run amok. I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but you have apparently bought into a pack of bullshit.

 

[Martinsamerica]

It should be simplified beyond the photo ID requirement for guns alone - there probably is a better argument for the purchase of a gun requiring a photo ID over many of the other things that require the same. The question should be - we need photo ID to do simple things in life, and something as important as changing the political landscape of a nation certainly warrants the policy of requesting proof to vote in any election. My town in CT has done so since I can remember - it's really not that big of a deal to whip out an ID to prove who I am. And frankly, if someone doesn't even have the resources o get a FREE government issued ID, then they should have no right to vote in the first place.

martinsamerica.com

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

So long as it is free..and the voter registeration requirement is either removed..or made same day..
I'm fine with it.
IDs should be mailed to everyone's home.
And the homeless should be able to pick them up with no troubles.
You good with that?

So you do not, in and of itself, oppose requiring a photo ID for voting.
Thank you.

Nobody does. You have bought a line of bullshit and become outraged by it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It should be simplified beyond the photo ID requirement for guns alone - there probably is a better argument for the purchase of a gun requiring a photo ID over many of the other things that require the same. The question should be - we need photo ID to do simple things in life, and something as important as changing the political landscape of a nation certainly warrants the policy of requesting proof to vote in any election. My town in CT has done so since I can remember - it's really not that big of a deal to whip out an ID to prove who I am. And frankly, if someone doesn't even have the resources o get a FREE government issued ID, then they should have no right to vote in the first place.

martinsamerica.com

I am often amused by the ease with which many USC loving patriots would strip others of fundamental rights.

 

[daveman]

I would respectfully disagree. I register my car. I also have to prove I've been trained to use it properly and safely. I think that should be required of gun owners or that they should should that like me, they have had such training while in the military.

Also, unless you are part of a well-regulated militia, there is nothing that says you are entitled to own a gun. Well, that's one interpretation. And that's the thing with the USC - there's no escaping it must be interpreted. Those who say otherwise, simply claim that their interpretation is the only valid one.

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?
And of course, you feel that my Muslim neighbor is entitled to own a nuke! How wonderful of you. I'll let him know.

You should add your post to your signature as an example.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?
And of course, you feel that my Muslim neighbor is entitled to own a nuke! How wonderful of you. I'll let him know.

More government control and intervention. The well-regulated militia is proof against the tyranny of government run amok. I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but you have apparently bought into a pack of bullshit.

Ahhhh, the "Dodge". Nicely done. A full paragraph and you say nothing but do manage a coulple of petty insults. You would make a fine politician! So you got nothing? You're THAT weak? Hmmm. Conservative right? Yeah, that would make sense.

So it is your assertation that the phrase "Well regulated militia" never appears?
And where does the USC prohibit my neighbor from owning a nuke? Tsk tsk tsk.

Bring more game next time. It was just too dang easy to spank your little bottom away from the topic. Pesky facts!!!

 

[daveman]

So long as it is free..and the voter registeration requirement is either removed..or made same day..
I'm fine with it.
IDs should be mailed to everyone's home.
And the homeless should be able to pick them up with no troubles.
You good with that?

So you do not, in and of itself, oppose requiring a photo ID for voting.
Thank you.

Nobody does. You have bought a line of bullshit and become outraged by it.

Ahem:

http://www.acluofnc.org/files/Photo ID fact sheet_0.pdf

 

[MeBelle]

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

 

[daveman]

It should be simplified beyond the photo ID requirement for guns alone - there probably is a better argument for the purchase of a gun requiring a photo ID over many of the other things that require the same. The question should be - we need photo ID to do simple things in life, and something as important as changing the political landscape of a nation certainly warrants the policy of requesting proof to vote in any election. My town in CT has done so since I can remember - it's really not that big of a deal to whip out an ID to prove who I am. And frankly, if someone doesn't even have the resources o get a FREE government issued ID, then they should have no right to vote in the first place.

martinsamerica.com

I am often amused by the ease with which many USC loving patriots would strip others of fundamental rights.

By opposing requirements to limit voter fraud, you are supporting the disenfranchisement of legal voters.

 

[daveman]

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

If guns kill people, forks make people fat.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And you still haven't answered the question.

As for illegal aliens...they get drivers' licences and SS cards all the time. Illegally.

You don't have a valid argument.

(bold large font in quote added by me for emphasis)

A) I never said they didn't get driver's licenses and SS cards.
B) If they can get illegal driver's licenses "all the time" how the fuck is a voter ID law going to stop them from voting, genius?

Stop motor-voter registrations, for one thing.

And how does that stop anyone from getting a fake id ?

The only reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is it will limit illegal voters from pulling the D lever. That's a fact.

It will not limit illegal voters from pulling the lever.

 

[The T]

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

If guns kill people, forks make people fat.

Well stated.

Maybe Moochelle O went about her campaign against FAT the wrong way and should have attacked the Dinnerware Consortium? Put a FORK in 'em...they're DONE!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

I don't see where Wry Catcher ever claimed that guns jump up all by themselves and kill people. In fact, the word "used" in the statement " guns used illegally" implies that they need to be used in order to "kill people" - that's basic reading comprehension.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So you do not, in and of itself, oppose requiring a photo ID for voting.
Thank you.

Nobody does. You have bought a line of bullshit and become outraged by it.

Ahem:

http://www.acluofnc.org/files/Photo ID fact sheet_0.pdf

You seem to clear your throat often. Whatchya got jammed in there anyway?

 

[LoneLaugher]

It should be simplified beyond the photo ID requirement for guns alone - there probably is a better argument for the purchase of a gun requiring a photo ID over many of the other things that require the same. The question should be - we need photo ID to do simple things in life, and something as important as changing the political landscape of a nation certainly warrants the policy of requesting proof to vote in any election. My town in CT has done so since I can remember - it's really not that big of a deal to whip out an ID to prove who I am. And frankly, if someone doesn't even have the resources o get a FREE government issued ID, then they should have no right to vote in the first place.

martinsamerica.com

I am often amused by the ease with which many USC loving patriots would strip others of fundamental rights.

By opposing requirements to limit voter fraud, you are supporting the disenfranchisement of legal voters.

I do not oppose any such requirements.......as long as they don't supress votes. Now...scurry back.