Voter ID Fraud

[M14 Shooter]

It's painfully clear that you are attacking arguments I never made.

This is a lie.
I asked you a question about an argument that you very definitely did make, the plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument that people should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of their RIGHTS.
I then noted that buying a gun is a right, and that federal law requires you to have an ID when you exercise that right.
My question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholsale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?
Well?

There are several issues with this question.

Not the least of which you do not want to answer it because it forces you to either agree that you should not have to show an ID to buy a gun or that your argument against voter ID is flawed.

One it is a distraction from the discussion at hand that I regret ever getting hooked into.

On the contrary -- in question here is your reasoning for your objection to voter ID.

Two that is a federal law not a state law and if the courts have determined that legislation...

1: Irrelevant ot the argument that you made
2: Voter ID has been upheld by the SCotUS.

Now let's return to the subject at hand

Still waiting for you to answer the question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?

 

[Zmrzlina]

It's painfully clear that you are attacking arguments I never made.

This is a lie.
I asked you a question about an argument that you very definitely did make, the plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument that people should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of their RIGHTS.
I then noted that buying a gun is a right, and that federal law requires you to have an ID when you exercise that right.
My question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholsale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?
Well?

There are several issues with this question.

Not the least of which you do not want to answer it because it forces you to either agree that you should not have to show an ID to buy a gun or that your argument against voter ID is flawed.

One it is a distraction from the discussion at hand that I regret ever getting hooked into.

On the contrary -- in question here is your reasoning for your objection to voter ID.

Two that is a federal law not a state law and if the courts have determined that legislation...

1: Irrelevant ot the argument that you made
2: Voter ID has been upheld by the SCotUS.

Now let's return to the subject at hand

Still waiting for you to answer the question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?

You can already purchase a gun without an ID, there are only certain gun sales that require ID. Are we done here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can already purchase a gun without an ID, there are only certain gun sales that require ID. Are we done here?

You made the plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument that people should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of their RIGHTS.
Why do you not object to the federal law that requires an ID for the exercise of the right to those certain gun purchases?

 

[TooTall]

It's painfully clear that you are attacking arguments I never made.

This is a lie.
I asked you a question about an argument that you very definitely did make, the plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument that people should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of their RIGHTS.
I then noted that buying a gun is a right, and that federal law requires you to have an ID when you exercise that right.
My question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholsale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?
Well?

There are several issues with this question. One it is a distraction from the discussion at hand that I regret ever getting hooked into. Two that is a federal law not a state law and if the courts have determined that legislation to be constitutional due to reasons of public safety then I agree with that interpretation. If this and other aspects of federal firearm laws are deemed unconstitutional then I agree with that interpretation. It has always been my position that you do not need any ID to practice the 2nd amendment as I have explained ad nauseam.

Now let's return to the subject at hand. State laws that add extra criteria for who can successfully place a vote other than what is outlined by the constitution and court precedent is unconstitutional. It is the burden of the polls to determine if a voter is eligible, not the burden of the citizen to provide documents required by state law.

I would like for you to point out where in the Constitution a state cannot require proof of citizenship and proof that they are who they say they are.

Section 4. [1] The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Amendment 10 Annotations

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

- See more at: U.S. Constitutional Amendments - FindLaw

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now let's return to the subject at hand. State laws that add extra criteria for who can successfully place a vote other than what is outlined by the constitution and court precedent is unconstitutional. It is the burden of the polls to determine if a voter is eligible, not the burden of the citizen to provide documents required by state law.

You know that the SCotUS has upheld voter, ID -- right?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf
Your argument, negated.

 

[Siete]

It's painfully clear that you are attacking arguments I never made.

This is a lie.
I asked you a question about an argument that you very definitely did make, the plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument that people should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of their RIGHTS.
I then noted that buying a gun is a right, and that federal law requires you to have an ID when you exercise that right.
My question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholsale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?
Well?

There are several issues with this question.

Not the least of which you do not want to answer it because it forces you to either agree that you should not have to show an ID to buy a gun or that your argument against voter ID is flawed.

One it is a distraction from the discussion at hand that I regret ever getting hooked into.

On the contrary -- in question here is your reasoning for your objection to voter ID.

Two that is a federal law not a state law and if the courts have determined that legislation...

1: Irrelevant ot the argument that you made
2: Voter ID has been upheld by the SCotUS.

Now let's return to the subject at hand

Still waiting for you to answer the question:
Why do you not then apply your plenary, wholesale and unqualified argument to the exercise of the right to purchase a gun?

You can already purchase a gun without an ID, there are only certain gun sales that require ID. Are we done here?

as long as mouthshooter is breathing you'll never be done.

 

[RKMBrown]

You said voter id is associated with voting machine errors. You are wrong.

I was being sarcastic you moron ...

onward


then why did you answer telling me you don't live in Colorado ?

Because I don't live in CO.

sheesh ..

tonight Colorado voting was entirely by MAIL .. get it you moron? Do you have to live in Colorado to understand that ? Exactly how does a voter ID card stop fraud when its done by mail? HUH? answer the question or stfu .. and BTW Republicans took Colorado.

Ok, not sure why you needed me to help you on this. First of all, CO does not have a picture ID requirement. So we are talking about what ifs. I already answered the what if questions. But by you asking again I'll have to assume you didn't read it.

But here is how I would do it. When you register to vote you would have to show your picture ID and verification code at that time and sign. When the election comes the ballot is sent to your registered address. You make your selections and write down on the ballot your picture ID's number and "verification code." You place your ballot in the tamper proof envelope and then turn in the ballot at your nearest post office showing them your photo id as proof that you the person handing in the ballot. The ballot is then handled as "registered mail" by the US post office.

Upon receipt, the ballot is removed from the tamper proof envelope, and the verification code is checked against the address of the ballot.

you still don't get it, you'll never get it, the Right isn't capable of getting it.

thanks for making an effort ..

what did I miss? sigh

 

[RKMBrown]

Dude don't tell anyone about the back door!! it's a secret... gezz

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why do you not object to the federal law that requires an ID for the exercise of the right to those certain gun purchases?

John Hinckley is out of the mental institution. I feel pretty strongly that society would be better off if he was denied his "2nd amendment rights" upon his presenting his ID in order to buy a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you not object to the federal law that requires an ID for the exercise of the right to those certain gun purchases?

John Hinckley is out of the mental institution. I feel pretty strongly that society would be better off if he was denied his "2nd amendment rights" upon his presenting his ID in order to buy a gun.

What makes you think he hasn't been?
Oh wait.. nothing, You're just mindlessly trolling.

 

[Vandalshandle]

QUOTE="M14 Shooter, post: 10115682, member: 6581"]

Why do you not object to the federal law that requires an ID for the exercise of the right to those certain gun purchases?

John Hinckley is out of the mental institution. I feel pretty strongly that society would be better off if he was denied his "2nd amendment rights" upon his presenting his ID in order to buy a gun.

What makes you think he hasn't been?
Oh wait.. nothing, You're just mindlessly trolling.[/QUOTE]

You asked someone a specific question. I replied with a specific answer to your specific question. That is called "communication", not "trolling". I suspect that your objection has more to do with the answer that I gave, more than to anything else. Put another way, if you don't like the answer that you are going to get, then don't ask the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You asked someone a specific question. I replied with a specific answer to your specific question. That is called "communication", not "trolling". I suspect that your objection has more to do with the answer that I gave, more than to anything else. Put another way, if you don't like the answer that you are going to get, then don't ask the question.

Your answer does not address the question I asked, in the context it was asked.
You know this.
That's trolling