Question on I.D.

153 posts / 0 new
Last post
Commonsense461

If voter I.d. Laws disinfranchise minorities, do gun control laws disinfranchise minorities from their 2nd amendment rights by requiring I.D. in the purchase of a fire arm?

Comments

Commonsense461
No takers?

No takers?

Redwing
Redwing's picture
No, they just have to pretend

No, they just have to pretend they are a Mexican cartel drug dealer and you get as many firearms as you want at U.S. taxpayers expense. Just don't tell Eric Holder he does not want to know anything about it.

Where I live you will have to show photo ID to buy a can of spray paint.  From the lack of general maintenance I see on homes and autos a lot of people are disenfranchised paint buyers.

 

drc2
Boy are we getting the

Boy are we getting the presenting behavior on thread after thread.  Rants that would sound crazy in bars abound.  But Voter ID, officially a form of voter suppression, addresses no abuse today.  Making it hard or impossible for people who are eligible to vote--even making them spend money to get IDs--runs into all sorts of legal precedence about "poll taxes."  Voter Caging has earned an injunction against the GOPimps.  

Voting is something we want everyone to do if we believe in democracy and want to be good citizens together.  If you buy into the old voter suppression tactic, you are undermining democracy, not protecting the integrity of the vote.  And that leads us to the voter machines and other clear and present abuses pushed by the Right.  While I support the ability of Americans to choose to have a gun unless they are disqualified by mental health or criminal records, I would rather that fewer rather than more exercised this right.  It does nothing to undermine the quality of the democracy we share.

In sum, yes, I think ID for buying a gun would be a better approach than the really loose approach at gun shows and a lot of dealers.  Until we have mass transit, I think it is far more important that many Americans be able to have a car to get around in this country.  I still want them to pass a driver's test and have some minimal standards of personal responsibility about driving the car.

I find the spray paint ID law quaint.  

Commonsense461
My point is both voting and

My point is both voting and the right to bear arms and if forcing some one to show id to partipate in these right why don't you liberals care about mean gun control laws that disingrachise minorities wanting to bear arms?

spicoli
spicoli's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: If

Commonsense461 wrote:

If voter I.d. Laws disinfranchise minorities, do gun control laws disinfranchise minorities from their 2nd amendment rights by requiring I.D. in the purchase of a fire arm?

No, because of the Commerce Clause.

Commonsense461
What no an amendment

What no an amendment overrides aclause.

spicoli
spicoli's picture
I am not a constitutional

I am not a constitutional scholar and obviously you are not.  I would think an amendment would have to specifically exclude itself from the clause.

Commonsense461
That's the point of an

That's the point of an amendment you idiot it adds a right not already given in the body of the constitution.

spicoli
spicoli's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: That's

Commonsense461 wrote:

That's the point of an amendment you idiot it adds a right not already given in the body of the constitution.

If that were true, then how do you explain the Eighteenth Amendment?  I personally wouldn't consider prohibition as adding a right.

Admendments change the Constitution.  They can add and remove rights in the Constitution or do what ever We The People want.

Commonsense461
By your logic with the

By your logic with the comerse clause super cedes amendments then how did the civil rights mOvment or abolishing slavery ever get done?

spicoli
spicoli's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: By your

Commonsense461 wrote:

By your logic with the comerse clause super cedes amendments then how did the civil rights mOvment or abolishing slavery ever get done?

Wrong again.  They work side by side.  You have the right to purchase a gun, but the government has the right to regulate that purchase.

 

anonymous green
Civil rights and an eventual

Civil rights and an eventual end to slavery were done with the blood of the Saints.

The Merchants of the Earth are still pissed.

The Manchurian Americans who don't realize Conservative and Libertarian Thought are a thinly disguised excuse for fascism are shilling for things they cannot understand themselves, being brainwashed since birth to be true believers.

Red stands for the blood of the saints.

White stands for the hypocrites who bled them.

Blue is for the sea, which swallows Lemmings without a single care, never asking a God for permission.

Commonsense461
Again wrong the actual

Again wrong the actual wording of the second amendment is "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."  now if having show I'd to vote is aninfringement to minorities wouldn't the same logic follow here with gun laws and minorities?

Commonsense461
anonymous green wrote: Civil

anonymous green wrote:

Civil rights and an eventual end to slavery were done with the blood of the Saints.

The Merchants of the Earth are still pissed.

The Manchurian Americans who don't realize Conservative and Libertarian Thought are a thinly disguised excuse for fascism are shilling for things they cannot understand themselves, being brainwashed since birth to be true believers.

Red stands for the blood of the saints.

White stands for the hypocrites who bled them.

Blue is for the sea, which swallows Lemmings without a single care, never asking a God for permission.

No need to go all Malcolm x on me I was simply pointing out if we could invalidate amendments on the commerce clause abolition wouldn't have suceded because slavery was commerce.

spicoli
spicoli's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: No need

Commonsense461 wrote:

No need to go all Malcolm x on me I was simply pointing out if we could invalidate amendments on the commerce clause abolition wouldn't have suceded because slavery was commerce.

What a bigoted statement.  Bigotry is a symptom of ignorance.

Commonsense461
No calling me a racist in

No calling me a racist in prose that was ignorant and something a race obsessed person would do.

spicoli
spicoli's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: No

Commonsense461 wrote:

No calling me a racist in prose that was ignorant and something a race obsessed person would do.

"What a bigoted statement."  I said your statement was bigoted, not you.  There is a difference.  It would be dumb of me to assume who you are from a couple of posts on a forum.  You have to admit that your statement was bigoted.

Commonsense461
Not really what you wroteIis

Not really what you wroteIis similar to his writing.

anonymous green
Common sense would dictate

Common sense would dictate that when bigoted statements come from someone convinced they are not a bigot, they may have been brainwashed by double-speak, and triple-speak, and can't really be blamed.

The Manchurian Americans are not responsible for their behavior.

They're salivating dogs.

 

workingman
workingman's picture
Voter id laws do nothing to

Voter id laws do nothing to stop legal voters from voting. This is the point to voter id laws.

If the poor have ever checked a book from the public library, received government assistance, bought alchol, went to the doctor, went to court, rented a movie at block buster, applied for a job or been stopped by a police officer they have had to show id.

Commonsense461
Love how when liberals can't

Love how when liberals can't break the argument they just pull the race card and try an shout you down.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: If

Commonsense461 wrote:

If voter I.d. Laws disinfranchise minorities, do gun control laws disinfranchise minorities from their 2nd amendment rights by requiring I.D. in the purchase of a fire arm?

Voter I.D. Laws have a direct impact on a democratic government of the people by the people.  That is the heart and soul of our democracy.  Gun laws have no such impact. 

Your original statement is true but in arguing your point you have made a case for highly regulated gun laws.  If you are behind the strict voter I.D. regulations then you must support strict gun regulations and I would love to see what the NRA has to say about that.

whiskeyman
whiskeyman's picture
  Your right weed wacker,

  Your right weed wacker, Photo Id laws do impact the democratic process, but not in a bad way , photo ID keeps people who are not eligible to vote in this country from voting.  Uneligible voters corrupt the process. If you aren't smart enough to get a photo ID how can you be expected to make an informed choice in the voting booth.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
whiskeyman wrote:   Your

whiskeyman wrote:

  Your right weed wacker, Photo Id laws do impact the democratic process, but not in a bad way , photo ID keeps people who are not eligible to vote in this country from voting.  Uneligible voters corrupt the process. If you aren't smart enough to get a photo ID how can you be expected to make an informed choice in the voting booth.

Ineligible voters do corrupt the process.  Think Citizens United where rich foreigners are voting with their dollars.  Purposefully blocking eligible voters from voting corrupts the process and is as illegal and unpatriotic as you can get.  If you are stupid enough to take what Fox news says as truth then how can you be expected to make an informed choice in the voting booth?  No opinion on the highly regulated gun laws?

Commonsense461
I'm fine with gun laws but I

I'm fine with gun laws but I don't like the hypocrisy if you agree with gun laws you should agree with voter Id. If voter Id is unconstitutional then so are gun laws.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Voter ID laws are to prevent

Voter ID laws are to prevent voter FRAUD not suppress legal voters. Obama needs voter FRAUD!!!So it is racist to prevent voter FRAUD by requiring voter IDs.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
camaroman wrote: Voter ID

camaroman wrote:

Voter ID laws are to prevent voter FRAUD not suppress legal voters. Obama needs voter FRAUD!!!So it is racist to prevent voter FRAUD by requiring voter IDs.

Yeah Right.

 

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said Saturday that a recent voter ID law passed in his state "would allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania." He included this statement in a list of his party's accomplishments, which critics of the legislation—including a Pennsylvania state senator—say unintentionally revealed the true intentions behind the law.

"The classic definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally says something that's true," said Michael Waldman, president of NYU Law's Brennan Center for Justice, on Tuesday's PoliticsNation. "It's as if he took truth serum. I don't know what he was thinking."

Voter ID legislation bars individuals from voting unless they present government-issued identification at polling places. Critics of these laws are not intended to reduce fraud so much as they are supposed to prevent traditionally Democratic constituencies—such as the poor, African Americans and young people, who are all less likely to have the required identification—from voting.

"Voter impersonation, which is the only form of voter fraud that voter ID would address, never occurs in Pennsylvania," said State Senator Daylin Leach, a Pennsylvania Democrat, during the same episode. "There's not one single documented case of it in ten years. This was always about suppressing votes of people who vote the wrong way."

Commonsense461
Then gun laws are against

Then gun laws are against that same group and should be repealed wouldn't you agree?

camaroman
camaroman's picture
B_W,"Pennsylvania House

B_W,"Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said Saturday that a recent voter ID law passed in his state "would allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania." He included this statement in a list of his party's accomplishments, which critics of the legislation—including a Pennsylvania state senator—say unintentionally revealed the true intentions behind the law."

So, in otherwords, not passing it would help Obama, right? My point exactly. And what would those true intentions behind the law be? Requiring voter ID has a lot of support. I am not voting for Obama or Romney but will have to show my ID as I always have. So, what if it hurts Obamy. He needs all the illegals and fraudulent votes he can get, too bad.

"

The latest Rasmussen poll on voter ID is sure to frustrate liberal advocacy organizations like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters that oppose commonsense proposals to ensure the integrity of our election process. They have been waging a losing litigation battle against states to try to prevent them from implementing photo ID requirements.

Rasmussen reports that an overwhelming majority of likely voters (82 percent) believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote (that includes a majority in every demographic group). Only 14 percent disagree. This is the highest level of support for photo ID since Rasmussen started polling the question in 2006."

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/23/voter-id-and-illegal-aliens/

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
camaroman

camaroman wrote:

B_W,"Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said Saturday that a recent voter ID law passed in his state "would allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania." He included this statement in a list of his party's accomplishments, which critics of the legislation—including a Pennsylvania state senator—say unintentionally revealed the true intentions behind the law."

So, in otherwords, not passing it would help Obama, right? My point exactly. And what would those true intentions behind the law be? Requiring voter ID has a lot of support. I am not voting for Obama or Romney but will have to show my ID as I always have. So, what if it hurts Obamy. He needs all the illegals and fraudulent votes he can get, too bad.

"

The latest Rasmussen poll on voter ID is sure to frustrate liberal advocacy organizations like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters that oppose commonsense proposals to ensure the integrity of our election process. They have been waging a losing litigation battle against states to try to prevent them from implementing photo ID requirements.

Rasmussen reports that an overwhelming majority of likely voters (82 percent) believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote (that includes a majority in every demographic group). Only 14 percent disagree. This is the highest level of support for photo ID since Rasmussen started polling the question in 2006."

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/23/voter-id-and-illegal-aliens/

 

Not passing it would allow for the elderly and the poorest Americans vote without having to jump through hoops.  Keeping eligible Americans from voting by putting up a gauntlet designed to discourage voters is Bastardly.  If the repubs can't win legitimately then they will use every trick in the book to win illegitimately.  Based on Bush's outstanding 8 year record I can see why they are desperate enough to use sleight of hand tactics to gain an edge. 

whiskeyman
whiskeyman's picture
  Hey weed wacker photo ID

  Hey weed wacker photo ID will keep rich and poor foreigners from voting , That is what it is all about, keeping foreigners from voting.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Voter ID will prevent fraud

Voter ID will prevent fraud and illegal voting. Al Frankenstein won his Senate seat by 312 votes, It was discovered afterward that 341 felons had voted illegally in that election. Kansa City Mo state rep elction primary was won by one vote by candiate Rizzo. It was later discovered that 50 Somali citizens had voted illegally and had been coached by an interpreter at the polling place to vote for Rizzo.

It is not the fact that a large number of votes are being cast fraudulently or illegally. it is the fact that so  many political races, especially at the national level, are so close that only a few illegal or fraudulent votes can change thje outcome of an election. So, it is phony and bogus of dems and liberals and Obamay and his henchman Holder to claim voter suppression becuase of voter Id requirements. Are they that concerned about disenfranchising legitemate voters or not getting the illegal and fraudulent votes.

What needs to be stopped is voter INTIMIDATON by the what the likes of the new black panthers did in Philadelphia and then ignored by racist AG Holder.  That's what needs to be addressed.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Also the idiot SCOTUS's

Also the idiot SCOTUS's decision on Citizens United is effectively letting foreigners through their ownership in American corporation influence politicians and elections with their money. That is also wrong!!!

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
There is no question that

There is no question that voter fraud does not exist except in the minds of delusional Republican voters.  The real question is, will the GOP keep beating this dead horse even after Obama wins a 2nd term?

Commonsense461
You haven't awnsered the

You haven't awnsered the question if votrt id is racist then aren't gun laws racist as well? 

workingman
workingman's picture
camaroman wrote: Also the

camaroman wrote:

Also the idiot SCOTUS's decision on Citizens United is effectively letting foreigners through their ownership in American corporation influence politicians and elections with their money. That is also wrong!!!

If and when they overturn citizens united they should make it so that only citizens that are allowed to vote can contribute money. No corporations, no unions ( the reason for citizens united), no church or any other group or organization to include the government can donate money.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
And also explain Franken and

And also explain Franken and Rizzo's win by narrow margins because of illegal voting. You are WRONG about voter fraud and illegal voting and it only takes a few of those type votes, that are overwhelmingly democratic, to change the outcome of so many close elections.

I am neither dem or repub, dems and liberal progressives are the ones that fear voter ID because they won't get those fraudulent or illegal votes!!!  Dems and progressives are still whining about the fraudulent and illegal votes that got caught and thrown out in Florida in 2004. Without them they cannot win!!! And i didnot vote for Bush!!!

camaroman
camaroman's picture
On that, I will agree,

On that, I will agree, workingman!!!

chilidog
Unions were the reason for

Unions were the reason for the citizens united case? I thought the corporation "Citizens United" was the problem in the citizens united case.

chilidog
Why don't you like Al

Why don't you like Al Franken?

ah2
Commonsense461 wrote: If

Commonsense461 wrote:

If voter I.d. Laws disinfranchise minorities, do gun control laws disinfranchise minorities from their 2nd amendment rights by requiring I.D. in the purchase of a fire arm?

Commonsense, this is perhaps one of the most intelligent posts I have seen from a conservative on these boards ever.  I will try to answer as directly as I can.  First off, the claim that voter ID laws is not so much about race as it is about class and resources.  Those with limited resources - lack of transportation, lack of mobility, lack of ability to take off work, etc. etc. etc. are disenfranchised by voting laws.  In fact, if you look at some of the lawsuits brought against voter ID laws, a lot of them did not use minorities or the poor but the elderly as their target group.  The elderly have many obstacles to obtaining the correct ID for voting - lack of social security card, limited mobility, etc.  So, to try to turn this into a race-bait issue is a little reductive.

That said, I would agree that it is reasonable to assume that requiring an ID to purchase a gun would hinder these same groups from purchasing a firearm.  It would be hypocritical for any of us to claim otherwise unless the process of obtainig the required ID for the two activities was considerably different.  Now, that said, this does not necessarily translate to the same type of barrier as a voting law, nor does it translate to a second amendment violation.  Here are several reasons why this might be the case:

1.  There is no time restrictions on the ownership of a gun.  You can buy it any day of the week and you can wait for its arrival, etc.  Voting on the other hand, happens on one specific day.  It is not like walking into a store to make a purchase.  Combine this with registration purges like those in Florida, and you have a massive voter disenfranchisement system.

2.  A large portion of your argument hinges on a particular reading of the Second Amendment.  Many of us here on the board believe this Amendment to be incorrecly interpreted by the courts given the history of its development and the wording within it.  We believe that the right to bear arms is specifically given when in concert with a well regulated militia and not for private gun ownership and usage.  That doesn't mean we don't believe people should be able to own guns at all but that the "shall not be infringed" part is directly tied to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause in the sentence.  Therefore, all other forms of gun regulation are Constitutional and within the power of the government.  That is one potential disconnect.  I know this will not be convincing for you but it is what it is.

3.  Every single state level probe on voter fraud has come up completely empty.  There have been only a handful of cases in the several states that have launched in-depth probes into this issue.  In other words, the voter ID laws are attempting to elminate a problem that doesn't exist to begin with.  As such, the state does NOT have a compelling interest (a legal requirement for passing a restriction such as this) to create voter ID laws to begin with.  On the other hand, illegal gun sales, purchasing by convicts and felons, etc., etc. are a rampant problem in the US even with ID and background check laws in place.  This poses a significant public safety threat.  IE - there IS a compelling interest for the states to be able to regulate or at least monitor gun sales.

4.  Another Second Amendment interpretation issue is that the amendment does not protect the purchase of firearms but the "keeping" and "bearing" of firearms.  In a very strict reading, one could say that the state has the right to regulate firearm sales - and the Fed for that matter - as it would fall under the commerce clause.  Once the sale is made, however, they are not allowed to infringe on your right to keep and bear the weapons.

Hope that gives you somethings to chew on.  I am sure there are other possibilities here but that is what I came up with off the top of my head.

ah2
http://mediamatters.org/blog/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/10/18/fox-invents-voter-fraud-indiana-edition/181819

http://wtop.com/120/2836836/Voter-fraud-probe-nets-charges-against-38-in-Va-

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/gop-pushed_student_voter_fraud_investigation_finds_zero_voter_fraud.php

Let's pretend that VA is a regular case.  I'll even say that is a conservative estimate as to how much voter fraud there is.  Let's pretend that actual numbers are over 200% higher.  Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud in every state across the country.  That means 500 votes in an national election could be fraudualent.  There is no way in hell that changes an election outcome.  It is a complete nonissue.

In terms of voting outcomes, if you tallied up the effect of fraud - say 500 votes in a given national election - and weighed it against the number of people that will end up not voting because of the barriers in place from an ID law, the latter would have a larger negative impact on voting than the "problem" it was attempting to fix.  Even if it you think the law is justifiable legally, it is simply a bad policy decision for that reason alone.

chilidog
I'm in California.  I almost

I'm in California.  I almost always vote by mail, but when I used to go to the polls they would have my name and address on the rolls.  I would tell them my name and what street I lived on, and they would find it, give me a ballot, and check off my name in their book.

I don't think this is the process for obtaining a firearm.  Perhaps it should be.

An important consideration is TIME. You have one day to vote, in practicality you have one attempt: you try to get there before you go to work, or after. If you've misplaced or lost your ID on that day, you don't get to vote in that election. EVER.

 

Commonsense461
The time argument is a little

The time argument is a little flawed because while there is one day to vote at the pools there is usually a month of absentee balloting and pre election balloting. So just like a gun you have multiple times to participate.

chilidog
Will I have to show ID to

Will I have to show ID to vote by mail?

Does every state allow voting by mail, with no reason required?

Commonsense461
Also while you mentioned

Also while you mentioned commerce clause I would remind you that it applies to iter state  commerce not intra state commerce. I would also point out that NYC refusal to recognipermits from other states violates full faith and credit.  

ah2
The Fed can regulate

The Fed can regulate interstate commerce.  Virtually all guns fall under this because most of them use components and materials from other countries.  I think you would be hard pressed to find any gun that is completely manufactured within a single state.  If you did, it would, of course, be legally allowable for a state to regulate its own intrastate commerce.

Absentee balloting does open the time window a little but the legal standard for elections is that my right to walk into a polling place on election day should not be taken away from me.

Not sure how voter ID laws deal with absentee ballots.  An interesting question.  Anyone have that info?

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Does anyone here,  or anyone

Does anyone here,  or anyone else for that matter, not know that the election will be held in November of this year? The time argument is ridiculous. I would suspect that anyone who doesn't know about the Nov. elections would not be planning on voting anyway. Maybe there should be a short quiz to pass before one is allowed to vote. Some people vote dem or repub with no clue as to the candidate stances or of the issues. They just blindly vote dem or repub.

ah2, "Every single state level probe on voter fraud has come up completely empty. "

That is untrue!!!

http://wtop.com/120/2836836/Voter-fraud-probe-nets-charges-against-38-in-Va-

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/virginia/38-charged-in-va-voter-fraud-probe

"Evidence of voter fraud is present in all 50 states, and public confidence in the integrity of elections is at an all-time low. In the Cooperative Congressional Election Study of 2008, 62% of American voters thought that voter fraud was very common or somewhat common."

 'Voter fraud is a well-documented reality in American elections."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333650886790480.html

Like I have said earlier, most major elections are very close, and just a few fraudulent or illegal votes can chage the outcome of those elections. Most illegal or fraudulent votes are also found to be democratic. And I would suspect that the reason most have not been charged by prosecutors is because most prosecutors are DEMOCRATS.

Voter intimidation by the new black panthers at a Philadelphia polling place were swept under the rug by Obamy's racist henchman, AG Holder. The dems could not win as many elections as they do without voter intimidation, fraud and illegal voting. That is why they sceam voter suppression against voter ID requirements. IDs are required for many things, their argument against IDs for voting is bogus and deceitful on dems part.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
ah2, "The Fed can regulate

ah2, "The Fed can regulate interstate commerce. Virtually all guns fall under this because most of them use components and materials from other countries. I think you would be hard pressed to find any gun that is completely manufactured within a single state. If you did, it would, of course, be legally allowable for a state to regulate its own intrastate commerce."

Try Montanna.....

chilidog
camaroman wrote: Most illegal

camaroman wrote:

Most illegal or fraudulent votes are also found to be democratic.

Link?