Left vs. Right -- Voter ID and Background Checks

[dank69]

I'm curious to know whether those who oppose voter ID laws favor these similar impediments to another constitutional right. If constitutional rights cannot be impeded in any way, shape, or form as I have been told in the voter ID debate, then on what grounds are barriers to gun ownership erected?

Edit: Now that this is its own thread, I will reiterate my prior arguments regarding voter ID laws. Voter IDs should be free and distributed as needed to avoid disenfranchisement. The basic idea for distribution would be like a bookmobile traveling to relevant neighborhoods. Over the course of four years, this should be enough to get the job done with virtually no burden on the voter and minimal cost.

Define "minimal cost."

 

[werepossum]

I'd venture to say the vast majority of people who the left claim will be disenfranchised by voter ID are already collecting government checks - yet another area where positive ID should be required.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd venture to say the vast majority of people who the left claim will be disenfranchised by voter ID are already collecting government checks - yet another area where positive ID should be required.

It often is, but then again government assistance is not a right.

Many of these people are the elderly, those who once had valid IDs but have since had them lapse.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd venture to say the vast majority of people who the left claim will be disenfranchised by voter ID are already collecting government checks - yet another area where positive ID should be required.

Lol lets just assume your ridiculous assertion is correct for arguments sake; the vast majority =/= everybody so your point is meaningless.

 

[Fern]

How does an illegal vote cancel out someone else's vote?

If your vote was illegal and you voted for Bush, you'd cancel out my vote for Kerry.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
You realize that lots and lots of conservatives are against closing the gun show loophole,

I'm not sure that's the case.

I am aware that many, including the NRA, are of the opinion it won't do much good. Many of the sellers are FFLs anyway etc. So, I tend to agree with them on that. Also, the BATF agent does not even list gun shows sales as a source of gun purchases by prohibited people. It's that far off the radar screen.

But I'm hearing that the NRA will go along with with requiring checks at gun shows. (Heard it discussed on the radio today, I can't link that.) I'm also seeing news reports that checks at gun shows are on the table.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/congress-gun-laws/index.html

Their big complaint seems to be about criminalizing gun owners, who are either careless or ignorant of the law, for merely privately transferring a gun, whether it be by gift to a relative or whatever. I think before you deem someone a felon they must, at the very least, transfer the weapon to a prohibited person, not just anybody. So, I agree with them.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fern is right about closing the gun show loophole. Even majorities of gun owners support it.

The problem is groups like the NRA, which have taken on a life of their own and don't even really care what the people they purport to represent actually want.

 

[ivwshane]

Fern is right about closing the gun show loophole. Even majorities of gun owners support it.

The problem is groups like the NRA, which have taken on a life of their own and don't even really care what the people they purport to represent actually want.

Yes, a majority of gun owners support the closure, but they don't make the laws and there are several politicians that are against any gun control measures, rand Paul, Rubio, lyndesy gram and others.

 

[Fern]

Yes, a majority of gun owners support the closure, but they don't make the laws and there are several politicians that are against any gun control measures, rand Paul, Rubio, lyndesy gram and others.

It looks to me like we're going to get a background check bill passed in the Senate. I'm hearing it's got bipartisan support and the NRA is even going along (to what extent I'm not sure, but I've heard they'll willing if it addresses their concerns and I'm hearing it does). So far, I'm strongly in favor of it too.

It'll require checks at gun shows. I'm not sure how they want that implemented, but I think it's do-able, politically and otherwise, if they choose a reasonable method.

It'll also require states to forward info on those with mental health info to the feds. In the case of the VA tech shooter, mental health authorities had forwarded warnings to the state but the state never forwarded that to the feds so he ended up passing TWO background checks. That's a much needed 'fix' IMO.

I have no idea what Boehner and the House will do with it though, assuming it does pass the Senate.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I haven't seen the bill but I heard a snippet that private sales would be exempt. Pointless bill is pointless.

Either background checks are good for everyone or they aren't.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If your vote was illegal and you voted for Bush, you'd cancel out my vote for Kerry.

Fern

But if I was illegal and I voted for Kerry, I'd double your vote for Kerry. Illegal votes don't all go to one side, so it's not "canceling out" anything. You could argue that it was diluting the power of your vote by making it a smaller piece of the overall pie, but since one vote is so tiny in the grand scheme of things anyway, unless it is being done on a massive scale and in a coordinated effort so that every illegal vote was being cast for the same person/party, it's not actually affecting the outcome.

 

[CycloWizard]

But if I was illegal and I voted for Kerry, I'd double your vote for Kerry. Illegal votes don't all go to one side, so it's not "canceling out" anything. You could argue that it was diluting the power of your vote by making it a smaller piece of the overall pie, but since one vote is so tiny in the grand scheme of things anyway, unless it is being done on a massive scale and in a coordinated effort so that every illegal vote was being cast for the same person/party, it's not actually affecting the outcome.

By that logic, my vote is also not affecting the outcome. If voting is such an inviolable and fundamental right that no barrier may be erected, then we have simply traded one set of problems (minimal burden of identity verification) for another (dilution of the value of legitimate votes). It's a contradiction to say that voting is such an important right that we can't do anything to protect it since it needs protected from both those using it illegitimately and from those trying to restrict it illegitimately. The bottom line is that the Democrats only oppose voter ID laws because most individuals affected are Hispanic and the vast majority of Hispanics vote Democrat. Republicans want to tighten things up for exactly the opposite reason. I'm neither - I just want to make sure that my vote counts (as much as any one vote does anyway - 34 of the 36 people I voted for in the last election lost ).

 

[fskimospy]

By that logic, my vote is also not affecting the outcome. If voting is such an inviolable and fundamental right that no barrier may be erected, then we have simply traded one set of problems (minimal burden of identity verification) for another (dilution of the value of legitimate votes). It's a contradiction to say that voting is such an important right that we can't do anything to protect it since it needs protected from both those using it illegitimately and from those trying to restrict it illegitimately. The bottom line is that the Democrats only oppose voter ID laws because most individuals affected are Hispanic and the vast majority of Hispanics vote Democrat. Republicans want to tighten things up for exactly the opposite reason. I'm neither - I just want to make sure that my vote counts (as much as any one vote does anyway - 34 of the 36 people I voted for in the last election lost ).

The difference of course is that one side has evidence on its side and the other doesn't. They simply aren't equal.

Wouldn't you agree that before we start restricting people's rights we should have some evidence that such a restriction is necessary? Why is voter ID even being looked at right now when absentee ballots are almost undeniably a larger source of fraud?