So do you think those quoted gentlemen in robes’ opinion is driven by the desire to “disenfranchise” the poor?
It doesn’t say enough to make any sort of judgement about that. It more or less meanders along musing on various ways to explain why there are so few voter fraud cases being prosecuted. Their conjectures are interesting. At any rate, they conclude that voter fraud by impersonation is likely enough to warrant prevention.
But they are silent, as best I can tell, on whether or not it is legitimate to use such preventive legislation as a bludgeon to belabor the opposing political party, if the Republicans can vote themselves a political advantage.
Its like you were intent on arguing that a policeman should be permitted to carry a gun. All very well, but that doesn’t mean the policeman can shoot your grandmother for dipping snoose.
Sure. Show me the “bludgeon”. Show me a few hundred people who were proven to have wanted to vote but were prevented from doing so by the ID requirement, then show me that they were all going to vote for Democrats.
Until you do, your conjectures are just as tenuous, if not more so, than the “gentlemen in robes”'.
So wait. You just posted that the courts have ruled that voter fraud can be assumed, absent concrete evidence. But disenfranchisement must have hard proof?
Since the detractors demand concrete evidence for “voter fraud” (and dismiss a few hundred examples that I gave as insufficient) then the disenfranchisement must have concrete evidence as well, and more than a few hundred examples. All going by the detractors’ logic. I would be satisfied with just a few hundred concrete examples - you know, like the few hundred examples of voter fraud that I gave.
Post 244, your truly. Quoting Eric Holder, citing data from the State of South Carolina itself. Will that do? Data supplied by the State itself, cited by the Atty Gen, USA? Or will you be requiring an affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Gabriel?
Again, how many of those voters actually want and intend to vote (and are not just registered to vote) and will not bother to get ID that is needed?
Actually, now that I think about it, I’ve changed my mind. I’m fully in favor of this law and hope that it withstands challenge.
At which point, I hope several states immediately pass laws requiring that gun owners obtain a “free” state-issued photo ID. After all, it’s not a burden to go get a free id, so it can’t be an “infringement”, now can it?
Glad you changed your mind.
In quite a few states gun owners have to show ID when buying their weapons. Combine that with the fact that owning weapons is not limited to US citizens.
Absolutely immaterial.
In order to show “disenfranchisement” completely material. If the person voted before the law, and with the passage of the law obtains the ID and votes - then who was “disenfranchised”?
First, the real issue is whether it will be a significant inconvenience for any of them to get the ID. Poll taxes (analogous, not the direct thing we’re talking about) are a problem because they impose burdens for people to vote, not because those burdens are insurmountable.
Looks like overall, between 50% and 67% of registered voters vote. Cite. Unless you have stats to suggest otherwise, seems fair to suggest that there are 50,000 minority citizens who lack such an ID but who voted anyway. Let’s say that 90% of those citizens would find getting an ID trivially easy, meaning it doesn’t impose a significant inconvenience on them to get an ID. That’s an insanely high estimate: if getting an ID were trivially easy, surely a lot of them would have gotten one. But let’s stipulate that number.
That leaves 5,000 minority US citizens facing this significant barrier to their voting.
So it’s time for cost-benefit analysis. Can you show me 5,000 votes cast fraudulently? If so, then you’re getting close to having a real point. (It still leaves out all the white people without an ID, but you’re getting close).
Edit: part of your question involves the future tense. If you won’t be happy until I give you a reliable cite for events that have not yet happened, then I’m afraid I’ll never make you happy.
No, this would be a special gun owner’s identification, and they would have to carry it whenever they excerise their Second Amendment rights, both keeping and bearing arms.
Yep, that’s what I meant, thanks for the cover, Fear.
Like a concealed-carry license? Or an open-carry permit? Those also already exist.
Nope. All guns. Just to exercise your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It’s such a small thing to ask, don’t you think? Law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear.
Sure. If you would like your state to require someone to have a driver’s license or, if he doesn’t drive, some other form of ID in order to keep and bear arms - go ahead and push for such a law. I have no problem with it.
With the hoops through which you have to jump in a lot of places in order to exercise your 2nd amenment rights, just requiring an ID would be a huge improvement.
I already noted upthread how in order to exercise what the courts called the “absolute right” of citizenship - to be able to enter United States from abroad - you have to have identification. Do you object to that as well?
By the logic you’ve posted states can’t require people to provide IDs in order to buy guns.
I’m sorry but this statement makes no sense at all.
Most states require people to provide IDs in order to buy guns.
Beyond that, you’ve made it clear that you think it’s wrong to make people produce ID in order to do something they have constitutional right to do so.
It’s extremely hypocritical of you to support laws requiring people to produce IDs in order to buy guns but to oppose such laws regarding letting people vote.
I’d recommend rethinking your current position because it’s poorly thought out and shows little understanding and massive ignorance of current American laws.
Sarcasm can have that effect on some people, especially when I put too fine a point on it. It is a rhetorical technique, ask Terr, he gets it.