Supreme court upholds voter ID law, disenfranchising native Americans in ND

[UsualName]

Sorry Cowboy but you just dismissed a totally relevant argument because it is too relevant for your convenience.

It is central to the issue of voter id requirement to eliminate real obstacles versus just lack of motivation- the root cause of most voter id problems.

Many dem voters are allegedly "unable" to come up with voter id, but if you notified them that their free large screen TV that they just won is available to be picked up saturday morning with proper ID, THAT TV BE MOVING OUT OF THE STORE ON SATURDAY MORNING.. PERIOD!!

We can certainly use hypotheticals to test laws. Unfortunately, your test involves a gain that can be measured in monetary value. A vote is not equivalent to a flat screen tv or a food voucher.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

We can certainly use hypotheticals to test laws. Unfortunately, your test involves a gain that can be measured in monetary value. A vote is not equivalent to a flat screen tv or a food voucher.

Really? You start offering a chance to win free TV's to dem voters if they show up to vote with their ID's and see if your ilk show up in greater numbers.

Many of your ilk agree with me. I offer up the article below as a little reminder.

You think that was to get out the Dem vote or the Republican vote. Just sayin.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Lates...-may-turn-voting-ballots-into-lottery-tickets

 

[UsualName]

Really? You start offering a chance to win free TV's to dem voters if they show up to vote with their ID's and see if your ilk show up in greater numbers.

Many of your ilk agree with me. I offer up the article below as a little reminder.

You think that was to get out the Dem vote or the Republican vote. Just sayin.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Lates...-may-turn-voting-ballots-into-lottery-tickets

Well if votes were used for a lottery then they would be a thing of monetary value. In the here and now votes are not and your argument doesn’t equate.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Well if votes were used for a lottery then they would be a thing of monetary value. In the here and now votes are not and your argument doesn’t equate.

My argument there was that even your own lefty ilk agree that something of monetary value would get out more votes.

Keep crabwalking sideways. You will find the ocean someday. OR NOT.

 

[TJustice]

If someone does not value their vote enough to obtain a ID that is their choice. Their choice should not prevent us from ensuring only eligible american's vote.

Should Mexico and Canada allow me to vote without ID?

Well if votes were used for a lottery then they would be a thing of monetary value. In the here and now votes are not and your argument doesn’t equate.

We can certainly use hypotheticals to test laws. Unfortunately, your test involves a gain that can be measured in monetary value. A vote is not equivalent to a flat screen tv or a food voucher.

 

[Cuddles]

First of all, in Texas, a person commits a misdemeanor if they sell a weapon privately to any individual under age, convicted of a felony, accused of domestic abuse and/or whom has a restraining order attached. Short of selling a gun to someone you know very well, I'm not sure how you do that without running a background check on someone, which requires ID. Do people still do it without checking? I'm sure they do, but that doesn't make it legal. If I sell a weapon to another individual and do not check their ID, I am taking the risk upon myself in doing so. But sure, it technically can happen - so in that circumstance I must concede that it is possible.

The same is true in Virginia. The same is true in every other state. Again, do people sell guns without checking the buyer's information? Sure they do. This is illegal.

People also sell pharmaceuticals illegally. Drugs illegally. They even vote illegally.

It is not illegal, only illegal if the person you sold to happens to be guilty of those offenses. I can sell privately to a saint without id requirement and not break the law.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Of course you do because you want to believe what the right wing media tells you. I have cited the state of Virginia, the Houston chronicle, a law website you have given nothing besides a presidential advisory committee that was suspiciously terminated and conjecture.

Do you still want to stand behind your statement that a valid ID is needed for every gun purchase?

You apparently did not read this post of mine. Or this one. Perhaps you can before you rehash the exact same thing over again? Or maybe you avoided them because they contain questions you don't want to answer?

Additionally, democrats do make true statements on occasion as cited by PolitiFact. So don’t dispute the statement because a democrat said it, that’s playing to the mob. You have to dispute PolitiFact’s findings.

A quote from a politician is not a statistical source.

 

[Tsing Tao]

It is not illegal, only illegal if the person you sold to happens to be guilty of those offenses. I can sell privately to a saint without id requirement and not break the law.

As I already said, it is against the law if you sell to someone who is a felon, someone who has restraining orders taken against them, someone who has been diagnosed with mental impairment, someone who is underage, or someone who has intent to use the firearm unlawfully.

As I also already said, unless you know the person really well, you cannot know any of this without doing a background check.

Lastly, as I already said, does it still get done? Yes, on occasion. And sometimes people sell pharmaceuticals without checking ID, or alcohol without confirming the age of the buyer, etc.

This "loophole" should be immediately closed (I said this, too). ID should be required on every purchase of a firearm, no matter how the transaction is conducted. Additionally, ID should be required for every person that votes. As a 2A supporter, I support requiring IDs on all gun transactions. So tell me why, again, this has anything to do with your argument regarding why ID should not be required to vote.

Also, please answer the following, which you conveniently ignored:

Why does it matter if they are not official rights? Don't they disenfranchise people without ID? Not being able to get medical care, food stamps, etc...isn't the whole liberal argument you've been making about how people are disenfranchised by having to get an ID?

 

[Cuddles]

As I already said, it is against the law if you sell to someone who is a felon, someone who has restraining orders taken against them, someone who has been diagnosed with mental impairment, someone who is underage, or someone who has intent to use the firearm unlawfully.

As I also already said, unless you know the person really well, you cannot know any of this without doing a background check.

Lastly, as I already said, does it still get done? Yes, on occasion. And sometimes people sell pharmaceuticals without checking ID, or alcohol without confirming the age of the buyer, etc.

This "loophole" should be immediately closed (I said this, too). ID should be required on every purchase of a firearm, no matter how the transaction is conducted. Additionally, ID should be required for every person that votes. As a 2A supporter, I support requiring IDs on all gun transactions. So tell me why, again, this has anything to do with your argument regarding why ID should not be required to vote.

Also, please answer the following, which you conveniently ignored:

Do you not see the circular logic here? It's illegal to sell to someone ineligible so people shouldn't do it. Guess what, it's also illegal to vote if ineligible, so people shouldn't do it. It's the whole "why take my gun rights away if criminals will commit crime anyway?" argument. So why take someone's voting rights away if someone's going to vote illegally anyway?

As to your second goal post, I ignored it because it's a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter what the "liberals" want to make a right (health care, housing, etc...), the fact is they are not until amended into the books. Voting is already a right, so you can't conflate it with privileges (as I already stated yet you chose to ignore).

 

[TJustice]

Your argument is convoluted....
Do you believe in checking someone's eligibility to buy a gun or not?

Checking eligibility is not taking away a right to vote. It is proving eligibility.

In fact if you are not checking eligibility you are taking away the value of my vote.

Do you not see the circular logic here? It's illegal to sell to someone ineligible so people shouldn't do it. Guess what, it's also illegal to vote if ineligible, so people shouldn't do it. It's the whole "why take my gun rights away if criminals will commit crime anyway?" argument. So why take someone's voting rights away if someone's going to vote illegally anyway?

As to your second goal post, I ignored it because it's a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter what the "liberals" want to make a right (health care, housing, etc...), the fact is they are not until amended into the books. Voting is already a right, so you can't conflate it with privileges (as I already stated yet you chose to ignore).