Originally posted by Silent Masteryep they're certainly different. U should have know i thought that already, i guess u must have missed this-
The state is still a government. so thanks for admitting that private guns sales and government elections are different.
"Do people really want voter id laws to be like gun laws?"-raptor22
U seemed to want them to be the same before-
"We can start with no ID being required for either voting or getting a gun."-silent
But i guess not
"If private citizens want to hold an election for a private position, they can set whatever rules they want."-silent
Maybe u meant to say no id required for either voting (for private positions) or getting a gun.
Originally posted by Silent Masteru quoted robs post of him asking u what u suggest.
No, I'm asking if those that say no ID should be required to exercise their right to vote would also apply that standard to other rights.
"What do you suggest the government pay for in regards to the 2nd Amendment?" Rob
Your response to the question he asked that u quoted and responded to-
"We can start with no ID being required for either voting or getting a gun."-Silent
That was your suggestion not a question
Originally posted by Silent Master
Try and keep up, I asked if that standard should be applied to the 2nd amendment. rob then asked for an example and that is when I mentioned ID's. I'm trying to see if the people that argue IDs shouldn't be required to exercise rights will be consistent.
Good point. I also wonder if those who think you shouldn't need an ID to buy a gun also believe you shouldn't need an ID to vote.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So, what is the logical reason?
Most of the arguments in this thread have been logical. They have been mostly about whether you should have voter ID, so somewhat tangential to the question posed initially though.
But yes "voter id disenfranchises people therefore there shouldn't be voter id" is a logical argument under the premises that you want to limit the disenfranchisement of people.
Even the more specific "voter id disenfranchises poor and and black people and should therefore be abandoned" is logical. That's also generally how you get the voter id laws is racist, the logical argument works as follows "actions that disproportionately affect one group identified by race are defined as racist. voter id disproportionately affects black people in the US, therefore it is racist" ... of course you can argue with the premise, you can also argue that it doesn't actually disproportionately affect black people, but it's not an illogical argument.
Conversely the arguments for voter id aren't illogical either.
"We want to fight voter fraud. Voter ID helps curb voter fraud, therefore we should have voter ID" is logical. Even the more cynical view of maybe someone like Mitch McConnell "I want Republicans to win. Voter ID disproportionately affects Democratic voters, therefore we should have voter ID" is a perfectly logical thought.
The argument surrounding voter ID is not one that suffers from a lack of logic, rather it is one of different values, priorities and views of the world.
As an addendum, your argument about the second amendment is also logical under certain premises, just as the opposite. And tbh even stronger ones could work "The right to vote and the right to bear arms are exactly the same. Therefore just like the one vote any citizen gets free of charge, the government should issue one and exactly one, standardized firearm to each citizen that comes to a gun dispensary station every 4 years"...that is a logical and somewhat bizarre argument.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There is absolutely NOTHING racist about having to have a picture id in order to vote... nothing.It's just a pathetic excuse leftists use to justify people not having to verify who they are when voting.
In other words, they know it makes it much harder for them to get away with cheating when an id is required, and that is just totally unacceptable to them, so they scream "it's racist!".
Not a single person in this thread has come even remotely close to giving a solid reason why a mandatory id for voting is racist.
Sounds like you are in favor of the government giving everyone free voter ID then.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So which do you fall under, IDs should be required to exercise your rights, no ID should be required or IDs should sometimes be required?
I mentioned my view earlier. I believe the government should issue ID to all citizens free of charge at a minimum of inconvenience. But, as long as that is not done, and in the specific case of the United States I believe there should be no voter id laws, as I see the threat of voter disenfranchisement as greater than that of individual voter fraud.
Originally posted by Silent Masterand i was trying to see if people who suggested id's be required for both would extend the same loop holes that gun sales benefit from to voter id rules to see if they will be consistent.
Try and keep up, I asked if that standard should be applied to the 2nd amendment. rob then asked for an example and that is when I mentioned ID's. I'm trying to see if the people that argue IDs shouldn't be required to exercise rights will be consistent.
According to u, if the loop holes to get around providing id are applied to both, then for some reason the votes wouldn't count in an election for a government official because they were cast in private.
So much for no ids for both and consistency i guess.