So here’s what I’m wondering. How does it makes sense to require voters to present an ID card to vote while individuals wanting to buy a gun at a gun show are not required to provide an ID?
22 thoughts on “I’ve got a question about voter ID for supporters of voter ID”
Comments are closed.
One gun lover / buyer I know in the Walworth County area insists he /she has always had to show ID at gun shows and this meme is false. However, you can buy/sell/trade them freely on Facebook, Craigslist and word of mouth person to person… Of course with no ID.
Please tell me that the Simpsons is not your news source here.
Uhm, Denis?
That meme was taken not from “The Simpsons”. It was taken from “Futurama”.
Thanks for playing.
Seriously that is your question how about why do I need an ID to buy Sudafed. But I don’t need any form of ID to do and participate in one of the most important aspects of the United States citizens rights.
I for one want there to be integrity in the voting process. And I am also still eagerly awaiting the masses and masses of people that don’t have some form of identification to make themselves known.
And I want there to be integrity in the gun-buying process. You agree to mandatory ID checks on everyone attempting to buy a gun, and I’ll agree to voter ID.
Zach, the lib/prog narrative concerning voter ID is that it equates to racist voter suppression. If I understand you correctly, you are now willing to support racist voter suppression measures so long as we also support racist measures to deny guns to black people.
Nah the political part of the NRA already does enough to keep us minorities away from guns with their hateful letters to what they assume are white members and it’s lobbying. It was enough to make my family quit. If you are aware, there are two parts of the NRA — the political part that supports the GOP and the military industrial complex. And the part that’s there teaching lessons and safety. Guess which one has been long controlling everything.
The NRA was all for gun control when the Black Panther Party was around. Look up The Mulford Act. Under Governor Ronald Reagan in as Governor of California in 1967.
Seems funny they’re not bothered by the white supremacist groups getting guns though.
In short summary, don’t say conservatives or republicans did everything to help minorities getting access to guns especially since it has been historically proven as bull. I don’t usually derail conversations like this but this important to get through.
Don’t use us as a tool for your rhetoric. Find a different argument instead of using us as an example to boost your side — especially when the Republican Party has rose to power since the 1968s on the back of the Southern Strategy.
I think you missed my point T.
No, I got your point exactly.
You’re trying to make a false equivalency and say how somehow restricting guns is similar to suppressing the vote. And you’re right, they are. but guess what – the most restrictive gun laws, were done under a Conservative and Republican governorship to keep out of minorities hands. The demonisation of California that conservatives like to do about gun laws, was primarily put into place in the first place by republicans.
Are you aware the Democratic politicians in the south tried to keep blacks from voting with the same types of Jim Crow Laws? Are you aware that many of these politicians in the south transferred parties as soon as Lyndon B. Johnson signed the The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Are you aware the moment that the National Republican Party started the southern strategy, they kicked blacks under the bus in all the states? Are you aware the Democrats in the south and the Democrats in the north historically were two different things?
What if I told you that at one point politics were local?
And you can unironically say that this poll tax and suppression is all right when it effects minorities the most? People who often live in the inner city, have no reason to drive because everything is in walking distance? Do you expect them to carry their birth certificate or Social Security Card everywhere to identify themselves? How can you expect people to get out and vote when all the resources are closed? It’s a poll tax and making impossible hoops to jump through. (And yes it’s a poll tax, because the voter ID was not told to every DMV in the state, and the DMVs in certain areas of the state only open up on election day. My uncle moved to Oconomowoc in the past month and that DMV office literally doesn’t open until election day. This is a big deal. )
Also if you’re not aware, to sign up begin with before the Voter ID law? You had to have multiple proofs of your residency and who you were to register in the first place. We don’t need to do that every single time.
I’m more worried about Electoral Fraud to be honest compared to Voter Fraud. Especially since the worst case of Voter Fraud was this in Wisconsin. (And don’t send the investigation of Milwaukee County, I read through it entirely. Most of the ‘questionable’ votes where people who moved in other parts of the city, clerks who didn’t purge their data entries for doubles (Which notably the people only voted once!), people who just recently moved into the city, others who died after they cast their vote in, and illegible handwriting.)
“You’re trying to make a false equivalency and say how somehow restricting guns is similar to suppressing the vote. And you’re right, they are.”
So how is it a false equivalency if I am right?
Regarding the gist of your comment overall, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the ID requirement. I understand that having or securing an ID can be more burdensome on some than others, I don’t think it is too much of an ask as the integrity of elections is of greater importance.
Because conservatives were responsible for both the most restricting gun control laws (in the California people like to demonize and claim it’s the liberals who did it) and Voter ID. That is why I think conservatives shouldn’t be talking about gun rights to blacks since your side doesn’t want us to have it in the first place.
The biggest problem with Voter Fraud is from the Milwaukee suburbs consistently and from often conservative voters. (See the Shorewood case.) And it’s often a result of a panic attack from squawking on the radio so they try to cancel out whatever voter fraud they’re imagining. Honestly if you wanted to fix people from voting twice, why not do it in the way we did in Wisconsin years ago? Dip your thumb into some ink and have it not be able to come off for a week. That way you know who voted and would know who voted twice.
Zach, the lib/progressive narrative concerning voter ID is that it is a racist attempt to suppress the black vote. If I now understand you correctly, you are willing to suppress the black vote so long as I agree to deny blacks their 2nd Amendment rights.
2nd post, not sure what happened to the first.
And the pretzel logic continues. Never gets old.
It does seem to be the basis of most liberal arguments.
Cute cartoon – shows what a fake issue voter id is, really.
The commenter at 4:34 am obviously needs to understand what a false equivalency is but finally agrees that keeping an estimated 300K voters without ID, deliberately away from the polls next week and in admitting the voter ID would be burdensome for many finally appears to be persuaded he was wrong all along.
As @2:51 am thinks that the 300K number of disenfranchised voters is a fake issue, I’d be willing to write that comment off as due to bar time.
I’ve brought this up before as the larger concern with the potential for state election fraud and the topic is written up well here:
http://wcmcoop.com/2014/10/25/wisconsins-dramatic-vote-swings-raise-election-integrity-concerns/
I’d also agree and say, demand a paper ballot.
What voter fraud? If there is essentially none, that would make voter id’s a fake issue, non? Instead of setting up yourself of the arbiter of others’s comments, why not just leave your opinion and move on? I barely make 9 pm much less bar time thee days but I am jet-lagged, Nonq. Thanks for the timely reminder that d*baggery may be found on both sides of the aisle.
I attributed your error to tiredness, so jet-lag, whatever, you still don’t seem to have made the connection that voter ID is NOT a fake issue. Yes, voter fraud is nearly non-existent but requiring voter ID at the polls is a voter suppression tactic. Potentially 300K affected is not fake.
That is why AG Van Hollen took two weeks after the SCOTUS decision to finally come out and say that there was not any way to immediately challenge that decision and too re-institute the voter ID requirement. He was complicit in attempting to continue to deliberately bring confusion about voter ID being required or not for next Tuesday.
So before you start getting abusive with people and telling others that they have no right to speak and challenge a moronic comment that you made and then offer no evidence to explain yourself, other than your personal scorn, take a breath and try to be a bit less of a thoughtless reactionary. Enough of those personality types on the right-wing, eh?
Ah, another lecture. I’m glad to finally see this – more of the same for the 18 months or so I’ve been tracking this blog. You play the poor victim when you’re called out for viciousness. PJ had enough of you and I grow weary as well.
The distinction between the two examples you cite is one of legality. To vote one must prove that they have met the legal requirements to do so. One of those requirements are that you prove you are a legal resident. Likewise there are legal requirements for purchasing a firearm. You refer to the sale of a firearm between two private parties, of which neither are a licensed firearms retailer. In this situation there is no legal requirement that would require the use of a photo ID.
Let me pose a question back to you? If you believe it is improper to require a photo ID be presented in order to establish legal residency for the purpose of voting then why does government require a photo ID be presented to obtain welfare benefits? Or when a police officer has lawfully detained you under suspicion of committing a crime?
Using your logic we should immediately end all welfare programs in Wisconsin and we should immediately disband all law enforcment services because they both require photo ID’s. I wholly support this proposal because it would represent a significant reduction in the size and scope of government.
Again, I am just using your logic. But in hindsight you really weren’t very logical were you?
you are required to have an i.d. to purchase a firearm. heres a thought – research your pint before you make a fool of yourself again.