I saw someone make this proposal today and the more I think about it, the more I like it.
They said that if photo ID is good for voting, it’s good for a gun purchase.
I’ll go one better, let’s place the same requirements for both. Whatever you need to do to exercise your 2nd Amendment Constitutional right, you have to do to vote.
There’s not a lefty in the country that would make this compromise, but if I was a young congressman, I’d have the bill written and submitted immediately.
5 comments:
I don't believe it's possible to buy a gun now without an ID. In fact, in my state, one needs a particular ID...a Firearms Owner Identification Car (FOID)...to do so.
Maybe it was just stated backwards? It makes more sense as you restated it: If one is required to show an ID in order to exercise a Constitutionally protected right, then it isn't too much to ask to insist upon identification in order to exercise the privilege to vote.
If it was originally stated as intended, it just demonstrates once again how ignorant people are who push gun control legislation.
You know why many rational people want to have some safeguards, regulations and licensing in place for things like explosives, guns and cars?
Because using these things in an improper way can lead to many deaths.
Do you know why many less-rational people want to put roadblocks and hurdles in the way for Americans voting?
Hint: It's NOT for reasons of safety. It's NOT for reasons of widespread voter fraud.
Answer: To depress the vote.
And do you know WHY some people would like to see fewer people voting? Especially in places with large minority groups?
I know. And so do African Americans and other minorities.
From NPR:
RAPHAEL WARNOCK:
"What we have witnessed today is a desperate attempt to lock out and squeeze the people out of their own democracy."
MICHAEL WALDMAN:
"...There was a really big outcry from people who saw their right to vote being restricted. It makes it a crime to give a granola bar or a bottle of water to someone waiting to vote. And we know that in Georgia and too many other places, those long lines to vote are in Black communities and communities of color. There are limits also on the ability to do mobile voting, which is something that only has taken place in Georgia in Fulton County, which is predominantly Black. Both the original proposal and the laws that passed target Black voters and voters of color with uncanny accuracy."
WALDMAN:
"In the Jim Crow era, there were laws that looked neutral on their face but were really targeted at Black voters. It took the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the bloodshed in Selma and other places to undo that and make it so that everybody who's eligible to vote really would have access. These laws are targeted in a way to make it harder for people to vote but especially for people of color to vote. That's heading in the wrong direction in our history and at the moment."
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/26/981722621/what-the-new-voting-legislation-means-for-georgia
We see. We know.
Again, I lost my parsed response, so I'll summarize as follows.
1. Dan and minorities have the special gnosis that allows them to know with certainty what the motivation of other people are.
2. It's apparently NOT racist to ask a minority to provide a photo ID to exercise their 2nd amendment right (along with a plethora of other everyday activities) , but it is to ask for an ID when they vote.
3. It's clearly immaterial that 99%+ of the people who would be subject to any additional firearms restrictions do not harm others with their legally owned inanimate objects.
4. Only guns, cars, and bombs are potentially dangerous enough to be regulated. Power tools, fentanyl, alcohol, tasers, gasoline, kerosene, rope, cigarettes, cocaine, heroin, and meth should all have restrictions relaxed because they pose so little risk.
5. Symbolic restrictions that have minuscule affects on crime, are popular.
6. I love it when Dan so confidently speaks about how well he can "know" the motives of millions of people he's never met, and how confidently he acts as if those who disagree with him are monolithic and have the worst possible intentions.
Art,
In my state as well, (not to mention virtually every state with high gun violence) the hoops are much more stringent than simply showing an official photo ID (something that is required regularly in all sorts of other situations, yet is miraculously not racist in those instances).
First, you must go to the local PD to apply for a Permit to Purchase. This requires multiple forms of ID as well as a background/criminal records check and usually takes no less than 2 weeks. From there, you are required to fill out forms with extensive background information, provide photo ID, and go through a second background check. The fact that folks like Dan can spout so much bullshit about the process, and do so as shamelessly as they do, seems to indicate that it's about simply adding additional hurdles instead of doing anything the directly correlates with less crime.
Maybe, before riot season gets in full swing, they should restrict gas, gas cans, bricks, rocks, concrete blocks, sticks, boards, (hell lumber and gas are so expensive a lot of rioters might need subsidies), spray paint, and the like.
"Do you know why many less-rational people want to put roadblocks and hurdles in the way for Americans voting?
Hint: It's NOT for reasons of safety. It's NOT for reasons of widespread voter fraud.
Answer: To depress the vote."
I don't know who these "less rational people" Dan references here, but those who are working to eliminate Democrat policies that make fraud easier and replace them with policies that worked for generations are absolutely working to reduce fraud and increase the integrity of the voting process. Mail-in...even proper absentee voting...increases fraud potential. This isn't even debatable. Voter ID reduces fraud as has been shown in the many states and nations that implemented this policy.
And BTW, the word is "suppress", not "depress". Just sayin'. One would think an opponent of actual "common sense" election law would know the difference when lying about the intention of such laws.
Dan proves why relying on NPR is a bad choice for news, if they're citing people like Warnock and Waldman in criticizing election policies that are absolutely sensible and easy to follow, even by the minorities Dan and they insult by their false claims about how they're negatively impacted by laws that are imposed upon everyone equally.
Post a Comment