It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for those of you who oppose ID to vote....

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


So if your argument is that it has to be in context of when the Constitution was written...then sure...go out and grab your musket.


I highly doubt it.


The Constitution doesn't say musket, it says arms.

You can doubt whatever you wish, but your record in this topic is pitiful and exhibits an astounding lack of Constitutional knowledge. Your own pathetic little belief system is clouding what I assume to be a tiny little peanut brain.

LOL you seriously thought the term well regulated militia referred to the national guard.




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by neo96
I do support voter ID laws why the hell not or are the anti voter id lot too afraid of winning a election the honest way?


Do you have any evidence that any of the past elections by Democratic presidents have won vai voter fraud? Obviously you don't because that evidence does not exist. Republicans always conveniently wheel out voter I.D during the election period. While I don't have anything against I.D laws provided they are fair, I don't doubt they are politically motivated as well.


Yeah "evidence does not exist":

www.usnews.com...

www.foxnews.com...

mrctv.org...

Yeah a 2 second google search is too much effort just easier to "Say voter fraud doesn't exist".



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


The National Guard is the States "organized militia".


I know...big words...I'm surprised a "dimwit" like me knows them.


Try to understand this:

The National Guard did not exist at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

Stop now., You are embarrassing yourself.

The people (as in us) make up both the organized AND unorganized militia.

Maybe you should stick to playing with lincoln logs or something. Obviously this isn't something you are good at or knowledgeable about.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The problem is really simple.

Not all American citizens carry ID's with them at all times. Not all American citizens even have ID.

If the state gives out free ID to all citizens before they vote, then requiring said ID to vote would be no problem at all. Until free ID's are provided, requiring ID discriminates against poorer citizens who may not have ID. (A homeless man who was born in America is still an American citizen and deserves his right to vote just like everyone else, even if he might not have a drivers license or SS card).


A commonly cited study by New York University's Brennan Center claimed that of the US population that is of voting age, 11% lack government-issued photo IDs.
wiki

The issue isn't even really an issue, because citizens are required to register to vote before voting, which in turn requires us to prove our citizenship before we go to the polls. Voter fraud is a negligible problem in our elections, so adding a requirement for further identification at the polls is relatively unnecessary.

Again, however, if the state provides free ID then there's no problem at all with requiring it to vote.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Yet those poorer citizens still manage to prove their identity to sign up for food stamps or cash their welfare checks.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Simple answer: 24th amendment.




Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.


No poll taxes. A requirement of photo ID would require the purchase of said ID, thereby making it a form of poll tax. Free photo IDs given out by the state would be nearly a logistical and financial nightmare. What happens if you lose your 'free' ID the day before the election? Purchase a new one (again, now it's a poll tax) or be given yet another expensive 'free' photo ID on election day (when state employees aren't working at the DMV to give you one anyway)? Unless you repeal the 24th amendment, the legal battle for photo ID requirements would be insanity.

As for the 2nd amendment, that one is self-explanatory. It was written to be, and was confirmed to be for individuals by the founding fathers themselves.



"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." – James Madison





"The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams

edit on 18-7-2012 by nwdogg1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Yet those poorer citizens still manage to prove their identity to sign up for food stamps or cash their welfare checks.


And you don't want poor citizens to vote because?


Food Stamps and Welfare are benefits. Voting is an American right. It's pretty obvious why requiring a paid-for ID would be acceptable for one and unacceptable for the other. As I said before, when free photo-ID's are provided to all citizens, requiring ID to vote will not be an issue.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Yeah a 2 second google search is too much effort just easier to "Say voter fraud doesn't exist".


I never said that voter fraud doesn't exist, please don't lie about what I said. I asked you to prove to me that the last Democratic presidents won because of voter fraud since you insisted they don't win "honestly" and you failed to show anything.




www.usnews.com...

www.foxnews.com...


Ah yes, Al frankins win in Minnesota. I don't recall Al Franken running for president? Atleast not yet. Never the less let's look at the articles you posted:


At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.


The research was done by a conservative group, and an actual investigation done by authorities ended up with charges of fraud far less than the 341 number:


Conservatives have seized on the election of Al Franken as their own Bush v. Gore, except in this case the winner actually got more voters than the loser. But they can’t accept that (Senator Al Franken!!), so they’ve spent years convincing themselves that they’re one lawsuit or investigation away from proving that Franken’s 312 vote margin of victory was based on voter fraud. The most extensive conservative investigation to date alleged that over a thousand fraudulent votes were cast. Except that in reality it was more like 205 instances of someone who might have been a felon maybe voting. (For whom? There’s no way to know.)

Based on this group’s exhaustive study, Hennepin County has charged 47 people with committing voter fraud. 43 felons voted (many of them just didn’t know that felons aren’t allowed to vote) and four people double-voted.

www.salon.com...

47 people were charged with voter fraud, Al Franken won the senate elections by over 300 votes.


mrctv.org...


The article:

The primary win by 42-year-old congressional veteran Charlie Rangel could now be in doubt days after ballots were cast.

There are allegations of voter suppression and questionable votes, and it's going to court, as rangel's long career hangs in the balance


"Allegations" "doubt" does not automatically equate to proof.

I never stated that voter fraud doesn't exist, why don't you cut out the strawman arguments? You have nothing.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


If someone loses their free ID, that is their fault and theirs alone. It'd be like losing your voter registration card as you are getting ready to go vote.

Providing the free ID's is not a logistical nightmare, lots of states are currently doing it and proving it can be done.

Now, as for the 2nd Amendment, providing an ID is an infringement, as are all gun control laws. By the very definition of the word, all of those laws are unconstitutional and need to be repealed immediately.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Seriously?

So voter fraud only is important when it comes to "presidents".

Voter fraud in any way,shape or form should not even exist because they same practices lead up to "presidential election".



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd


Food Stamps and Welfare are benefits. Voting is an American right. It's pretty obvious why requiring a paid-for ID would be acceptable for one and unacceptable for the other. As I said before, when free photo-ID's are provided to all citizens, requiring ID to vote will not be an issue.


Plenty of states are already handing out free ID's and jackass leftists still oppose it.

My point was that the people who many claim are "too poor" to get an id would be those poor enough to be receiving some form of benefits that they would already need an id to be accepted into, whether it be the food stamp program or something like TANF.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


If someone loses their free ID, that is their fault and theirs alone. It'd be like losing your voter registration card as you are getting ready to go vote.

Providing the free ID's is not a logistical nightmare, lots of states are currently doing it and proving it can be done.


You are right, it would be that person's fault. However (and this could be wrong here, just my experience) you can still cast your vote without your registration card. Simply present it later if the vote is contested, but I'm pretty sure it's not necessary to present the card at the ballot booth (again, in my experience, never had to show anything.)

As far as providing free photo IDs, yeah some states do that, you're absolutely right. The financial problem would be outstanding however, because the ID would ABSOLUTELY need to be provided again, free of charge, if it was lost. You simply cannot charge a fee for someone to vote, no matter how that fee is presented. Be it in the form of a direct charge at the polls, or an indirect charge for an ID or pass or whatever, it is a violation of the 24th amendment. Free IDs aren't free at all, taxpayers still have to pay for these at some level, and giving them out to everyone that lost theirs at any time would be a huge burden to state government finances.
edit on 18-7-2012 by nwdogg1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 



The people are the militia you dimwit.

If you wish to debate something, it would help tremendously if you had an understanding of the topic beforehand.


The "people" are the "unorganized militia".

The National Guard is the States "organized militia".


Only partly correct and, in whole truth, yet another example of how the US Civil War effectively killed the Constitution. The National Guard isn't a state militia. It is a federal government toolkit, with the priorities of the feds coming first and foremost, long before state's needs are met. An example of that is easily seen in the feds' prevention of Arizona fully using the national Guard to protect their borders from illegal alien activity. A true state militia is under no such federal thumb, thus... the Minute Man militia. A true militia in the spirit of the Second Amendment (which, as you stated, grants the right to form a militia in addition to the right of US citizens to own firearms.)

edit on 18-7-2012 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 


Because there are quite a few different types of identification you can use to get on those programs. There are also a number of citizens living in this country that were alive before or living in places where they simply didn't issue birth certificates. Couple that with the ability of Americans to move anywhere in the country some wouldn't even know where to look to have a copy sent to them. It isn't an objection to some kind of identification, it is an objection to a systemic elimination of once perfectly acceptable types of identification. Texas is a good example of this you can use your concealed carry permit yet not your college ID? Yet that shouldn't be interpreted of trying to suppress the vote?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd


Plenty of states are already handing out free ID's and jackass leftists still oppose it.

My point was that the people who many claim are "too poor" to get an id would be those poor enough to be receiving some form of benefits that they would already need an id to be accepted into, whether it be the food stamp program or something like TANF.



Watch the name-calling, please. I've only seen people in this thread stating that if the ID's are free, there's no problem.

It just simply doesn't matter if a person has ID to get food stamps or welfare or whatever. All that matters (as nwdogg1982 has pointed out more eloquently than I could) is that there is no voter tax. Requiring an ID without providing one for free would effectively be a voter tax.

If the ID is provided (and re-provided as necessary) for free, then there's no problem with requiring it to vote. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to help combat what little voter fraud there is and further legitimize election results.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
So voter fraud only is important when it comes to "presidents".


I didn't say that either. To claim however without any evidence that Democrats don't win elections honestly tells me that you are the one being dishonest.

Voter fraud often occurs outside of that of I.D theft. It is not easy at all to commit voter fraud through identity theft, it simply is an efficient way for fraudsters to break the system. Many of those folks who were charged with voter fraud in the Al Franken case for example used their real names when they registered, the problem was that election officials failed to do a backround check on them. So whether or not they presented I.D as proof of their identities would have changed little concerning the fraud.

There are also not many election wins out there that resulted in I.D theft, either presidential or congressional, infact personally I have not come across such an incident in recents times. I don't doubt that it may have happened, but to claim it is a common thing is simply false.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Texas is a good example of this you can use your concealed carry permit yet not your college ID? Yet that shouldn't be interpreted of trying to suppress the vote?


No.

CCW permit = issued by a governmental agency, usually the county sheriff's office.

School ID: issued by a school that may or may not be a government funded institution.

2 entirely different entities.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I don't oppose a voter ID, but I don't see the need to create another form of ID when the driver's license or the ID card will do.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Texas is a good example of this you can use your concealed carry permit yet not your college ID? Yet that shouldn't be interpreted of trying to suppress the vote?


No.

CCW permit = issued by a governmental agency, usually the county sheriff's office.

School ID: issued by a school that may or may not be a government funded institution.

2 entirely different entities.


Yes it is. Your student ID was perfectly acceptable before they changed it. So then you have to ask why you would need to change it. It wouldn't happen to have anything at all to do with the fact that students tend to vote Democrat now would it? You need just as much if not more personal information to enroll in school than you do to get a CCW as well.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I'm sorry, after re-reading through the thread I realized that I never did fully answer your original question, which was since I oppose voter ID, would I also favor the elimination of ID laws for guns?

My personal answer to this question is a resounding YES! I believe the entire identification system used by our government is 'morally' infringing; unfortunately, by the wording of the 2nd amendment (to keep and bear arms) there is a clear opening that allows the government to require ID to purchase or obtain the arms. So legally, I don't believe it is an infringement.

However, I very much would be in favor of eliminating ID requirements for firearm purchases, and I would also be in favor of eliminating all other restrictions such as automatic weapons, and even larger traditionally military-only arms. I know, very very extremist, but that's just my personal view on the matter, as I believe in individual liberty and a decentralized system of self-governance.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join