Two rights, one picture ID

i just want to jump in here and say: nice automag. what is it, a .44 or a .50?

voting doesn't shoot bullets into people?

I don't know I'm just spit ballin' here.,

So you're saying both are racist, but you're cool with racism in the case of gun purchases because guns are dangerous? That's beyond twisted.

No I'm not saying they're both racist. In fact I never said either were. Your meme presumes the truth.

All rights can, should and need to be REASONABLY regulated.

Because guns can kill people it's probably a but more reasonable to require photo ID....whereas voter fraud is so rare....requiring photo ID is not reasonable.

My meme observes the decisions of several courts regarding voter ID laws while making no claim about whether or not these decisions are "the truth", and the lack of mirroring decisions in a directly parallel situation.

Your sentiment still seems to be that the potentially dangerous nature of a firearm (as if votes cannot be dangerous) makes racist regulations OK. That certainly matches the history of firearm regulations, most of which has been motivated by racism, but remains internally inconsistent.

No regulation of a right that is racist should be considered "reasonable". Your claim that voter fraud is rare is insupportable.. we do not have any reliable picture of the frequency with which voter fraud occurs. On the other hand, murder with a firearm happens about 9,000 times annually in the US... and that is bound to be more rare than voter fraud.

Your obsession with (non existent) racism might be a window into your own racism.

Fascinating. Don't you think you should understand someone's views before calling them a racist? My personal view is that requiring ID is reasonable in many circumstances, including both the purchase of a new firearm and voting, and not racist in any circumstances. That, I believe, is a view that is both reasonable and consistent.

The Democrat Party, apparently most on the left, and I presume from your posts you, hold the inconsistent view that it's OK to ID for firearms and not OK to ID for voting. Let's look at that, and you tell me where my points fall apart and why:

1 - The left is against requiring ID to vote, on the basis that doing so is racist. The claim is that there is a small but statistically significant difference in the rate at which various races have picture IDs, and therefore more people of some races (blacks, in particular) are prevented from exercising their right to vote by such a law. It does not matter if the law provides means -- both free of cost and without a need to drive -- for those without ID to obtain same.

2 - The same people generally support a requirement to present a picture ID to purchase a firearm from a dealer, and further support the expansion of this requirement to nearly all purchases and transfers of firearms (from a loan to a friend to a used purchase from a stranger).

3 - If one accepts the rationale presented in (1), it must also apply to (2)... that is, if it is racist to ID for voting, it is also racist to ID for firearms purchase for exactly the same reasons.

4 - The only possible conclusions are that people with the two views in (1) and (2) either:

a) believe it is OK to be racist when restricting firearms,or
b) do not actually believe it is racist to require ID (to vote OR to purchase firearms)

Whichever way that falls, it's not pretty. a) makes one a racist, and b) makes one a self-serving liar.

Should we require IQ tests for both? Surely there is value in having intellectually competent people voting AND buying guns, no?

Cute way to avoid answering. Stupid, but cute.

There isn't any research showing a relationship between IQ and safety with firearms... and there's not likely to be, since there's almost certainly no such relationship. If anything, you're likely to find that people of high IQ commit suicide with firearms at a higher rate.

Likewise, IQ and high quality voting are not likely to be related. If you're going to test anything as a requirement to vote, I would suggest an awareness of political information, which is clearly independent of IQ.

In the end, you basically cannot address my point. You've gone from "guns can kill" to "voter fraud is rare" to "you're a racist" to "IQ tests... poor performance, I'm afraid.

How about being able to read and write?

Oh wait they tried that before....not "RACIST" persay.....but .....

There are three basic ways one can respond, when it's pointed out that they believe something that cannot be defended with logic and fact:

1 - modify this belief such it can be defended by logic and fact (rational)
2 - decide that defensibility is less important than holding this belief (irrationally ideological)
3 - insult the person who pointed out your inability, and pretend it didn't happen (fantasy)

That's you there in #3. I assume you're quite young, and will grow out of it.

4- make up false pretenses and place blame for non existent assaults l.

You obviously fall under 4

Ps- I'm 43 and a multiple gun owner. And I vote.

Silence. Shocking.

Sure, I'll bite. Cite a "false pretense" I've "made up".