quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Requiring ID in every single case at a voting booth is protecting our freedoms, but requiring ID to buy a gun in every single case in private transactions and at gun shows and so on, is a violation of our freedoms?

Waltz us thru it.

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.

Shall not be denied or abridged (thats even more than the second amendment)

Well you might have a point if I had ever said or implied that I thought you shouldn't have to show id to buy a gun. But I haven't so once again you are just spouting bullshit. But just for shits and giggles why don't you point to the part of the constitution that says you don't have to show your id to vote.

How would US Citizens in the late 18th century been able to produce a Photo ID, when the concept of a photograph was not invented? You cant make a law for or against a technology that doesn't exist in reality. Which is why cars and trucks are not mentioned in the US Constitution; even though they are pretty heavily used in 2014.

You are correct which is why I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

If the founding fathers thought that voting fraud is or might be a problem; wouldn't it be reasonable for them to include the idea into the document? They knew arms, getting out of hand could become a problem; so they mentioned and stated only 'a well regulated militia....' would have the best freedom to them.

I am sure there are a lot of things they didn't think of. That doesn't mean it won't come up in today's society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
If the founding fathers thought that voting fraud is or might be a problem; wouldn't it be reasonable for them to include the idea into the document? They knew arms, getting out of hand could become a problem; so they mentioned and stated only 'a well regulated militia....' would have the best freedom to them.

I am sure there are a lot of things they didn't think of. That doesn't mean it won't come up in today's society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi



How will it stop Democrats from voting. Do they have some kind of disability that makes it any harder for them to get an id than a republican?

YES, it's why the Republicans are backing the measures in so many states like NC and TX. It's a kind of technocratic Lee-Atwaterism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi



How will it stop Democrats from voting. Do they have some kind of disability that makes it any harder for them to get an id than a republican?

YES, it's why the Republicans are backing the measures in so many states like NC and TX. It's a kind of technocratic Lee-Atwaterism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Just curious, do you go into this kind of a rant every time someone asks you for id? Now I have had kids act like 3 yrs olds and throw tantrums when I asked for id so they could buy their smokes, but they are kids and about to be told no they can't have what they want, so I can kinda understand their frustration. But you are supposed to be an adult. Do you honestly think handing someone a card is the same as letting them search your person? I have to say as many times as I have been asked for id, they have always waited until I handed it to them. Not one tried to search me and take it. But maybe you have such a attitude that people handle you differently. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

1. I didn't create the US Constitution
2. I didn't write the US Constitution
3. I didn't create nor write the 4th amendment
4. The 4th amendment is much more well defined (unlike the 2nd)

I have as always started and ended from the same stand point...civilized. I state: Who I am, and where I live. That's pretty civilized. I don't need to shout nor rant about it. I have stated clearly several times, why I feel being forced to show my photo ID is a violation of the 4th amendment. Not one person has set up a reasonable argument to why my civil rights should be tramped to satisfy their insecurities of reality. It is true that I am tired of one individual on this thread whom continues to show very little in the way of reason and thought; that I must explain very basic concepts he should have picked up in elementary school, and tested during his final years before obtaining a high school diploma or GED.

The 4th amendment states directly that my papers are secure "...against unreasonable search and seizure...". Unless, there is probable cause I am breaking the law. But to create a law in which the individual voter starts off being accused of wrong doing and being forced to prove their innocence; I feel is a violation of the 4th's protections. I went so far as to explain a possible dialogue tree that the proper information could be verified without one's 4th amendment rights being violated. And that it is up to the accuser to produce evidence of wrong doing, not the accused of innocence. In the United States, a central core concept is one is considered 'innocent' until proven 'guilty'. I have yet to see one argument in which the opposite should be true. Since if we start assuming one is guilty of something rather than innocent, then its fair to lock up all the gun owners in America on the grounds they or their arms might be used in a shooting and/or murderous actions. I will take it as a reasonable guess, they would have a problem with being accused of something without evidence.....