Voting rights vs gun rights

[deuce1906]

I have a question for you guys. I’ve seen on this board people upset about mlb decision to pull the all star game due to their objection to the voting rights laws in Ga. I’ve heard some folks say “you need voter ID because how else do they know it’s you?” And justifying the passage of these laws.

my question is if these laws are being enacted to curb our right to vote after an election that according to minority leader in the senate Mitch McConnell wasnt fraudulent and lacked evidence, why is it ok to try to limit someone’s right to vote and be ok laws that are going to make it harder to vote? This is allegedly because we don’t want even the potential of fraud yet your not ok for any additional restrictions on guns bc it may violate someones constitutional right to bear arms.

is one constitutional right greater than the other?

 

[anon_xp0fbtbt18zd1]

I have a question for you guys. I’ve seen on this board people upset about mlb decision to pull the all star game due to their objection to the voting rights laws in Ga. I’ve heard some folks say “you need voter ID because how else do they know it’s you?” And justifying the passage of these laws.

my question is if these laws are being enacted to curb our right to vote after an election that according to minority leader in the senate Mitch McConnell wasnt fraudulent and lacked evidence, why is it ok to try to limit someone’s right to vote and be ok laws that are going to make it harder to vote? This is allegedly because we don’t want even the potential of fraud yet your not ok for any additional restrictions on guns bc it may violate someones constitutional right to bear arms.

is one constitutional right greater than the other?

What curbs your right to vote? All you have to do is register and then actually vote. It's almost the easiest thing you can do. It couldn't possibly be easier.

 

[BreakingCane]

I have a question for you guys. I’ve seen on this board people upset about mlb decision to pull the all star game due to their objection to the voting rights laws in Ga. I’ve heard some folks say “you need voter ID because how else do they know it’s you?” And justifying the passage of these laws.

my question is if these laws are being enacted to curb our right to vote after an election that according to minority leader in the senate Mitch McConnell wasnt fraudulent and lacked evidence, why is it ok to try to limit someone’s right to vote and be ok laws that are going to make it harder to vote? This is allegedly because we don’t want even the potential of fraud yet your not ok for any additional restrictions on guns bc it may violate someones constitutional right to bear arms.

is one constitutional right greater than the other?

This is based on a lie.

 

[ellu]

What curbs your right to vote? All you have to do is register and then actually vote. It's almost the easiest thing you can do. It couldn't possibly be easier.

I don't agree with the original premise and I'll deal with that below, but lets address yours. If its the easist thing and the state just conducted three audits, one by hand and assessed that zero fraud was taking place, then why the dramatic changes that if used nefariously (poll hours optional after 5pm, ability to sack a regions board for indefinite reasons, dramatic reduction of ballot boxes, inability to put up mobile voting stations) could impact a system that under extreme scrutiny proved to be 99.997% accurate. A system that literally enables hand counts later, that was the brainchild of the GOP who 100% accurately correct when they fought for absentee ballots to be put in place. Like what is the impetus? Who fixes something that is not broken and in doing so make the process subject to corruption on its face and more difficult to do.

As for OP? The whataboutism here makes zero sense. The folks who are enacting these voter's restrictions laws are not saying that they don't want folks to vote, they are using not so transparent means to limit the number of votes they get from a specific demo. Donald Trump, in full context, literally said “The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” (Fox and Friends video provided). The folks looking for gun restrictions A. can't articulate what that even means, b. aren't trying to repress a certain group from owning guns, they want to repress everyone.

Now for the record, I'm a gun-loving, gun owning AA who can see the corollary between the racist as Jim Crow laws that folks dismissed in the 50's and the repression of a voting body where literally there was indefatigable evidence of zero fraud. Conflating issues and whataobutism is a distraction.

Acting like this isn't what it is, racially targeted suppression. And don't come for my AK AR or PTR 91 either.

 

[irwinn]

I have a question for you guys. I’ve seen on this board people upset about mlb decision to pull the all star game due to their objection to the voting rights laws in Ga. I’ve heard some folks say “you need voter ID because how else do they know it’s you?” And justifying the passage of these laws.

my question is if these laws are being enacted to curb our right to vote after an election that according to minority leader in the senate Mitch McConnell wasnt fraudulent and lacked evidence, why is it ok to try to limit someone’s right to vote and be ok laws that are going to make it harder to vote? This is allegedly because we don’t want even the potential of fraud yet your not ok for any additional restrictions on guns bc it may violate someones constitutional right to bear arms.

is one constitutional right greater than the other?

Limit one's right to vote? LOL, who's that 'one'? Are we to believe that you actually know people who vote or want to vote that are not able to identify themselves. You must know people who do not have any one of the following forms of ID: a utility bill, a driver's license, Military ID card, citizenship certificate, passport, original bank statement, original paycheck, birth certificate, voter registration card, court approved birth document-US or foreign, original check from the government, etc.(yes there's more)

Who or what group does voter ID exclude from legally voting? Seriously, the question becomes, what is your motive?

 

[deuce1906]

Limit one's right to vote? LOL, who's that 'one'? Are we to believe that you actually know people who vote or want to vote that are not able to identify themselves. You must know people who do not have any one of the following forms of ID: a utility bill, a driver's license, Military ID card, citizenship certificate, passport, original bank statement, original paycheck, birth certificate, voter registration card, court approved birth document-US or foreign, original check from the government, etc.(yes there's more)

Who or what group does voter ID exclude from legally voting? Seriously, the question becomes, what is your motive?

If you have a voters registration card issued by the government, why do you need an ID?

 

[anon_xp0fbtbt18zd1]

I don't agree with the original premise and I'll deal with that below, but lets address yours. If its the easist thing and the state just conducted three audits, one by hand and assessed that zero fraud was taking place, then why the dramatic changes that if used nefariously (poll hours optional after 5pm, ability to sack a regions board for indefinite reasons, dramatic reduction of ballot boxes, inability to put up mobile voting stations) could impact a system that under extreme scrutiny proved to be 99.997% accurate. A system that literally enables hand counts later, that was the brainchild of the GOP who 100% accurately correct when they fought for absentee ballots to be put in place. Like what is the impetus? Who fixes something that is not broken and in doing so make the process subject to corruption on its face and more difficult to do.

As for OP? The whataboutism here makes zero sense. The folks who are enacting these voter's restrictions laws are not saying that they don't want folks to vote, they are using not so transparent means to limit the number of votes they get from a specific demo. Donald Trump, in full context, literally said “The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” (Fox and Friends video provided). The folks looking for gun restrictions A. can't articulate what that even means, b. aren't trying to repress a certain group from owning guns, they want to repress everyone.

Now for the record, I'm a gun-loving, gun owning AA who can see the corollary between the racist as Jim Crow laws that folks dismissed in the 50's and the repression of a voting body where literally there was indefatigable evidence of zero fraud. Conflating issues and whataobutism is a distraction.

Acting like this isn't what it is, racially targeted suppression. And don't come for my AK AR or PTR 91 either.

Politicians "fix" what isnt broken and they pander to their base. If it's not changing voting laws then its pretending that yet more gun regulations will stop a lunatic from killing people. I'm not arguing the merits or reasons. Just simply stating a fact that voting is extremely easy. None of the changes will stop one single eligible voter from voting if they want to vote.

 

[BreakingCane]

If you have a voters registration card issued by the government, why do you need an ID?

Since when did voter registration cards include a photo?

 

[HJCane]

I have a question for you guys. I’ve seen on this board people upset about mlb decision to pull the all star game due to their objection to the voting rights laws in Ga. I’ve heard some folks say “you need voter ID because how else do they know it’s you?” And justifying the passage of these laws.

my question is if these laws are being enacted to curb our right to vote after an election that according to minority leader in the senate Mitch McConnell wasnt fraudulent and lacked evidence, why is it ok to try to limit someone’s right to vote and be ok laws that are going to make it harder to vote? This is allegedly because we don’t want even the potential of fraud yet your not ok for any additional restrictions on guns bc it may violate someones constitutional right to bear arms.

is one constitutional right greater than the other?

Showing ID to vote doesn't make it harder to vote it makes it safer. You do have to show ID to buy a gun.

 

[deuce1906]

Since when did voter registration cards include a photo?

Requiring ID for voting was not always the policy. It became the policy to reduce the number of people voting. Many people don’t have a drivers license or a state issued ID. There are many people who don’t even have a bank account. When they issue you your voter registration card you have already been vetted by the state. Why does someone require additional information? It was only adopted to make voting harder.

you may say what’s wrong with asking for ID to vote? And I respond what’s wrong with demanding universal background checks to make sure we know who is buying a gun. Many argue they don’t want background check because it’s encroaching on the right to exercise their right to own a gun.

 

[deuce1906]

Showing ID to vote doesn't make it harder to vote it makes it safer. You do have to show ID to buy a gun.

Safer from what? There has never been an issue with widespread voter fraud. It’s been studied for 20 years. You’re asking to make something safer that was never harmed.

 

[HJCane]

Safer from what? There has never been an issue with widespread voter fraud. It’s been studied for 20 years. You’re asking to make something safer that was never harmed.

It's about integrity. What is your problem with showing ID to vote? If you buy a cocktail you might show ID, cigarettes, fly on a plane, drive a car, take a cruise.

 

[BreakingCane]

Requiring ID for voting was not always the policy. It became the policy to reduce the number of people voting. Many people don’t have a drivers license or a state issued ID. There are many people who don’t even have a bank account. When they issue you your voter registration card you have already been vetted by the state. Why does someone require additional information? It was only adopted to make voting harder.

you may say what’s wrong with asking for ID to vote? And I respond what’s wrong with demanding universal background checks to make sure we know who is buying a gun. Many argue they don’t want background check because it’s encroaching on the right to exercise their right to own a gun.

This is racist and a horrible he generalization. Nearly everyone in the US of voting age who wants to vote has a photo ID. Nonsense. It is being adopted to prevent fraud and non US citizens from voting in the general election

 

[BreakingCane]

Safer from what? There has never been an issue with widespread voter fraud. It’s been studied for 20 years. You’re asking to make something safer that was never harmed.

Many states require IDs already, including Colorado. Wane up and do some research

 

[deuce1906]

It's about integrity. What is your problem with showing ID to vote? If you buy a cocktail you might show ID, cigarettes, fly on a plane, drive a car, take a cruise.

none of those things are in the constitution. There has never been an issue with illegal voting. It’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. You know they review who voted with the voter rolls. You can’t just vote and have your vote count if it’s illegal or your it on the voter roll.

 

[deuce1906]

This is racist and a horrible he generalization. Nearly everyone in the US of voting age who wants to vote has a photo ID. Nonsense. It is being adopted to prevent fraud and non US citizens from voting in the general election

It’s not racist. It’s actually a thing. Maybe you haven’t noticed that this has been an issue for years. Which is why these laws are being and have been enacted. this is an old article and the internet is littered with similar articles. If it’s your American right to vote, why make it harder for Americans to exercise their constitutional right.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[CashvilleCane1]

I have a question for you guys. I’ve seen on this board people upset about mlb decision to pull the all star game due to their objection to the voting rights laws in Ga. I’ve heard some folks say “you need voter ID because how else do they know it’s you?” And justifying the passage of these laws.

my question is if these laws are being enacted to curb our right to vote after an election that according to minority leader in the senate Mitch McConnell wasnt fraudulent and lacked evidence, why is it ok to try to limit someone’s right to vote and be ok laws that are going to make it harder to vote? This is allegedly because we don’t want even the potential of fraud yet your not ok for any additional restrictions on guns bc it may violate someones constitutional right to bear arms.

is one constitutional right greater than the other?

Explain to me how voter ID laws limit ones right to vote? I’ll wait for your answer.

 

[ellu]

Politicians "fix" what isnt broken and they pander to their base. If it's not changing voting laws then its pretending that yet more gun regulations will stop a lunatic from killing people. I'm not arguing the merits or reasons. Just simply stating a fact that voting is extremely easy. None of the changes will stop one single eligible voter from voting if they want to vote.

Oh but it is designed to dissuade, make more difficult and invalidate actual cast votes. Look at provision for voters who arrive at the wrong precinct. Conflate that with the precinct realignments. Look at the shortened run off time, conflate that with the reduced mandatory open hours. All of these are potential refutations to your premise.

We are talking about the franchise. The right to vote was the assault racist white southerners used to erase the gains of equality that occurred ever so briefly during Reconstruction. Pandering to the vestiges of that base can’t simply be dismissed, not with the history behind it.

Could You Pass This Literacy Test Designed To Prevent Black Americans From Voting?

One wrong answer meant a failing grade — which couldn't be appealed.

allthatsinteresting.com

This article is the point, it’s not that the tests were impossible it’s that the those being tested was inequitably applied and the evaluation also failed to be equitable, but those racist could say if you wanted to vote you could. We must do better, either in ideology or owning the ideology we accept, willful ignorance can’t be the standard.

 

[majus12]

Requiring ID for voting was not always the policy. It became the policy to reduce the number of people voting. Many people don’t have a drivers license or a state issued ID. There are many people who don’t even have a bank account. When they issue you your voter registration card you have already been vetted by the state. Why does someone require additional information? It was only adopted to make voting harder.

you may say what’s wrong with asking for ID to vote? And I respond what’s wrong with demanding universal background checks to make sure we know who is buying a gun. Many argue they don’t want background check because it’s encroaching on the right to exercise their right to own a gun.

Absurd. What DONT you need an ID for.
EVERYTHING, try going thru a day without one.
Tell us why having an ID restricts votes??????
IT DOESNT, it PROHIBITS scams

 

[anon_xp0fbtbt18zd1]

Oh but it is designed to dissuade, make more difficult and invalidate actual cast votes. Look at provision for voters who arrive at the wrong precinct. Conflate that with the precinct realignments. Look at the shortened run off time, conflate that with the reduced mandatory open hours. All of these are potential refutations to your premise.

We are talking about the franchise. The right to vote was the assault racist white southerners used to erase the gains of equality that occurred ever so briefly during Reconstruction. Pandering to the vestiges of that base can’t simply be dismissed, not with the history behind it.

Could You Pass This Literacy Test Designed To Prevent Black Americans From Voting?

One wrong answer meant a failing grade — which couldn't be appealed.

allthatsinteresting.com

This article is the point, it’s not that the tests were impossible it’s that the those being tested was inequitably applied and the evaluation also failed to be equitable, but those racist could say if you wanted to vote you could. We must do better, either in ideology or owning the ideology we accept, willful ignorance can’t be the standard.

Hogwash man. Your trying to paint this as something that it's not. There is no literacy test. You just register and then vote. That's it. Again, every single eligible voter who wants to vote will vote. Your premise is that every single demographic can figure out the open hours except one. That's stupid.

 

[BreakingCane]

It’s not racist. It’s actually a thing. Maybe you haven’t noticed that this has been an issue for years. Which is why these laws are being and have been enacted. this is an old article and the internet is littered with similar articles. If it’s your American right to vote, why make it harder for Americans to exercise their constitutional right.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

If nearly everyone has an ID, how is this making it harder?

 

[BreakingCane]

Hogwash man. Your trying to paint this as something that it's not. There is no literacy test. You just register and then vote. That's it. Again, every single eligible voter who wants to vote will vote. Your premise is that every single demographic can figure out the open hours except one. That's stupid.

Yep. It’s racist

 

[ellu]

Hogwash man. Your trying to paint this as something that it's not. There is no literacy test. You just register and then vote. That's it. Again, every single eligible voter who wants to vote will vote. Your premise is that every single demographic can figure out the open hours except one. That's stupid.

Well, for one, read the article (or not). The point is there is a heritage to the erosion of voting rights, specifically targeted erosion. The perniciousness of Jim Crow was that at the time, those who were apathetic dismissed that the laws were targeted discrimination and those that were implementing them said that they could not be discrimination because they were applied equally, but we all know equal isn't the same as equitable.

Distilling this concept into a statement that ignores the construct, the purpose of the construct, and dismisses the effect of the construct, all the while acknowledging that the design is to "pander to their base", is willful ignorance. It's as complicit as saying well that test could be given to white people too. Well, it in fact was, but on a discretionary basis. This is not unlike the extended poll hours that may occur in sparsely populated rural areas versus the shorter hours that may occur in densely populated urban areas. This is not unlike the arbitrary removal of drop boxes for the collection of ballots that will disparately impact densely populated areas versus rural populated areas. This does not recognize how voters, legitimately entitled to vote, can now be challenged, without limit, and the elected local arbiters of such a challenge can be removed and replaced by the challengers.

Here is a conservative North Carolina Supreme Court ruling identifying some of the methods that other southern states, GA among them, employing as "laser-like precision" racism. Link to Case

Don't be that person that years later folks ask, why did they not do x. Or should you choose to be "a man of his times" understand that is a willful choice to be on the wrong side of history.

Thanks for a rational conversation, I appreciate the differing points of view. Nothing further here for me and be well Cane brother.

 

[anon_xp0fbtbt18zd1]

Well, for one, read the article (or not). The point is there is a heritage to the erosion of voting rights, specifically targeted erosion. The perniciousness of Jim Crow was that at the time, those who were apathetic dismissed that the laws were targeted discrimination and those that were implementing them said that they could not be discrimination because they were applied equally, but we all know equal isn't the same as equitable.

Distilling this concept into a statement that ignores the construct, the purpose of the construct, and dismisses the effect of the construct, all the while acknowledging that the design is to "pander to their base", is willful ignorance. It's as complicit as saying well that test could be given to white people too. Well, it in fact was, but on a discretionary basis. This is not unlike the extended poll hours that may occur in sparsely populated rural areas versus the shorter hours that may occur in densely populated urban areas. This is not unlike the arbitrary removal of drop boxes for the collection of ballots that will disparately impact densely populated areas versus rural populated areas. This does not recognize how voters, legitimately entitled to vote, can now be challenged, without limit, and the elected local arbiters of such a challenge can be removed and replaced by the challengers.

Here is a conservative North Carolina Supreme Court ruling identifying some of the methods that other southern states, GA among them, employing as "laser-like precision" racism. Link to Case

Don't be that person that years later folks ask, why did they not do x. Or should you choose to be "a man of his times" understand that is a willful choice to be on the wrong side of history.

Thanks for a rational conversation, I appreciate the differing points of view. Nothing further here for me and be well Cane brother.

Be well too. No hard feelings, just different opinions.

 

[BreakingCane]

Well, for one, read the article (or not). The point is there is a heritage to the erosion of voting rights, specifically targeted erosion. The perniciousness of Jim Crow was that at the time, those who were apathetic dismissed that the laws were targeted discrimination and those that were implementing them said that they could not be discrimination because they were applied equally, but we all know equal isn't the same as equitable.

Distilling this concept into a statement that ignores the construct, the purpose of the construct, and dismisses the effect of the construct, all the while acknowledging that the design is to "pander to their base", is willful ignorance. It's as complicit as saying well that test could be given to white people too. Well, it in fact was, but on a discretionary basis. This is not unlike the extended poll hours that may occur in sparsely populated rural areas versus the shorter hours that may occur in densely populated urban areas. This is not unlike the arbitrary removal of drop boxes for the collection of ballots that will disparately impact densely populated areas versus rural populated areas. This does not recognize how voters, legitimately entitled to vote, can now be challenged, without limit, and the elected local arbiters of such a challenge can be removed and replaced by the challengers.

Here is a conservative North Carolina Supreme Court ruling identifying some of the methods that other southern states, GA among them, employing as "laser-like precision" racism. Link to Case

Don't be that person that years later folks ask, why did they not do x. Or should you choose to be "a man of his times" understand that is a willful choice to be on the wrong side of history.

Thanks for a rational conversation, I appreciate the differing points of view. Nothing further here for me and be well Cane brother.

Implying this us Jim Crowe 2.0 is living a lie, trying to get people emotional. Straight from the liberal play book.

 

[ellu]

Respect.

 

[deuce1906]

Implying this us Jim Crowe 2.0 is living a lie, trying to get people emotional. Straight from the liberal play book.

It’s not a lie. The funny thing about you saying it’s a liberal playbook is bc the republicans are exactly playing their own playbook. This is just a reaction to it. The election was perfectly fine, nothing went wrong and they immediately change the voting laws. Why? Not bc there was an issue but to try to restrict and gain more control over the election process.

If you don’t think that’s why they did it you are naive.

 

[BreakingCane]

It’s not a lie. The funny thing about you saying it’s a liberal playbook is bc the republicans are exactly playing their own playbook. This is just a reaction to it. The election was perfectly fine, nothing went wrong and they immediately change the voting laws. Why? Not bc there was an issue but to try to restrict and gain more control over the election process.

If you don’t think that’s why they did it you are naive.

They changed the voting laws because prior to the pandemic, there were no drop boxes, they updated their laws to include them going forward, instead of a temporary measure only for 2020. They also added additional early voting days to minimize the long waits on election days. What part is not clear?