bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:ray

why are we talking about guns?

we're talking about rights.
The right to vote, you seem to think is okay to take way from poor people until they go through unusual hoops to assert their right. Even if it means they don't get to vote this year...

My comment asks you to consider if the average person is quite so sanguine when the right to purchase or own a firearm is constrained by regulation or restrictions?
Well, maybe not average person. Average conservative politician.
I

Do you think having to get photo ID is an unreasonable hoop to go through? You have to do that to purchase a gun. Should it be the same thing?

Do you need a photo ID to buy a gun at an unregulated gun show?

Legally, yes

Wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
"Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required, nor are they permitted to perform background checks on buyers. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification."

And

"As of September 2015, 18 states and Washington D.C. have background check requirements beyond federal law."

So for private (including gun show) sales, federal law and the state law of 32 states does not require ID.

I misunderstood what you meant. I was not thinking private sellers. Should they require ID to purchase a weapon? Should that ID be given freely to them for gun sales?

Sorry, but when I asked about unregulated gun shows (where private sales take place) that is what I meant.

Personally, I think that there should be stricter controls on guns than on votes. If you want to insist on ID to exercise democratic rights, issue it for free and ensure that everyone who is entitled can easily obtain it.

I see we agree on the premise, but not the equality.

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding your gun-show loophole comment.

I think people should have to show ID for personal sales as well.

JimHackerMP wrote:

You sound like Fate....
We're discussing the issue in Wisconsin...
But if you go to the link above you'll see Canada's Voting ID methods... they do work and no one feels disenfranchised or requires a charity to ensure they can vote.

I think, Ricky, that Ray Jay was speaking ironically when he said that. And, to boot, he was trying to point out the way you sound sometimes. It never fails to amuse me that you feel, as a Canadian, you have to educate your less intellectual neighbors south of the 49th parallel; like it's up to you to save us from ourselves.

Now, if an American took the same tone with a Canadian--with a problem that Canada truly had and ought to have been criticized, whatever that may be--he or she would be called a goddam, arrogant, ignorant, interfering Yank who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And the Canadians would be right to point them out as such.

I'm sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but I've been bottling that up for a while in the truly Canadian tradition of polite conversation; but Ray Jay--thanks by the way--provided me with the perfect example to finally bring it up.

Jim, thanks, but my issues with Ricky go deeper than that. He perpetually distorts my positions and those of others. He then argues against things I've never said while making accusations against me. It would make a US politician blush, which is pretty hard to do.

rayjay

He perpetually distorts my positions

By directly quoting you?
Rayjay

You are a liar. I am not ok with laws that unfairly prevent poor people from voting.

Your okay if it affects them this year according to you...
Ray

Even if someone is unfortunately frozen out in 2016, I'm sure they will get the support they need to vote in the next election

.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

He perpetually distorts my positions

By directly quoting you?
Rayjay

You are a liar. I am not ok with laws that unfairly prevent poor people from voting.

Your okay if it affects them this year according to you...
Ray

Even if someone is unfortunately frozen out in 2016, I'm sure they will get the support they need to vote in the next election

.

I said unfortunately. I said this:

Yes, laws that unfairly restrict voting should be stopped. But the reality is that with just a little focus everyone can get an i.d. card.

Yes, you obviously and intentionally distorted my position.

bbauska wrote:I see we agree on the premise, but not the equality.

Indeed. I don't think a gun is equal to a vote.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I see we agree on the premise, but not the equality.

Indeed. I don't think a gun is equal to a vote.

And I think the assertion of each right should be equal.

Perhaps people should have to show proficiency in each.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I see we agree on the premise, but not the equality.

Indeed. I don't think a gun is equal to a vote.

And I think the assertion of each right should be equal.

Perhaps people should have to show proficiency in each.

But not all rights are equal. If they ever conflict, one has to outweigh the other.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I see we agree on the premise, but not the equality.

Indeed. I don't think a gun is equal to a vote.

And I think the assertion of each right should be equal.

Perhaps people should have to show proficiency in each.

But not all rights are equal. If they ever conflict, one has to outweigh the other.

How could voting rights and gun rights conflict in the scope of showing ID in the assertion of these rights?

Perhaps, Danivon, you're speaking of a conflict between rights of society v. the rights of the individual?

JimHackerMP wrote:Perhaps, Danivon, you're speaking of a conflict between rights of society v. the rights of the individual?

No, I'm talking about a conflict between any two rights, individual, societal, either/both.

If person/group A wants to exercise right X, but that impinges upon person/group B's right Y, then one of two outcomes is possible:

A is allowed to, thus their right to X outweighs B's right to Y, or

A is not allowed to, thus B's right to Y outweighs A's right to X.

Yes...Danivon! That's what it seems you're talking about! One person's liberty trampling on another person's liberty.

JimHackerMP wrote:Yes...Danivon! That's what it seems you're talking about! One person's liberty trampling on another person's liberty.

Yep. What you end up with is complicated and varies by situation. But it is not that I am simply comparing the right to vote with the right to buy a gun. It is that those two rights both interact with a variety of other rights and responsibilities differently. For example, a gun vendor can refuse service for a variety of reasons, but a government should only have a small and clearly defined ways to deny a citizen a vote.

A gun vendor has a right to not be a vendor. A democratic government should not have the right to reduce democracy (unless of course the people democratically and constitutionally tell it to)

Have they really done that, though? Reduced democracy? I honestly cannot speak for Wisconsin, but in MD what I said is true: it takes minimal effort to get a non-driver state ID.

JimHackerMP wrote:Have they really done that, though? Reduced democracy? I honestly cannot speak for Wisconsin, but in MD what I said is true: it takes minimal effort to get a non-driver state ID.

Always good to have the experience of someone who actually lives and votes in this country. Here in Mass. it would be so easy to commit voter fraud. There's no id requirement. All you have to do is declare your address and your name. There are big books in front of you with large enough print (perhaps because the age of the average poll worker is 70 -- and I thank them for their service) that I can see the Party of my neighbors. For local elections since there is such low turnout, you can just go to all sorts of polling stations to vote. Find a name and an address, and take it. They put a pencil mark next to the name. That's it. Even if the real person shows up later, what can they do? Tell them they cannot vote because they already have? It's insane.

The other insane part of this is that Ricky keeps telling us that the U.S. should look to the experience of other western countries on voter id. And then when we do he talks about American exceptionalism.