> How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote?
Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes.
> If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US?
"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no.
2A WARNING. My words relate to my interpretation of the Second Amendment and do not indicate support.
> If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights.
I think the Second Amendment says I can call Boeing and buy an F/A-18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights.
> Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement?
I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war.
> If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil.
> There are two hardships currently
You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. You may be harassed on the way. The reasons for this may be racial, religious, or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the United States specifically. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... for inspiration.
You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights.
>Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes.
>"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no.
I didn't mean to imply you would support something just because Europe does it. Many people who oppose voter ID laws are fine with Europe's laws. I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it.
If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't? If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights? What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights?
>I think the Second Amendment it says I can call Boeing and buy a F/A 18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights
>I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war.
Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me.
>This does not mean I agree with the Second Amendment as written but lets stay on track here.
>Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil
Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption.
If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns.
>You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. The reasons for this may be racial or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the US.
I did forget that one. I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue. Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states?
>You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights
Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections. Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.) It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections.
We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are very few investigations into voter fraud.
I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.
> I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it.
I don't think Europe is relevant to this conversation. We have a functioning democracy. People can look around and form their opinions then vote on it. Personally I don't know or care how voting is done in Europe.
> If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't?
Logically this does not follow.
> If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights?
It might be theoretically possible but I don't believe it is practical or necessary to try. Even if it is possible I think the risk outweighs any benefit.
> What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights?
Evidence of widespread voter fraud materially impacting the outcome of an election. Also exhausting other options that don't run up against the 14A.
> Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me.
I am 100% serious that I believe that is what the 2A says. As I very, very explicitly said, that does not imply I support the 2A. Drawing any conclusion about my gun control beliefs based on that statement would be misinformed.
> Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption.
Labels aren't going to be helpful here. I am not being sarcastic.
> ... are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons.
I expressed no such support and in fact explicitly disclaimed it. Please do not put words in my mouth, especially these types of words.
> If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns.
I think both the 2A and 24A say you can't make this hard for people. In the case of the 24A I don't think it goes far enough. I'm deliberately avoiding providing my thoughts on the 2A because it's irrelevant here.
> I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue.
There is literally no issue to resolve here. There is no voter fraud problem. It is made up.
> Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states?
I do believe that opposition to mail-in voting is another form of attempted voter suppression. I would not say that lack of access to mail in voting itself means your vote was suppressed. But this feels like nitpicking.
> Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections.
Maybe, but it also rewards people who lied about the need for them in the first place. I'm not convinced this is a benefit to society.
If you lack confidence in our elections I invite you to learn how they actually work. It's an impressive system of checks and balances that ensures both anonymous results and verified participation. It's a fascinating application of decentralized systems and trustless cooperation. The system as it stands for actually voting is very much trustworthy. There may be chances for improvements but I don't think Voter ID is one of them.
> Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.)
I'd like to see those numbers to make sure this isn't because turnout is measured in terms of registered voters instead of eligible voters. Even if it is true I don't believe Voter ID laws are a necessary or desirable method of improving turnout. Something like making election day a national holiday would do more for that and has fewer constitutional hangups.
> It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections.
I don't believe this is a real problem and it is instead a cynical attempt to suppress voting. I believe this because of the long historical record of exactly that happening. So I believe Voter ID laws would actually increase accusations that our elections are stolen. In fact I believe Voter ID laws are themselves an attempt to steal elections.
> We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I prefer not to have my rights infringed until we have a compelling reason. "Maybe" isn't compelling. Especially given the historical context.
> There are very few investigations into voter fraud.
This is obviously false. Post 2020 election there were endless lawsuits and claims of voter fraud with nothing to show for it.
> I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.
Sure but which one is actually happening? Consider there's no evidence of any widespread voter fraud or of any significant effects on election outcomes. Meanwhile there is long and established history of voter suppression.
Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes.
> If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US?
"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no.
2A WARNING. My words relate to my interpretation of the Second Amendment and do not indicate support.
> If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights.
I think the Second Amendment says I can call Boeing and buy an F/A-18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights.
> Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement?
I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war.
> If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil.
> There are two hardships currently
You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. You may be harassed on the way. The reasons for this may be racial, religious, or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the United States specifically. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... for inspiration.
You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights.