> 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.
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.