One issue I see with a government issued ID requirement is the effect on voters with no permanent address. There are (and have been) a significant number of low income potential voters who have no home to cal their own, or live in homeless shelters, etc. I'm not sure of now, but used to, you couldn't use the address of a homeless or transitional shelter, for instance.

 

That would have to be addressed to help them vote at the proper location.

Depending on the weapon, that ID would be used to run a background check. Your comparison is apples to ammo anyway. I'm not even against having to show an ID, I just don't want it to be cost prohibitive to low income voters from voting.

Why does it matter what the weapon is? The short answer is it doesn't but that is for a different thread. My point is/was people claim constitutional rights when arguing against voter ID but have no issue with ID's for owning guns which is right afforded by the same document. Can't have it both ways.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with ID's for either. Prove who you are and move on. As for the cost, you can get an ID for next to nothing.

He was elected by a slim margin of the United States Supreme Court...

 

*That should get things started*

 

It may but I won't be involved.

One issue I see with a government issued ID requirement is the effect on voters with no permanent address. There are (and have been) a significant number of low income potential voters who have no home to cal their own, or live in homeless shelters, etc. I'm not sure of now, but used to, you couldn't use the address of a homeless or transitional shelter, for instance.

Just curious, which precinct would they be registered to vote in? I'm pretty sure there aren't "At-Large" precincts, we all vote based on where we live. Having an ID or not doesn't change where we vote.

I think most people in this thread are closer together than we realize. I'm not against voter ID laws in principle and I don't think most of the people on this board are at all. As has been discussed, the timing of several of these laws in recent years has been curious and problematic.

 

As long as the law doesn't result in the ID regulation becoming a de facto poll tax, I'm good with it.

Ah man my next idea to balance the budget was to charge $1000 per ID

 

I don't think anyone at anytime has said anything about charging or needing to charge any fee for this. The "Poll Tax" debate is a talking point that keeps getting brought up to conjure up old memories and to draw a divide when no one needs to be drawn.

 

As you said we are all much closer on this than we think, just got to get through the rhetoric.

One issue I see with a government issued ID requirement is the effect on voters with no permanent address. There are (and have been) a significant number of low income potential voters who have no home to cal their own, or live in homeless shelters, etc. I'm not sure of now, but used to, you couldn't use the address of a homeless or transitional shelter, for instance.

 

At what point does this extreme scenario become a driving force over protection of the integrity of the voting process? Is integrity of the voting process even a concern if we allow people with no IDs, no addresses and no documentation to vote?

Why does it matter what the weapon is? The short answer is it doesn't but that is for a different thread. My point is/was people claim constitutional rights when arguing against voter ID but have no issue with ID's for owning guns which is right afforded by the same document. Can't have it both ways.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with ID's for either. Prove who you are and move on. As for the cost, you can get an ID for next to nothing.

 

If the integrity of the voting process collapses then the need for guns will not be far behind.

It is ludicrous to me, in this day and age, that a photo ID of some sort is not a REQUIREMENT to vote.

 

Yes, I ask EVERYONE for an ID when they come through my line to vote, which is what I am SUPPOSED to do, UNLESS I know them personally. Personal acquaintance is allowed, and I have to mark down what form of ID I used to identify the person voting and I usually have 10-12 that I personally know. When asked, most everyone presents a photo ID, and some have personally thanked me for asking. I did accept a credit card once, as it was the only (supposedly) form of Id the guy had, and I had to legally accept it. Because, as we all know, no one has ever been in possession of a credit card that wasn't theirs. I had one guy yesterday who used to live in Louisville who said where he voted while living there, they NEVER asked him for any type of ID. Talk about opportunity for fraud. It's also the poll worker not doing their job.

 

This is what frustrates me about the left in this particular situation. They want to espouse the "sacred" right of voting and how it should be protected and allow everyone their "voice". But yet, they want to make it so this most sacred of rights could easily be corrupted and easy to fraud. Well to me, if you make it to where it's so easy and so easily able to fraud, then just how sacred do you really think it is? No picture ID? Internet voting? Are you freaking kidding me?

 

Personally, I think voting should take some effort and shouldn't be as easy as rolling out of bed, turning your phone on and logging into a site to cast a vote. I think it should take a little time and effort and sacrifice, so that hopefully those that do chose to vote are taking it seriously and willing to put a little work into it. That's my take anyway.

Ah man my next idea to balance the budget was to charge $1000 per ID

 

I don't think anyone at anytime has said anything about charging or needing to charge any fee for this. The "Poll Tax" debate is a talking point that keeps getting brought up to conjure up old memories and to draw a divide when no one needs to be drawn.

As you said we are all much closer on this than we think, just got to get through the rhetoric.

 

Those comparisons wouldn't be drawn if the GOP wasn't specifically using Voter ID laws the same way poll tax laws were used.

Those comparisons wouldn't be drawn if the GOP wasn't specifically using Voter ID laws the same way poll tax laws were used.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to take a test, pay a fee or do anything other than be able to prove they are who they say they are. You can spin it however the left talking points want you to, but this is nothing like what went on with the Poll Tax issues of the past.

Nobody is asking anyone to take a test, pay a fee or do anything other than be able to prove they are who they say they are. You can spin it however the left talking points want you to, but this is nothing like what went on with the Poll Tax issues of the past.

 

The intent is still the same.

The intent is still the same.

No, the intent is not the same. Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of requiring photo IDs for elections. Most Americans' motivation for supporting photo IDs for voters is to prevent the nullification of their own votes through voter fraud and to ensure fair elections.

 

If the Democrats who oppose the use of photo IDs were serious about fighting voter suppression, then they would have demanded the resignation of Eric Holder for dropping charges against the thugs who harassed white voters at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 election. Our Attorney General is not interested in fair elections and neither is his boss or his party.