Gun Owners who Support Voter ID Laws: Hypocrites?

Send to Kindle

Assuming you’re a Second Amendment supporter, chances are that you oppose any legislation that suppresses a law-abiding citizen’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms. You probably believe that the Constitution is pretty clear on this, and “shall not be infringed,” means exactly what it says.

Likewise, you probably believe that civilian gun ownership is critically important to the preservation of a free society because it is the last line of defense against tyranny from despots, terrorists, criminals, etc. To put it another way, an unarmed populace is an easily victimized and subjugated populace.

Am I right so far?

Supposing that I’m correct, how do you feel about laws that arguably suppress an equally important right. That is, the right of a citizen to participate in the democratic process, the right of the citizen to have a say in government, the right to vote.

Specifically, I’m talking about voter ID laws. What is a voter ID law? Well, it basically says that before one is allowed to cast a vote one has to show polling attendants photo identification, e.g. driver’s license, passport, military ID, concealed carry permit, citizen’s certificate. In theory, it sounds like a reasonable proposition. Why shouldn’t someone have to verify who they are before they vote? You have to show ID before you do a lot of things: Rent a car, board an airplane, buy a beer.

Yet, in practice, opponents of voter ID laws suggest that they inhibit folks from voting. Not only that, voter ID laws are a solution in want of a problem.

To start in reverse order, that is to address the criticism that they are a solution in want of a problem, here is what Loyola University Law School professor Justin Levitt had to say on the matter in an article published in the Washington Post:

I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I’ve been following reports wherever they crop up.

To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

Levitt goes on to say that 31 figure may actually be overinflated because of error on behalf of those reporting the numbers. He postulates that people may have confused names on lists, or while entering polling data into computers or any number of ways, and suspects that a few of those incidents will ultimately be debunked, meaning it wasn’t voter fraud by clerical error. Yet, needless to say, his central point is that cases of voter fraud as defined by people showing up at polls pretending to be other people is exceptionally rare. One can argue that it’s so rare that it’s a negligible concern.

As for how voter ID laws suppress voter participation a Government Accountability Office report published this past fall compared two states which enacted voter ID laws between the 2008 and 2012 elections, Tennessee and Kansas, with four states that made no significant changes to their respective voter requirements, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, and Delaware.

The results of the study were revealing, as The Boston Globe reported:

Kansas and Tennessee experienced significantly steeper drops in the number of voters who went to the polls than the four comparison states, the GAO found. The groups where turnout dropped the most came as no surprise: African-Americans, young voters, and recently registered voters. The GAO also noted drops in Hispanic and Asian-American turnout. In the 2012 presidential election, voting for Barack Obama dropped in the control states, as it did nationally, but nowhere by as steep a percentage as in Kansas and Tennessee.

While the GOA study is admittedly limited, there is enough evidence there to suggest what is obvious to many opponents of voter ID laws, it makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to vote.

Pretty interesting. Where do I come out on all of this? Well, voter ID laws remind me a lot of universal background checks. Instead of doing what they’re designed to do, which is keep the wrong people from obtaining firearms, they actually have the opposite effect, they make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

How does this happen? Well, criminals don’t follow the laws in the first place. Another law on the books won’t stop a criminal from stealing a firearm, buying one on the black market or borrowing one from a fellow thug. By contrast, requiring a citizen to travel to a gun shop dealer and pay a sizable fee (it’s not uncommon for FFLs to charge $50-60 to process a background check) before he is permitted to transfer that firearm to his cousin, neighbor or friend is, at least in my book, an infringement. It’s another hoop to jump through, and where it will really have an impact is with prospective gun owners, those who do not yet own a gun but are interested in learning more about guns. With UBC laws on the books, a prospective gun owner’s ability to shoot, test, possess a variety of firearms before deciding on the “right” gun for him becomes a cost prohibitive endeavor due to the background check fees he would likely incur by receiving transfers from friends and extended family. To put it another way, a fundamental right is turned into a costly pain in the butt.

Overall, UBC laws place an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop the wrong people from gaining access to guns — and that’s pretty much the same thing with voter ID laws. Again, consider what Levitt has to say:

Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.

Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.

Voter fraud happens, just like gun-related violence happens. But pretending that a feel-good universal background check measure or a voter ID requirement will make a difference is foolish. The reality is that these laws don’t stop bad people from doing bad things, but stop good people from exercising the very fundamental rights that make America the best country in the world.

So, it’s with that in mind that I ask you, are gun owners who support voter ID laws hypocrites?

{ 50 comments… add one }
  • Luap November 9, 2016, 6:39 am

    Well to me it is simple… I need my ID to purchase a firearm, so to vote should be no different. It is to prove who I say I am. Seems common sense. Need ID prove my age to buy alcohol, medicine, buy spray paint, finance a car, lease an apartment, fly, drive… should I keep going?

  • jimmyjet July 14, 2016, 3:50 pm

    California has Motor-Voter. That is a process where anyone can obtain a voter application at any DMV office or post office, register using a false name and become registered in their designated voting district.
    I WAS ABLE TO VOTE 3-TIMES IN EACH ELECTION, in my home state, (abscentee), as a resident of Cal. & under a false name.
    CAL. DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY TYPE OF I.D. TO REGISTER AS A VOTER.
    Probably has something to do with a legislature that is virtually, completely corrupt.

  • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 11, 2016, 2:08 pm

    Yup, they sure are hypocrites. Just like the holier-than-thou gun owners (like most in the NRA) who say they support universal background checks to keep people who ‘shouldn’t have’ guns from getting them! It’s none of their fucking business who should have guns or who should be allowed to vote. This has nothing to do with preventing criminals from committing crimes. These hypocrites are either too stupid to safely have a gun themselves or are closet totalitarians themselves.

    What individual Free American Patriots do is none of the government’s or any body else’s nosey-ass business. But it definitely is WE, the People’s business to know what the government is doing! How that got switched around speaks for itself.

    And it’s long past time to reverse this by NO comprimise on any gun laws or totalitarian laws, PERIOD! Everybody knows you can’t trust the governmebt anymore. They’ve slapped us in the face with this and laughed at us while we bleed. In fact we should repeal them all. Then maybe we’ll have some sanity, security, and Liberty once again?

  • Al Friend July 8, 2016, 8:36 am

    Where to start with this poorly written and factually incorrect article. First just because you say it’s so, don’t mean it is! Next 1 + 1 is not 11.
    No person I know who believes you have the right to own a gun says you can walk into a store and just buy one like you would a candy bar. So your argument that no ID to vote means no ID to buy a gun. You should have an ID. It proves age, it proves who you say you are.
    Professor Levitt, we will just say that his research has been proven to be an editorial and not real research. Fact: he investigated less than 0.02% of reported voting issues. Fact: he only investigated issues which proved his assumptions. Fact: he did no research on why voter turn-out was lower or higher. He ASSUMED that all other things were equal. Wrong assumption! Fact: there were 27 issues in the city of Chicago alone and those were denied by the FBI as issues because they felt they were not gong to hurt election results. Yes folks the FBI’s feelings determined wrong doing. Shouldn’t surprise anyone.
    Next, why are all these people who are against voter IDs not against buying a gun without an ID? Let’s ask that question.
    So I will concede this: if we say that to vote you don’t need an ID, then I don’t need an ID to go visit the white-house, or go to a political convention, or go to a political fund raiser, or go to a bank and get my money out or BUY A GUN (of any kind), OR EVEN DRIVE!

    If the author of this article had any common sense he would have seen his argument was flawed, but then it’s hard to argue with people who are politically motivated.

  • David July 8, 2016, 6:46 am

    Voting is NOT a right! It’s a privilege.

  • macarthur June 3, 2016, 4:44 pm

    No problem on voter ID in Tennessee, show your ID and vote, no problem , no hassle and no illegals.
    There is not a thing wrong with asking a citizen to be responsible.

  • flyR June 3, 2016, 1:12 pm

    The author very selectively counts voter fraud. Most fraud is committed in democratic strongholds. Democrat leaders simply do not want to investigate.

    Since Obama came to office my family is probably $300,000 further in debt. Thousands of American citizens have been murdered by those who are not legally in the country, the administration has helped build the foundation of a New Caliphate, perhaps the greatest threat to Western Civilization in 500 years.

    We live in a technologically advanced era but where there is less documentation of a voter than it takes to get on an airplane, drive, receive medical care or a welfare check.

    ACORN whom Obama represented registered tens of thousands of people who were not qualified to vote. Studies have shown that tens if not hundreds of thousands of people for whom death benefits have been paid are voting along with convicted felons, non citizens. and people who never existed.

    A student attending a California university is required to get a California drivers license and California will automatically register them to vote , regardless of the fact that they still vote in another state.

    Those who support voter ID almost universally support outreach programs to assure that everyone has the ability to have their ID confirmed.

  • Mark June 3, 2016, 8:35 am

    I have to show my I.D to buy a firearm and exercise my right to bear arms, why wouldn’t I have to show my I.D when I vote. so requiring a photo I.D to vote is disenfranchising certain groups of people? How about making rules saying independents can’t vote in the primaries? That’s not disenfranchising anyone? Literally taking away someone’s voice in an election, but god forbid if a black person can’t vote because they don’t have an I.D it’s racist and the law is ridiculous. Come on guys.

  • NickTheITGuy January 30, 2015, 3:45 pm

    I know I’m a month late to the discussion, but…last time I checked, the low-income/impoverished/minority/or whatever subgroup is supposedly being held down by voter-id laws had to, at some point, show some form of I.D. to get on the Gubment Dole. For every benefit they receive from the redistribution machine, they had to show ID….why can’t they use the same ID to vote?

  • Mike D December 25, 2014, 9:06 pm

    Ludicrous! The author incorrectly assumes gun owners don’t want to undergo background checks and verification of identity for purchase of a fire arm. That is an incorrect assumption. The process that exists now is thorough enough for the purpose and does not need to be expanded. Voters should provide verification of identity to vote and stating it “prevents people from voting” is absurd, unless they shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

  • William Yarbrough December 23, 2014, 5:38 pm

    If you are not smart enough or motivated enough to obtain a photo ID, then you are not intelligent enough to vote. Personally, I prefer a literacy test based on the Constitution in conjunction with a photo ID. The low information voter is killing this country.

  • Randall December 23, 2014, 1:50 am

    I have ALWAYS lived in areas that require ID’s to vote, and I’ve NEVER heard anyone complain about it! This is a STUPID comparison!

    • Russ December 23, 2014, 7:51 pm

      Agreed

  • Ray December 22, 2014, 6:35 pm

    Nobody here seams to get the point. If you sit there and complain about politicians you don’t agree with infringing on your rights , and then turn around and support a politician you agree with infringing on some one else’s rights, then you’re a hippacrit. It doesn’t matter what right is being infringed or wether you agree with it or not. If you try to pick and choose which rights get infringed upon your just as bad as all the liberals who say the 2nd amendment isn’t relavent.

    • magnum629 December 22, 2014, 9:21 pm

      Way to go, Ray. Refreshing to hear from a clearminded thinker.

      I agree the folks here are missing the point entirely. Blannelberry presented a cogent argument worthy of serious consideration.

      Seems every debate here inevitably devolves back to the same liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican divide reinforced by today’s news media. It’s nothing more than popularized brainwashing that keeps people glued to their entrenched biases, even when there are other aspects of a topic to examine.

      A suppposed democratic society demands more from its citizenry than merely choosing a political side to be on and then repeating ad nauseam the same tired talking points from your favorite propaganda news channel. That B.S. isn’t real, folks.

      • MarkeeB June 4, 2016, 3:52 am

        Double (Non Rush!) Dittos, Magnum629 and Ray. Back in the day, we Conservatives were the fair minded, thoughtful counter-balance to extreme liberal excesses. Now we’ve become the narrow minded, reactionary
        demagogues who believe any damn thing our right wing media pundits say without question, and then stupidly repeat it to each other over and over again. Time to turn our brains and consciences back on about a lot of social, democratic, political, and Constitutional issues. This is only one of them.

  • Russ December 22, 2014, 5:55 pm

    “So, it’s with that in mind that I ask you, are gun owners who support voter ID laws hypocrites?”
    —————————————> NO! <————————————————-

    If you can't make the effort or are too dumb to ask for help getting your picture ID.
    Your not going to be very productive in electing an American public servant official.
    Get an ID so we all know your for real and actualy care about the voteing process.

  • mike December 22, 2014, 5:22 pm

    If we can’t have voter ID laws we shouldn’t require any kind of firearms licenses to own, use, carry, or conceal a firearm. If I have to pay $100 to get a gun license, be subjected to revues by my local and state police and subject to a federal background check to own and carry a gun then it isn’t too much to ask a voter prove they are who they say they are and that they are a citizen eligible to vote. Have everyone re-register to vote and give them a photo ID and make them pay $100 for it and have to renew it every 5 years like I have to. I don’t care one way or the other but if you are going to require a license for one right don’t say it isn’t fair to license them all.
    In 2012 New Hampshire courts ruled out of state students could register and vote in NH for state and federal elections. The day after the decision “community organizers” were busy registering students to vote in NH. They were telling students it was okay to vote in NH and also to vote absentee in the state where they live…one person, two votes! What happens to an election when thousands of mush head students from other states get to vote where they don’t officially reside?

  • DaveGinOly December 22, 2014, 4:21 pm

    The difference between the right to arms and the right to vote is that the former is a natural right and the latter is a civil right. Civil rights are subject to the rules made by society for their exercise. Requiring ID to vote does not deny the right itself, it merely creates a rule for its exercise; civil rights are themselves a set of unnatural rules regulating civil processes and prohibiting some government acts while requiring others. On the other hand, natural rights are not granted by the society in which we live, nor by the governments that make our “laws”; they are beyond the consideration of the mob, whether it is disorganized or works through a legislative body.
    If you need the government’s assistance or existence to exercise a right (voting, trial by jury, right to petition government, etc.), it’s a civil right. If you don’t need the government’s assistance or existence to exercise a right (rights to one’s life; to property; to freedom of religion, thought, or expression; to be secure in your papers, person, and effects; to arms, etc.) then it’s a natural right. A society without civil rights (anarchy – a state of no government) would be acceptable if the individual’s natural rights were respected and guaranteed. But, because such respect is never maintained, and such a guarantee is not possible, governments are formed so that the citizens can defend their natural rights through the exercise of, and their insistence upon, their civil rights.

  • William J. Stewart December 22, 2014, 4:02 pm

    I remember the old “political machine” slogan: “Vote Early and Often” as how it was done in the past.
    Voter Registrations use dot be verified to assure the Registrant was indeed a Citizen, and actually lived in the Election precinct in which they desired to be registered.
    That has changed over time, especially with the ‘Motor Voter’ registration mandate and now the ability for none Citizens to get Social Security Numbers and Driver’s Licenses complements of President Obama’s Executive Action.
    Now How would a Poll Worker identify a Fraudulent Voting attempt or Voter?

    Supposedly the Elections are supposed to be restricted to Those who are Citizens of this country who have not Legally lost the Right to Vote due to Judicial Process. It is not supposed to include Resident Aliens or other NONe citizens.

    Now We need to address this and come up with a series of methods that do NOT disenfranchise Lawful Voters but do Stop potential Unlawful attempts to cast one or more ballots in any given election.

    To Protect the Secret Ballot, this sorting process must be completed Before a ballot is cast, not later after the ballot is cast and deposited in the “Ballot Box”, either physically or Electronically.

    Regards,
    William J. Stewart ETC USN Retired
    Sun Valley, California
    A long term Registered Voter.

  • Chris December 22, 2014, 2:57 pm

    This article quotes left-wing sources, but doesn’t bother mentioning who funded the study it cites.

    As far as I am aware, nobody is pushing to not have to show ID to buy a gun. There are many reasons to oppose increased background checks, false denials, cost, the way the UBC law in question is written, etc. But to oppose having to show an ID to vote – something that can do FAR more damage than any gun, is just ridiculous. Most (possibly all) states that have voter ID requirements offer proper ID free of charge, I know North Carolina does, all you need to do is fill out some paperwork. The author even goes so far as to point out that you need an ID to do almost anything, I need to show an ID to reserve a video game for crying out loud.

    Did the study offer an explanation as to why the people who “dropped off” in election 2012 dropped off? Could it have just been because the people in question weren’t energized enough to go to the polls? Is that possibility even suggested? Or does the study just assume it was because of the ID requirement? Did Levitt bother to track down even a single 2008 Obama voter who stayed home in 2012 and ask them why? Didn’t think so.

  • KGN December 22, 2014, 11:53 am

    Geeeeeez Louise! Step away from the koolaid! We have a long way to go to stop all libtard voting fraud, but basic voter ID is a common sense start to prevent illegal aliens, dead voters, and other democrat multiple in state and out of state vote fraud. Whose hands are in your pockets? I am a life long gun user and 2d amendment supporter.

  • Bob B. December 22, 2014, 11:41 am

    Voter fraud is real. The Democrats are the biggest objectors to voter I.D., what does that tell you? Widespread fraud was proven in Ohio during Obama’s first run for president. Apples and Oranges in my opinion. I am a long time gun owner and Patron member of the NRA, and I firmly believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe that there are many who should never possess a gun, and we need laws to that end as much as we need to protect the rights of law abiding owners. Freedom is and always has been a double edged sword.

  • Richard Musser December 22, 2014, 11:06 am

    Explain the areas, all dem, where the votes cast are greater than the number of residents (not just voters). These results have been published several times.

  • EJ Moosa December 22, 2014, 10:41 am

    For every wrong committed, there should be a victim.

    My purchase of a weapon does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

    Illegal voters, however, dilute the weight of my vote, and all other qualified voters.

    It’s that simple.

  • John December 22, 2014, 10:36 am

    An article/opinion that has no valid basis for the comparisons it attempts to make. Identification for purchasing a firearm is commonly accepted. Also commonly accepted is needing I.D. to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, obtain insurance, drive a vehicle, and have a job, even receive any form of state aid. Essentially, you cannot function in today’s society without a valid form of identification. To say that it’s too much of an imposition to be required to present I.D. to vote is ludicrous. IMO anyone writing an op-ed piece saying otherwise is either a complete moron, or is simply trolling for reaction. Of course I’m giving the benefit of the doubt by including “trolling”.

  • Woody December 22, 2014, 10:30 am

    You are comparing apples to grapes. Voter ID laws and NICS are not even in the same catagory. NICS is just a way to list everyone who buys a gun. If you think the records get thrown out after a certain amount of time you are mistaken. Everyone needs an ID for normal things in life, not just to vote, so what is the problem there?

  • David D. December 22, 2014, 9:45 am

    TOTAL PROGRESSIVE BULLSHIT. IT WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WASN’T SO SAD.

  • Emery December 22, 2014, 9:25 am

    Are you crazy or what ? First off, you must present a valid ID to purchase a gun to become a firearm owner. Secondly, with all the illegals in this country the problem of voter fraud will only grow higher. If the US government would would follow the constitution of the US to the letter of the law, only PROPERTY OWNING citizens could vote in elections. With this being said, I see nothing wrong with requiring ID to cast a valid vote in this country. I would demand it.

  • ibjj December 22, 2014, 9:18 am

    Ah yes…mixing apples and oranges in the same metaphorical basket…again. How did this 24 carat, gold plated, left wing idiot get editorial space here? All rhetorical B.S. aside, if you are not a Citizen of the United States, you have no right casting a ballot as to how it is run…and a photo I.D. precludes that from occurring.
    Any further discussion of the issue is a waste.
    I, for one, feel that voting fraud should be a second class felony, (with a minimum of 6 months incarceration) rather than a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. Voting is an critical part of Citizenship, and any attempt to suborn it is an assault upon the Nation.

  • Thor December 22, 2014, 8:59 am

    There is nothing discriminatory about asking someone to identify themselves. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The only people who resist this simple gesture of good faith and fundamental courtesy are folks with ulterior motives–usually a dishonest motive. They best wear the label ‘hypocrite.’ We waste a lot of time arguing about ‘lost rights’ when the issue is a tool that aids in enforcing the law. Such effort should be stockpiled for the real fight: ‘confiscation’ is the banner for resistance. All else is moot. Draw the line in the sand and say no more, finger on the trigger. We have no need of new gun laws…of any kind…no compromise.

  • Jay December 22, 2014, 8:24 am

    I have no problem with any law that PROVES citizenship, be it through voting or otherwise, even a common traffic stop! This is a self induced problem from our own governments lack of responsibility to “We The People” to keep our borders secure! You can twist situations and words, which all liberals spin so well but you can not cover up the fact our own government ,especially the current administration, welcomes and grants ILLEGALS more rights and help than it’s own citizens that might need help! You can not compare the second amendment to the right to vote, as it put illegals against law abiding, or those that will break the law given the chance, there is no comparison! Our rights to bear arms has been overly restricted way to much and if we do not stand firm we will loose the right all together! I can remember my Grandfather looking in a catalog and picking out a pistol or rifle, ordering it and then it be delivered in the United state Mail! We can not own a auto fire weapon unless we pay all kinds of special taxes and a paper trail to get it convicaste when the boot jacks come! We as citizens have allowed way to much power to the government, it’s time to cripple the beast and bring back our rule by “We The People” as those who are elected only do the bidding of the money mongers who back them, The Banking Cartels, not you and I!

  • Logic December 22, 2014, 8:14 am

    Let’s address your points individually. First, I am not in favor of walking in to a store and buying a gun without any form of picture ID. I am in favor of a Picture ID to purchase a weapon or ammunition. I am not in favor of the government building a database of all legal gun owners. Yes, that is what they are doing, but that is a separate issue.

    I am in support of a picture ID to vote. To me that is just proving I live where I say so and am voting for the right people in my area/precinct. It also should stop me from voting twice which is illegal. Don’t go down the path and say voting is a right. It is a privilege not a constitutional right. Don’t read something into a law or regulation and call it a right. Great trick by lawmakers to make one think it’s a right.

    I will not comment on Professor Levitt’s argument or data, but I will bring this forward. His logic is flawed. To say he used data from credible allegations of fraud, is like saying, that I investigated all issued jay walking tickets and determined that jay walking is such a small percentage of miles walked, it should not be on the books as a valid law. Or here is a better argument. Accidents caused by speeding is such a small percentage of all accidents, that we should stop issues speeding tickets and remove speeding laws from the books. Factually, driving under the influence is a far greater cause of accidents than speeding, but there is minimal efforts to stop that.

    The GAO study/figures are extremely misleading. Without asking each person who did not vote, why they did not vote makes this invalid data. How do they know it was not a weather issue? How do they know people did not care about the candidates? There are hundreds of reasons why people vote and do not vote. Attributing them to a single factor is not valid without comprehensive examination.

    Again you bring forth Prof. Levitt’s study as evidence. He has invalid his data, he has a proven agenda (check who sponsored him and his study). Not true that it pushes people to absentee ballots. Many states are seeing a rise in absentee ballot requests. It again is a factor that more people travel, our lives are much busier and we are a society of ease and comfort.

    Thank you for not bringing forth the two common arguments of cost and access to an ID. That has been resolved in every state requiring an ID.

    So I’ll ask you, should we disregard an opportunity to address issues just because we think it’s not important? If so that let’s get rid of any law that does not cause direct harm to an individual, just because it’s not convenient. I mean direct harm, not perceived or thought about or supposed or imagined. That would cover a large portion of our current laws. Let’s fix the system and not just throw it out.

    • ScottyD December 22, 2014, 3:10 pm

      I vote showing my ID. Having to pull my ID out of my pocket is so cumbersome, so restrictive, I have a hard time catching my breath. It is such a hard thing to do, pulling out that little card…. It’s so hard to do, why I may not vote next time….

      What bull-hooey, right? I maintain those that say there is no fraud are simply parroting others making the same claim and pointing to that as proof. The ease with which one could go from polling place to polling place, profess their name is so-and-so, sign the ballot, and vote over and over again is scary. It’s not hard to get a list of registered voters, and in most places whether one voted or not is public record. So knowing who is registered and has not voted just takes a little digging.

      No one documents it as there is no way to challenge the practice. So the fraud persists!

  • Mountain Man December 22, 2014, 7:59 am

    Agree with the comments. Disagree with the article. It’s a lame correlation. “If you were seven feet tall, would you still be able to buy plumbing?”

    Gun ownership and background checks aren’t the parallel; ID is. You gotta have ID to BUY the gun. You should have ID to VOTE.

    The libocrats love to claim that having an ID puts an undue burden on those without one. Yet most states offer an ID for a nominal charge. It’s downright dangerous to walk around without any ID. What if you get by the beer truck and are unconscious?

    If someone is too much of a stain to have an ID, they’re probably too stupid to vote. How’s that for a correlation?

    p.s. I’d be interested to know who funded Levitt’s study.

    • DaveGinOly December 22, 2014, 6:24 pm

      Let’s just wait for a liberal court to say that requiring an ID is too onerous an impairment of the right to vote, and we can turn around and use the same argument against showing an ID (and therefore passing a background check) to buy a gun. Conversely, we could start a movement to demand that all voters pass an instant background check at the polls to make sure they’re not convicted felons who have lost their rights to vote.

  • Roger Hewitt December 22, 2014, 7:43 am

    I have been registered to vote since I was 18 and am now 57. I have Never Not Voted so where is their argument. Lazy or stupid or Ridiculous! I think a little of both…

  • Greg December 22, 2014, 6:57 am

    The main push against voter IDs are democrats who want to use fraud to destroy the value of votes. Illegal aliens, multiple vote dems, even more fraud are all part of how dems win….uh, STEAL, elections. When you buy a gun from an individual, they should ask to see your ID to prove it’s legal for them to buy it in your state. Simple and just being careful

    Voter fraud is predicated on the criminal/dem committing fraud. Bid difference.

  • notinfringed December 19, 2014, 5:45 pm

    I cannot believe someone can try and draw a line between these two with a straight face.

    I oppose background checks because they don’t work, waste 70+ million a year, and have a ridiculous rate of false positives.
    I don’t oppose having to show your ID and prove you are an adult citizen in order to purchase a firearm.

    I oppose background checks on voting, because they wouldn’t be any better than what we use for NICS. Fortunately, no one is pushing voter background checks. What they are pushing are Voter ID laws, which I support for firearms, alcohol, cigarettes, and the like.

    Are gun owners hypocrites? No. Are they people capable of logic? Yes.

  • Robert December 19, 2014, 5:14 pm

    There’s No evidence that voter ID suppresses the vote. It’s just your argument (“arguably…”). Countless comparisons of before and after have shown increased voter participation.

    It’s also a federal requirement to exercise your fundamental right to purchase a firearm: Government ID.

    Where’s the conflict?

  • Geoff December 19, 2014, 3:57 pm

    What dann said.

  • dann December 19, 2014, 3:09 pm

    the difference is background checks only affect the LEGAL gun owners but has no affect on criminals as they do not buy guns legally.

    Voter ID only affects the CRIMINAL trying to illegally vote, vote more than once etc. SO one law restricts the good guys and one restricts the bad guy. Hypocrisy does not come into the debate, unless of course your agenda is to restrict honorable people and protect the dishonorable…

    • Gordon December 22, 2014, 7:16 am

      the articles first mistake is that it already states that voter ID laws discriminate and make it harder for law abiding peoples to vote. And there has been no proof of this. They want to say that the ID has stopped the turn out this year at the poles. Well maybe the Democrats/Liberals just had nothing to offer with all of their hypocrisy that no one turned out to vote for them. Now to buy a gun from a gun dealer you must have an ID and your back ground checked. So where is our hypocrisy? DAH!

      In Texas the only two valid forms of ID for the Department of Public Safety is a valid driver’s license or a valid Texas ID. If you have either, you have no issues with voting. The ID law is less restrictive
      Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
      Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
      Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
      Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
      United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
      United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
      United States passport

      and has these exemptions
      Voters with a disability may apply with the county voter registrar for a permanent exemption. The application must contain written documentation from either the U.S. Social Security Administration evidencing he or she has been determined to have a disability, or from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a disability rating of at least 50 percent. In addition, the applicant must state that he or she has no valid form of photo identification. Those who obtain a disability exemption will be allowed to vote by presenting a voter registration certificate reflecting the exemption.

      Voters who have a consistent religious objection to being photographed and voters who do not have any valid form of photo identification as a result of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor, may vote a provisional ballot, appear at the voter registrar’s office within six (6) calendar days after election day, and sign an affidavit swearing to the religious objection or natural disaster, in order for your ballot to be counted.

      And then yo can still vote by mail and have none of the above.
      and then if you have none of the above you can vote by provisional ballot.

    • S Kilmer December 22, 2014, 9:39 am

      You missed the whole point. Voter ID isn’t designed to prevent voter fraud; it’s designed to keep blacks and mexicans from voting, cause they usually vote for liberals.

      • Huapakechi December 22, 2014, 10:35 am

        How do you arrive at that conclusion?
        Citizens have a right to vote. Once. The problems with voting arise when there is demonstrable and egregious violation of the right to vote by certain political movements who have attempted to overwhelm the system with ineligible and non-citizen voters.
        Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. End of discussion.

      • BRASS December 22, 2014, 11:48 am

        Are blacks and Mexicans required to fulfill requirements that others do not? Are there obstacles to the obtaining of an acceptable ID placed on them that are not on others? If not, I submit the only voter suppression that takes place resulting from voter ID laws is self imposed.

      • Bigmag47 December 22, 2014, 2:42 pm

        Dude you are the “liberal” problem. You are so off base it`s a joke. You must have ID to get food stamps, and they don`t seem to have a problem with that. You must have one to drive a vehicle, as well as so many others I`m not going to take the time to list. Voting is our most precious right You already DO have to have have a background check when buying a gun in EVERY state in the U.S. The no background check ONLY pertains to SOME gun shows in SOME states. Liberals only want NO VOTER ID for the explicit purpose of voter fraud! Why else would they want not to have that law? It`s no big deal to get one, heck, even a Library card would be better than nothing. It`s too easy to get away with multiple votes, or illegal alien voting otherwise. As I said getting an ID no big deal. If you can`t do that well……stay at home on voting day. We`re not suppressing ANYONE from voting, we`re just saying show proof of who you are. Millions do to get free food, medical care, schooling, housing, and the likes. It`s the libs that don`t want it so they can CHEAT the voter system! If you say otherwise you`re just drinking too much Kool-Aid or you`re a liar, kind of like OBAMA!

      • jrw December 22, 2014, 3:28 pm

        What a stupid comment.

      • Cody December 22, 2014, 3:33 pm

        you’re a moron

      • Jim T December 29, 2014, 3:07 pm

        You sir are an idiot. Plain and simple.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend