Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?

[martybegan]

Under this amendment, they could deny voting to the persons as described, and it would only have impact on their # of electors for president, and their representation in the house.

The 15th amendment is a far better example, but again, it only gives certain limits to voter requirements.

The above amendment directly refers to 'the right to vote'. If there is no such thing, why is it mentioned?

The right still comes from the States, all the feds are doing is saying certain conditions the States cannot use to determine eligibility.

No it doesn't. You need to learn to give up.

The federal government dictates to the States who they must allow to vote. The States cannot restrict that right in conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

That is why the Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution, federal law, and the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

the supreme law of the land.

But the right to vote still flows from being a citizen of a given State, not the federal government.

Wrong. You are a citizen of the United States. You are a resident of any given state. The Constitution gives US citizens the right to vote, period.

You are also a Citizen of the State. When you lose your voting rights due to felony, what level of government do you go to to get it back?

 

[martybegan]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

lol, specific to sex? That doesn't mean anything to support your attempted point.

Yes, it does, its just another condition the constitution places on a State when it determines voter eligibility.

The states don't 'determine' anything. The states carry out the voting rights mandates that the federal government has set. The states are BOUND by the federal government to assure all voters get the rights that the federal government has secured for them.

But they are the ones that register you, not the federal government.

 

[kaz]

If voting is a right as is gun ownership, then obviously no extra fees, fines or taxes can be imposed on those rights….nor can their be tests of any kind that might infringe on those rights…right?

And if background checks can be used to deny people the right to own a gun….and race and the other categories can be secretly used to deny Americans their Right to guns…then background checks are unconstitutional.

Except background checks are not used to deny a race access to guns, nor are they used to deny people the right to own a gun other than criminals and other undesirables through due process.

So what about registration fees for guns.

Constitutionally, we can't charge a "poll tax" for voting. Should we be able to charge a fee for an actual Constitutional right, gun ownership?

What if we charge a tax for abortion? You know, $10, maybe $10,000? We don't outlaw it. Does that work for you?

Do you think guns should be free since they are a right? After all, having to pay for a gun prevents some people from exercising that right.

Yet you don't ask liberals who say birth control is a right why they think that means government should provide it to them.

No, guns should not be free, and that has zero bearing on anything I've ever said in my life. I am saying government should stay out of it

 

[kaz]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

I already said it was a false comparison, dumb ass. Guns are actually a Constitutional right

 

[kaz]

Have mercy on that horse, geniuses! You are on the wrong side of both issues. It sucks........but you'll survive.

So ID should not be checked for guns or voting? Seriously? So you think the Democrats are full of shit on wanting IDs checked to buy a gun? You are a clown, you're right about that

 

[kaz]

Would think what's being checked during mandatory ID checks is the age more than your identity per se'. Probably how it's considered legal to do.

I'd like them to check for felons and arrest them as well, personally

 

[kaz]

Is the problem:
Too many people voting or not enough?

Will American problems be solved with more guns...

The problem the GOP has, is that the more people vote the worse they do... Now the GOP has not tried to tackle why don't people vote for us. They tried a different tack.
Lets get the least amount of people voting as possible.

Too many people vote

 

[kaz]

Voting is not a constitutional right?

Ha, first good laugh of the day.

Voter requirements are up to the States, but regulated by several amendments to the constitution that limit who they can restrict.

So are gun ownership requirements.

Really? Where, in Constitution 2.0?

The fifth and fourteenth amendments.

You didn't read what he said, Holmes

 

[kaz]

Voter requirements are up to the States, but regulated by several amendments to the constitution that limit who they can restrict.

So are gun ownership requirements.

Really? Where, in Constitution 2.0?

The COTUS doesn't give citizens the right to vote?

No, it doesn't. Try to find the text that says it does, good luck with that.

There are restrictions on why you don't allow someone to vote. For example, you can't say it's for their race and you can't charge a poll tax. Nowhere does it say you have a right to vote

Wrong.

The phrase appears for the first time in theFourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

...that's for starters.

Actually all it does is reduce congressional representation, it doesn't ban anything.

States have no power to override other Constitutional rights at all, they can't deny gay marriage, they don't have an option to just pay a penalty.

Also, what other right is backed into? How is there a right that applies to all when nowhere does it say that right is applied to all?

 

[Seawytch]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

So when I buy my NEXT gun I shouldn't need to show ID, since I already showed it before

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

 

[Geaux4it]

If you don't pay federal income tax, then you can't vote

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

So when I buy my NEXT gun I shouldn't need to show ID, since I already showed it before

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Shooting your weapon is something you do on your own. I'm in the woods, who do I show my ID to? Buying a weapon or voting are when you are presenting yourself to someone else to do something for you. hand you a gun or a ballot. That's when you would need to prove who you are.

Seriously, you thought that made sense? Proving who you are when there is no one there and you're not asking anything from them? You seriously suck at analogies.

 

[martybegan]

So are gun ownership requirements.

Really? Where, in Constitution 2.0?

The COTUS doesn't give citizens the right to vote?

No, it doesn't. Try to find the text that says it does, good luck with that.

There are restrictions on why you don't allow someone to vote. For example, you can't say it's for their race and you can't charge a poll tax. Nowhere does it say you have a right to vote

Wrong.

The phrase appears for the first time in theFourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

...that's for starters.

Actually all it does is reduce congressional representation, it doesn't ban anything.

States have no power to override other Constitutional rights at all, they can't deny gay marriage, they don't have an option to just pay a penalty.

Also, what other right is backed into? How is there a right that applies to all when nowhere does it say that right is applied to all?

Under the 14th amendment they did, if they didn't override it with the 15th.

 

[Seawytch]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

So when I buy my NEXT gun I shouldn't need to show ID, since I already showed it before

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Shooting your weapon is something you do on your own. I'm in the woods, who do I show my ID to? Buying a weapon or voting are when you are presenting yourself to someone else to do something for you. hand you a gun or a ballot. That's when you would need to prove who you are.

Seriously, you thought that made sense? Proving who you are when there is no one there and you're not asking anything from them? You seriously suck at analogies.

I'm sorry, you think my analogy fails because you don't know who to show your ID to?

No, it doesn't fail, it was right on the money.

I'm voting by mail, Kaz...who do I show my ID to?

 

[Wildman]

<---------------<<<<<< Hitlery??

 

[kaz]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

So when I buy my NEXT gun I shouldn't need to show ID, since I already showed it before

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Shooting your weapon is something you do on your own. I'm in the woods, who do I show my ID to? Buying a weapon or voting are when you are presenting yourself to someone else to do something for you. hand you a gun or a ballot. That's when you would need to prove who you are.

Seriously, you thought that made sense? Proving who you are when there is no one there and you're not asking anything from them? You seriously suck at analogies.

I'm sorry, you think my analogy fails because you don't know who to show your ID to?

No, it doesn't fail, it was right on the money.

I'm voting by mail, Kaz...who do I show my ID to?

How many times?

 

[Seawytch]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

So when I buy my NEXT gun I shouldn't need to show ID, since I already showed it before

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Shooting your weapon is something you do on your own. I'm in the woods, who do I show my ID to? Buying a weapon or voting are when you are presenting yourself to someone else to do something for you. hand you a gun or a ballot. That's when you would need to prove who you are.

Seriously, you thought that made sense? Proving who you are when there is no one there and you're not asking anything from them? You seriously suck at analogies.

I'm sorry, you think my analogy fails because you don't know who to show your ID to?

No, it doesn't fail, it was right on the money.

I'm voting by mail, Kaz...who do I show my ID to?

How many times?

Once every election.

If I'm voting by mail who do I show my ID to?

 

[kaz]

So when I buy my NEXT gun I shouldn't need to show ID, since I already showed it before

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Shooting your weapon is something you do on your own. I'm in the woods, who do I show my ID to? Buying a weapon or voting are when you are presenting yourself to someone else to do something for you. hand you a gun or a ballot. That's when you would need to prove who you are.

Seriously, you thought that made sense? Proving who you are when there is no one there and you're not asking anything from them? You seriously suck at analogies.

I'm sorry, you think my analogy fails because you don't know who to show your ID to?

No, it doesn't fail, it was right on the money.

I'm voting by mail, Kaz...who do I show my ID to?

How many times?

Once every election.

If I'm voting by mail who do I show my ID to?

Obviously I'm passing on your offer to out eight year old me. Actually beyond passing I'm conceding, you can't out eight year old an eight year old.

So since you're persisting with your question, I will ask what is the relevance of it?

 

[amrchaos]

I think it makes perfect sense to check ID for voting and buying a gun.

In the case of a gun, harder to track owner if used in a crime.

In the case of voting, to ensure the citizen right is exercised by the actual citizen.

I think the real problem with the voter ID problem i the belief that the poor will not have id. Simple solution--ensure all the poor(not just voting poor) have ID. Think--how are you going to get a job withut ID? How are you going to pull yourself out of poverty without ID. ID is fundemental to surviving in the US.

You could argue it surpress the vote--but it reveals a serious social problem if that argument is true.

 

[Seawytch]

No. A better analogy is that you have to provide your ID every time you USE the weapon.

If you move, you have to re-register...again providing ID, just like you do every time you purchase a new gun.

Would you like to have to show a photo ID with your current name and address on it in order to be allowed to shoot?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Shooting your weapon is something you do on your own. I'm in the woods, who do I show my ID to? Buying a weapon or voting are when you are presenting yourself to someone else to do something for you. hand you a gun or a ballot. That's when you would need to prove who you are.

Seriously, you thought that made sense? Proving who you are when there is no one there and you're not asking anything from them? You seriously suck at analogies.

I'm sorry, you think my analogy fails because you don't know who to show your ID to?

No, it doesn't fail, it was right on the money.

I'm voting by mail, Kaz...who do I show my ID to?

How many times?

Once every election.

If I'm voting by mail who do I show my ID to?

Obviously I'm passing on your offer to out eight year old me. Actually beyond passing I'm conceding, you can't out eight year old an eight year old.

So since you're persisting with your question, I will ask what is the relevance of it?

Oh look, Kaz can't answer the question so he's going to be a dick and slew insults instead.

You could have stopped at "I'm conceding". I knew you couldn't answer the questions from the start.