Voter ID Fraud

[M14 Shooter]

You're avoiding the question. I so very much do not wonder why.
Your argument was that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
Why do you not then apply this argument to the purchase of a gun?

No I have answered it ad nauseum.

You have not, and you know it.

Under the 2nd amendment....

You apparently do not understand that the plenary nature of your argument does not depend on any particular protection offered to any given right by the constitution. As such, as far as your argument goes, how the 2nd or any other amendment protects any right is meaningless.
You stated that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
Why do you not then apply this argument to exercise your right to purchase a gun?

You don't need an ID to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. Plain and simple.

This is a lie, a statement you know to be false.
Your right to keep and bear arms includes the right to buy a gun; federal law requires an ID to buy a gun.
You stated that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
Why do you not then apply this argument to exercise your right to purchase a gun?

A citizen can obtain, keep and bear a firearm all legally without ever presenting an ID so this right is not being infringed.

You continue to refuse to understand that your argument is plenary, wholesale and unqualified.
Your right to keep and bear arms includes the right to buy a gun; federal law requires an ID to buy a gun.
You stated that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
Why do you not then apply this argument to the exercise of your right to purchase a gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact that you refuse to believe your challenge has been met? Indeed.

You failed completely to address the issue.

Never mind the fact that you know you cannot soundly show how I am wrong.

You must be delusional, you didn't address any part of the premise of the OP, not even a little bit.

he is, and he won't ... poor mouthshooter.

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Where in the 2nd Amendment guarantees you a purchase of a firearm?

You're avoiding the question. I so very much do not wonder why.
Your argument was that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
Why do you not then apply this argument to the purchase of a gun?

No I have answered it ad nauseum.

You have not, and you know it.

Under the 2nd amendment....

You apparently do not understand that the plenary nature of your argument does not depend on any particular protection offered to any given right by the constitution. As such, as far as your argument goes, how the 2nd or any other amendment protects any right is meaningless.

You stated that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
Why do you not then apply this argument to exercise your right to purchase a gun?

You don't need an ID to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. Plain and simple.

oh really?

Yes. You can purchase a firearm manufactured before 1898 and openly carry it without ever presenting a photo ID and you would not be breaking any federal laws.

 

[OriginalShroom]

 

[Discombobulated]

You failed completely to address the issue.

Never mind the fact that you know you cannot soundly show how I am wrong.

You must be delusional, you didn't address any part of the premise of the OP, not even a little bit.

he is, and he won't ... poor mouthshooter.

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

It looks like these so called voter ID laws are designed to deter two or three fraudulent voters while disenfranchising hundreds of thousands. You stand on no principle of any kind so don't fool yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Never mind the fact that you know you cannot soundly show how I am wrong.

You must be delusional, you didn't address any part of the premise of the OP, not even a little bit.

he is, and he won't ... poor mouthshooter.

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

It looks like these so called voter ID laws are designed to deter two or three fraudulent voters while disenfranchising hundreds of thousands. You stand on no principle of any kind so don't fool yourself.

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, further evidenced by his response, above.

 

[Discombobulated]

You must be delusional, you didn't address any part of the premise of the OP, not even a little bit.

he is, and he won't ... poor mouthshooter.

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

It looks like these so called voter ID laws are designed to deter two or three fraudulent voters while disenfranchising hundreds of thousands. You stand on no principle of any kind so don't fool yourself.

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, further evidenced by his response, above.

Argue against what? You haven't said anything of any relevance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

he is, and he won't ... poor mouthshooter.

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

It looks like these so called voter ID laws are designed to deter two or three fraudulent voters while disenfranchising hundreds of thousands. You stand on no principle of any kind so don't fool yourself.

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, further evidenced by his response, above.

Argue against what? You haven't said anything of any relevance.

Your response is, of course, a lie.
You asked how voter ID will stop voter fraud. I provided an example. You know this to be true.

 

[Siete]

You failed completely to address the issue.

Never mind the fact that you know you cannot soundly show how I am wrong.

You must be delusional, you didn't address any part of the premise of the OP, not even a little bit.

he is, and he won't ... poor mouthshooter.

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

English isn't your primary language is it mouthshooter?

 

[Discombobulated]

Do you think he's really this stupid or is it just part of his bluff?

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, evidenced by any attempt to try.

It looks like these so called voter ID laws are designed to deter two or three fraudulent voters while disenfranchising hundreds of thousands. You stand on no principle of any kind so don't fool yourself.

Says he know knows he cannot soundly argue against anything I said, further evidenced by his response, above.

Argue against what? You haven't said anything of any relevance.

Your response is, of course, a lie.
You asked how voter ID will stop voter fraud. I provided an example. You know this to be true.

You provided an example of a problem that doesn't exist. I wonder how that addresses the problem of voter fraud?

 

[Zmrzlina]

M14 You don't need a photo ID to practice the 2nd Amendment as firearms manufactured before 1899 are not subject to federal firearm laws. Now that I have buried your feeble attempt at a red herring smokescreen, may we continue on the subject at hand?

 

[Discombobulated]

Some indication of the scope of the problem.

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast - The Washington Post

 

[Siete]

post # 91 & 92 ... good luck with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 You don't need a photo ID to practice the 2nd Amendment as firearms manufactured before 1899 are not subject to federal firearm laws.

None of this is relevant to the plenary, wholesale and unqualified arugnent you made, that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
I have the right to buy a gun. Under federal law, I need a ID to exercise that right.
Why do you not apply your argument to the exercise of your right to purchase a gun?

 

[Siete]

M14 You don't need a photo ID to practice the 2nd Amendment as firearms manufactured before 1899 are not subject to federal firearm laws.

None of this is relevant to the plenary, wholesale and unqualified arugnent you made, that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
I have the right to buy a gun. Under federal law, I need a ID to exercise that right.
Why do you not apply your argument to the exercise of your right to purchase a gun?

and you don't have a right to an ID card with your picture on it so stop deflecting and wasting peoples time ..

now, about Colorado and ID cards ... how will they stop voter fraud ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some indication of the scope of the problem.

Irrelevant.
The meaningful exercise of the right to vote depends on every prospective voter being who he says he is and voting in the proper place. As the right cannot be meaningfully exercised w/o the state having the ability to verify that this is the case, the state has a compelling interest to verify said prospective voter is, indeed, who he says he is. Requiring a state-issued photo ID is the least restrictive means to this end.

 

[Siete]

see, it's simple. when mouthshooter gets his ass handed to him in a debate he puts you on ignore or simply refuses to answer you ... either way.

 

[Zmrzlina]

M14 You don't need a photo ID to practice the 2nd Amendment as firearms manufactured before 1899 are not subject to federal firearm laws.

None of this is relevant to the plenary, wholesale and unqualified arugnent you made, that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
I have the right to buy a gun. Under federal law, I need a ID to exercise that right.
Why do you not apply your argument to the exercise of your right to purchase a gun?

I just proved you wrong. You don't need an ID to purchase a firearm manufactured before 1899. You also don't need a photo ID to keep and bear arms past that date if they were gifted, inherited or bought through certain private transactions. (The last one is creeping into illegal territory but there are instances where it is kosher.) You don't need a photo ID to practice this right or any others in the Bill of Rights. I'm ready for the next false equivalency.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 You don't need a photo ID to practice the 2nd Amendment as firearms manufactured before 1899 are not subject to federal firearm laws.

None of this is relevant to the plenary, wholesale and unqualified arugnent you made, that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS.
I have the right to buy a gun. Under federal law, I need a ID to exercise that right.
Why do you not apply your argument to the exercise of your right to purchase a gun?

I just proved you wrong.

You did not, and you know it.

You don't need an ID to purchase a firearm manufactured before 1899.

Irrelevant
You refuse to understand that your argument is plenary, wholesale and unqualified -- you argue that you should not have to obtain something unnecessary in order to practice one of your RIGHTS, in any way shape or form.
I have the right to buy a gun. Under federal law, I need a ID to exercise that right
Why do you not apply your argument to the exercise of your right to purchase a gun?

 

[Zmrzlina]

M14 you are talking to someone who honors the constitution including the 2nd amendment. If court precedent was such that overruled these federal laws then I would support that interpretation. As far as I know the courts have ruled limits on the 2nd amendment for the sake of the public good are constitutional. Otherwise why not legally be able to purchase and own rocket launchers? Does the 2nd amendment specify if any restrictions on what classifies as an armament? What about biological and chemical weapons? Nukes?