The difference between your gun and your vote...

[Triana]

... nobody is coming for your gun.




UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud

Since 2001, nearly 1,000 bills that would tighten voting laws have been introduced in 46 states.

24 voting restrictions have passed in 17 states since 2011. This fall, new laws could affect more than 5 million voters in states representing 179 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

In the past two years, 5 battleground states (Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have tightened their voting laws.

As of April, 74 restrictive voting laws were on the table in 24 states.

SOURCE: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

From 2012:

In this election year, as many as five million eligible voters will lose their right to vote. It’s the result of new nationwide campaigns to limit voting rights. Meanwhile, gun rights and the number of gun owners is growing. . . . In Texas, students are limited in their right to vote, since Student ID’s are not accepted, though handgun licenses are.

SOURCE: http://rt.com/usa/gun-voting-right-vote-451/

[Zambero]

1. This map overlooked Idaho

As a resident, I can affirm that Idaho now requires a photo ID to vote. Being a currently registered voter and signing in at the polls is not enough.

[jmowreader]

14. This is laws passed in 2011-12

Idaho had the voter ID law at least since 2010.

[Zambero]

17. So that map does not even portary the full extent of voter ID laws?

Wow

[merrily]

2. Headline alone is worth several recs.

[louis-t]

3. Michigan requires id as well.

It only started about 2010 or 2012.

[Triana]

4. NC will too in 2016. MoJo article, I should mention, is from 2012

So a few states hadn't imposed it yet. Now, it's worse than it was then.

[flamin lib]

5. Oh, but freedumb and second amendment and stuff!

Post this over in the gungeon and watch everybody refute it as if nothing in the numbers is true or even worth considering.

[aikoaiko]

6. Both voter and gun control activists just want to make sure the "right people"...

... can exercise those rights.

[beevul]

7. "... nobody is coming for your gun." Uh huh...

I'm sure Shannon was just kidding.

[Triana]

9. Fact remains...

In this election year, as many as five million eligible voters will lose their right to vote. It’s the result of new nationwide campaigns to limit voting rights. Meanwhile, gun rights and the number of gun owners is growing. . . . In Texas, students are limited in their right to vote, since Student ID’s are not accepted, though handgun licenses are. ... Regardless what Bloomberg says. What actually IS is quite different.

[beevul]

11. Question.

"In Texas, students are limited in their right to vote, since Student ID’s are not accepted, though handgun licenses are"

Is the stated reasoning behind that, that its because one is government issued ID and the other isn't?

[Triana]

12. Just IMO - doesn't matter. NO ID should be required to vote.

EDIT to add comment:

Requiring voter ID is a way to SUPPRESS the vote - to keep otherwise eligible voters from being able to vote.

This "owning a gun is a right, voting is a privilege" attitude is bassackwards. Totally bass. ackwards.

Why? Because voting (even if someone does it fraudulently - the incidence of which is statistically NON EXISTENT) doesn't end up like this:



Unless of course the "True the Vote" turds have their way and decide to start shooting people at the polls, which I wouldn't put past them. And once again the solution to that is to have stringent gun laws that make it illegal to do so.

[beevul]

18. Ok.

"This "owning a gun is a right, voting is a privilege" attitude is bassackwards. Totally bass. ackwards."

They're both rights, but one happens to be constitutionally protected in the bill of rights.

"Why? Because voting (even if someone does it fraudulently - the incidence of which is statistically NON EXISTENT) doesn't end up like this: "

I'd be willing to bet that a million plus Iraqi people would disagree, if they were still alive.


And, if one is only interested in looking at the bad - that is the bad stuff people do with guns - and not interested in looking at people that defend themselves with guns and people who do not commit crimes with guns, then one really isn't interested in all the facts, but is instead interested in a predetermined conclusion.

Such is common amongst the anti-gun folks.

[branford]

22. A student ID does not necessarily reflect eligibility and residency to vote in Texas.

Many students vote in their home states or districts, by absentee ballot or a ineligible to vote due to lack of citizenship.

If the ID requirement is ostensibly to prevent voting fraud, a school ID, as you correctly note is not an official or state confirmed identification, would not solve the alleged problem, and acceptance of such an identification could actually weaken the state's defense of the law in court.

A handgun permit is quite the opposite. It can only be issued to residents after confirmation of identification, residency and even a background check.

If you oppose voting identification requirements, citing the failure to accept student ID's really doesn't help your case. Similarly, trying to couple some gun control / gun rights argument to voting further muddies the issue. If your quibbling over what identifications should be acceptable in order to vote, you've already essentially conceded the argument.

[dsc]

23. state schools are run by the government last time I checked

[Duckhunter935]

26. is proof of state

residency required to get the ID?

[dsc]

35. they have that residency by virtue of attending the institution

unless they are literally commuting from another state every day. It is red letter law, college students who live in the town get to vote even if they aren't permanent citizens of that town. I voted in Illinois all four years I attended under grad despite coming from and returning to Ohio at the beginning and end of the four years.

[branford]

37. That doesn't resolve the student ID problem.

Non-citizens in state schools are still eligible for and will receive a school ID with no indication of their status. Moreover, probably the majority of students who are registered to vote do so in their "home" state, not where they attend school, if different. If the identification requirement is to prevent fraud like double voting, prohibiting school ID's from generally transient residents certainly passes any rationale scrutiny.

If the students actually are true residents where they attend school, intend to vote only in that area, and are otherwise eligible to legally vote, they can easily procure a driver's license, as they already should be doing under the law if they drive in-state and are residents, or they can get a free state ID.

Lastly, as I already mentioned, arguing whether a student ID should be sufficient to vote already basically concedes the argument that identification to vote is permissible.

[yeoman6987]

8. I am sick of hearing that owning a gun is a right

But voting is a privilege. There is no way the founders wanted voting to be difficult to do. I believe if they saw the conditions of voting today, they would have added voting to the bill of rights. This is getting ridiculous.

[NutmegYankee]

28. Who says voting is a privilege?

The right to vote is explicitly mentioned in 5 Constitutional Amendments. As for the treatment versus guns, we unfortunately started down this path that rights are subject to reasonable regulation, so now the first amendment is subjected to a rule that you must keep walking, the right to privacy is only valid if the parking lot is a certain size at a clinic, and voters have to endure arduous steps to get an ID.

And then there is the 4th Amendment, so abused now as to be almost worthless. You see - it's prevents unreasonable search and seizure. And it appears that to some people, nothing short of stripping you naked on a cold winter day for a "safety" search is unreasonable. And US courts have held that all kinds of searches without warrants were reasonable including the 9th upholding that Forward looking Infrared (FLIR) was legit despite the fact that it can see right into your home. Thankfully the SCOTUS smacked that down.

We have rights to prevent a majority from imposing tyranny onto a minority. They are simply entitlements of citizenship that cannot be removed by a majority, no matter how badly they want to. Sadly, with the "reasonable regulation" concept now in existence, that is just what is happening.

[beevul]

10. "per capita".

Measuring by "rate" or "per capita" paints one picture, looking at gun violence where it actually happens paints quite another:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Arizona raking 16th in actual gun death numbers for example, while CA Ill and NY are all in the top 10 for most actual gun deaths, according to the moyers map above, and according to official statistics.

Oh, and my vote isn't much of a help when the coyotes come in the yard wanting one of our pups for a snack.

[dsc]

24. that has got to be the most ridiculous argument ever

Yes, more people tend to mean more deaths. The fact is Arizona has many more deaths per capita meaning an individual Arizonian is more likely to die from guns than an individual New Yorker is.

[branford]

38. Per capita stats are often misleading.

In lower population areas, even a few murders in otherwise very safe areas would indicate a extremely high per capita rate. Per capita city and state rates alone also do not account for issues of like diversity, population density, economic disparity, neighborhood and county breakdowns, total number of defensive uses of a firearms, etc.

As such, alone it can be a very misleading indicator of actual safety and security, and manipulated by any side of the issue.

Remember, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[dsc]

42. for any one year that is a valid point

but when the pattern persists year after year after year then it isn't a statistical anamoly.

[branford]

43. I'm not contesting the technical accuracy of per capita data,

or even alleging that it never has relevance or use. I'm stating that it could be misleading due to a number of variables, including social, cultural, political, demographic, economic and other factors like sample size and range. Even if such data is accurate for multiple years, it still would fail to account for these issues in the same way that correlation is not necessarily the same as causation.

Multiple years of similar data may account for a "pattern," the question is "a pattern of what, and why." This is true for many issues, not just guns. For example, largely black neighborhoods often consistently have higher rates of per capita violent crime, both as perpetrators and victims, than nearby white neighborhoods, even in states and cities with lower overall violent crime rates. However, we would hopefully never allege that blacks are more violent or innately prone to criminality, no matter the shiny chart, eye-popping graphics, or even if it justified a political program we favor. Yet, I've seen racists use such statistics all the time to justify their bigotry

Raw statistics are manipulated by all sides all the time, and one should always be skeptical when a colorful chart attempts to cleanly resolve complicated issues.

[beevul]

44. Not so much.

"The fact is Arizona has many more deaths per capita meaning an individual Arizonian is more likely to die from guns than an individual New Yorker is."

So move a couple million new people into AZ to drop their "rate", and decrease the AZ gun violence problem, right?

*shakes head*

A higher "rate" has less to do with the actual level of gun violence in a given area than it does adding population into the equation to paint a misleading picture in order to point fingers elsewhere.

Nobody in their right mind really believes Montana is more dangerous that CA or ILL, yet that's exactly what people that lean on rates deliberately imply.

[dsc]

45. If you move two million people in, none of whom die or cause others to die from gunshots, and yes

Arizona would be safer. But if the two million people who moved in behaved like the people who are already there and it would be no safer but it also would be no more dangerous. And, if one only counts gun deaths, then yes Montana is less safe than Illinois and California.

[Eleanors38]

13. GUNZ! everywhere! (or at least in GD).

[Duckhunter935]

27. Yep

The guidance is no longer followed again. I guess more speech is better and I do not have a big issue with it. I just wish they would just put iit in the SOP and guidance that gun postings are fine in GD as they are allowed anyway.

[Jenoch]

15. The graphic is somewhat misleading.

There was a voter ID amendment introduced in Minnesota in 2012 but it was soundly defeated.

[Triana]

16. Thank dog for that!

I think they all ought to be banned. Everywhere.

[robthesocialist]

19. statistically if you have a gun in your home

You or somebody in your family is more likely to die from said gun than stopping an intruder in your home.

[Triana]

20. I've read that somewhere. It's no doubt true. Welcome to DU!

[branford]

21. The more pertinent question, however,

is if you legally possess a gun in your home, are you more likely to vote? I think you, the NRA and Harry Reid know the answer to that question.

If you want to make this a polarized battle between gun owners and those who oppose voter ID, good luck.

Support voting rights issues on their own merits, and while you're at it, try not to encourage gun owners, who more likely than not will vote Republican, from not only going to the polls, by nagging all their friends with the same ideas from doing so as well.

[NutmegYankee]

29. It may be a fallacy to think that gun owners support voter ID. nt

[branford]

40. That may be true.

However, the fight against voter suppression is generally a battle by the Democratic Party, and support for gun rights is generally a Republican issue. Of course, nothing is monolithic.

Nevertheless, I believe the risk of energizing the Republican base by raising the gun issue badly detracts and distracts from fighting voter suppression and the Democratic candidates and voters to whom it is likely most important.

[NutmegYankee]

41. I tried to point that out but the OP refused to discuss it with me.

We've conditioned our society to expect to need ID to buy alcohol and in Conn (where I live) buy ammo for recreational target shooting. Those make people believe that an ID to vote is reasonable. It makes them not understand that the urban poor often can and do survive without a drivers license.

[Triana]

30. Nobody here is setting up a 'polarized battle'. Fact remains that voting rights

are being taken away from millions in the US while gun rights are expanding - even though gun owners are constantly in fear of someone 'taking their gun away'. It's their (and everyone else's) votes they need to be worried about.

I'm pretty sure all gun owners don't support voter ID and other vote suppression tactics. But if they *must* live in fear, they ought to be worried about their voting rights being taken away, not their guns as the facts and trends show.

[branford]

39. If it's not a polarized battle, why are you conflating two unrelated, controversial partisan issues?

You may certainly try to dictate what gun owners "ought" to be worried about, whether voting rights and/or that the government intends to take their guns away, particularly while belittling or mocking their fears, but do not be surprised if they do not support your position on voter suppression (or anything else), or worse, the Democratic candidate in the election.

Support voting rights on its own merits, and leave the gun rights battle completely out of the debate.

[Triana]

46. Were you looking for Tea Party Central?

You seem to be on the wrong site.

[branford]

47. And, thank you for proving my point.

You most definitely want to combine a gun control message with voter rights, and cannot see why that would be a bad idea.

Accusing fellow loyal and active Democrats who actually oppose voter restrictions as belonging to "Tea Party Central" because they do not share your politics concerning firearms, is simply rude and ridiculous. Despite your disapproval, a great many Democrats, including elected officials, support gun rights, and oppose many restrictions to both voting and firearms. If you wish to alienate, belittle and mock people who would otherwise support you, do not be surprised when they choose to sit out elections when their involvement could make the difference of the Democrat being elected or other causes you value are at issue.

If you had any aspirations of reaching-out to independents and moderate Republicans to oppose voter identification, yet may support gun rights, you'll have less luck than with the aforementioned Democrats.

Simply, if ending voter restriction efforts is as important to you as you claim, do not confuse your message, create opportunity for distraction, and make the issue more controversial than it already is, no less insult potential allies. That's simply smart politics and good people skills.

However, if you wish to continue making juvenile Tea Party jokes at the expense of those who would otherwise promote your cause, your implied Democratic purity test will do nothing but ensure that voter ID and other similar laws will continue to propagate and expand.

Good luck, given the overall popular support for voter ID, its success in the courts, and insistence on making something so fundamental an unnecessarily partisan issue, you'll need it.

[ileus]

25. I'll keep both.

[Triana]

31. Of course.

In the US, you are much more likely to lose voting rights than gun rights through.

[NutmegYankee]

33. How so? You can only lose voting rights to a felony conviction.

And in most states you get it back. You lose gun possession rights for felonies, drug use, mental illness, etc for life.

If you are instead referring to making it difficult in the hope that you won't vote, then that is used in many areas. Abortion is the most common. TRAP laws are nothing but road blocks to exercise of the right to have medical care and to make that decision for yourself.

[Triana]

34. "making it difficult in the hope that you won't vote, then that is used in many areas."

"that is used in many areas" (BINGO!) How about making it impossible for millions of otherwise eligible voters? That's what's happening. However you seem completely unaware of that or willfully ignorant of it in your quest to minimize that problem whilst claiming gun rights are somehow more restricted or in danger of loss.

As in the OP, facts show otherwise. Millions are losing their voting rights via being prevented from voting by new Jim Crow laws. Gun rights - not so much (ie: not at all).

So..ok you don't want to see that. I'll stop with you right here and if you want, you can continue arguing with yourself.

[NutmegYankee]

36. I Know what ID laws do. I fully oppose them.

But to pretend that isn't isn't the same thing we are want to do with gun rights is ridiculous. It's hypocritical. I know it all too well because it's the same tactic used against access to abortion and I've been very active in defending that right. And yet we suffer setbacks. Frustrating setbacks!

I know why voter ID exists. It keeps the poor from voting. And what is really annoying is how it passed in a state like Connecticut!

[NutmegYankee]

32. Actually, gun restrictions are often introduced, but few pass the legislatures of states.

Which isn't much different than the restrictions on voting in the graphic above. Connecticut is highlighted red as introducing restrictions and yet the state has a near super majority of Democrats.