nothing in the Texas statutes says that you don't need an ID to carry a gun. You need an ID to do anything today. A carry permit is different from an ID, In texas you don't need a permit to carry, and YES, you need an ID to vote. Its not even close to the same thing.
we voted without photo id for a hundred years, brainiac. show me where the constitution says you have to show your drivers license to vote. you really can't go nuts and kill about 20 people in 30 seconds if you do not have a photo id to vote, but you can kill that many that quickly with a fucking assault weapon in public. see the difference?
ThatOwlWoman (06-20-2021)
ThatOwlWoman (06-20-2021)
Here's something to ponder. The Constitution says we have the right to vote. Period. It leaves it up to the states to administer elections. You're right; it says nothing about having to produce whatever documents a repressive state decides you must have. So the fascist states gleefully write law to make voting as onerous as possible, hoping to keep in power.
The Constitution also says that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to ensure "security," and says that right shall not be "infringed." It doesn't say whether or not gun ownership can be regulated. Gunhumpers use this text to justify their insistence on NO GUN REGULATIONS whatsoever.
So why is regulating one (voting) okay but not the other (gun ownership)? If gun ownership cannot be regulated, doesn't that mean that voting shouldn't be, either?
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain
no worries (06-21-2021)
you have to prove your identity in order to REGISTER to vote (to get your name on the voter rolls). That has always been a requirement in all states. What exactly is wrong with showing that same proof of identity when you actually cast your vote? We all know the answer: its easier to cheat if voters are not required to prove wo they are.
As to mass shootings, how many have been carried out by concealed permit holders? answer: zero. How many have been carried out by left wing america-hating idiots? answer: virtually all of them. You want to eliminate mass shootings? Enforce the background check laws that are already on the books, and institutionalize people with mental issues instead of feeling sorry for them and letting them roam the streets.
He wants a race war
That is what the Republican Party that now exists wants
They think that is how they save their “heritage”
They want blood all over the streets
They want a nation wide repeat of Greenwood Oklahoma
The Republican Party hates democracy and non White people
It is a racist,political and violent cult
you are either very naive, very uneducated, or totally indoctrinated with socialist bullshit. We have always had to prove identity to get on the voter rolls (register to vote) that is nothing new. Some states do it when you get a drivers license. Do you have to show proof of identity to get a drivers license?
gun ownership is regulated in every state today. in order to buy a gun you have to pass a background check, no one can own a machine gun, or a bazooka, or a tank. We have plenty of gun regulations already. The way to stop mass shootings is to enforce the laws we already have and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
same question for you: how many mass shootings have been done by concealed permit holders?
as usual, you have it completely backwards. The racist party is the dem party, it has always been so. Which party was made up of KKK members? which party fillibustered the civil rights act? which party is trying to use race in every discussion? Obama was the most racist president in our history, Trump was the least racist. Bush had more minorities in his administration than Obama. Stop making excuses for your racist party and try to see reality.
No, you turned what I said into a well poisoning in the form of an ad hominem. The vast majority of purchases of firearms in Texas would still require ID even if those that were private purchases, a small fraction of the whole, didn't. That you want to nitpick my statement doesn't change that it is broadly correct even if there are exceptions.
A clusterfuck of logical fallacies starting with an irrelevant appeal to tradition ending with an ad hominem, then using a completely irrelevant, almost insane example that is a whole raft of logical fallacies... To wit: The constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how they will run their elections, so your argument about it having to say you need to show a "drivers (sic) license" is irrelevant not only on that ground, but where states require voter ID, that isn't the only ID accepted.
The you end with an utterly absurd proposition that conflates many disparate causes into a failure of reasoning thus: Your possession of photo ID has no relevance to whether you can "go nuts and kill about 20 people in 30 seconds. You can do that regardless of whether you have ID or not. You could do that with an "assault weapon" or with a bomb, or vehicular homicide, or in a number of other ways. So your attempt at an example is just totally messed up.
Bookmarks