Tuesday, July 10, 2012

ALEC on the right to vote

ALEC treasurer Chip Rogers' argument for voter ID laws:

"ALEC treasurer Chip Rogers' argument for voter ID deserves to be quoted in full: "If I were to go to Wal-Mart and I were to attempt to buy a bottle of beer, I would assume that Wal-Mart would ask me for identification. I would hope that most Americans cherish the right to vote a little more than they do the right to buy a bottle of beer."
Funny, but they require ID to vote, but aren't too keen on strong background checks for firearms purchases. That sort of thing doesn't offend the Second Amendent according to Heller-McDonald:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5


  1. I deem this post as

    "Evading the Issue: Someone sidesteps and issue by changing the topic."


    1. JimF, NO. You have it wrong. Again.

      You clearly don't understand what was on that web site you cited.

      You continue to demonstrate that you have no grasp of ctitical thinking, intellectual honesty, or argumentation and logic.

      There is no changing of the topic; the topic - since you clearly fail to identify it correctly - is what do we require government verification to do, and what SHOULD we require government verification to do, so that the risks actually relate to the requirement effectively.

      There are major problems with gun purchases, notably the lack of identificatoin provided in many private transactions, and gun show transactions, as well as straw purchasers for both firearms and ammo.

      We have no comparable problems with voter fraud, and without redundant voter ID, we still have more than adequate means of verifying the voter rolls, including by means which require definitive proof of identification and citizenship (like birth certificates required for drivers licenses or other state ID lists which are used to cross check voter rolls).

      Voter ID, particularly the extremely limited ID that the right is trying to enforce to suppress voting, along with trying to eliminate absentee voting - which would penalize our serving military, and many elderly, and every other person in a nursing home or hospital that can't get out to a polling place to vote, as well as early voting, which allows those not present in the state on voting day to still vote.

      Voter ID is redundant, and expensive, and provides NO additional safety or security to elections.

      An expansion of background checks for all transactiosn involving firearms or ammo would make us all safer, in contrast.

      Seriously, JimF - do you perform this poorly on all tests of logic and reasoning? You seriously need more education in this area than your little web site.

      You should consider some form of remedial philosophy of logic and rhetoric classes at your nearest post-secondary academic institution.

      Btw - before you try to take Laci to task in this area, you might want to consider that one of his degrees is in this subject, from an internationally highly ranked institution in the UK. He knows this forwards and backwards, and so do I. You on the other hand appear to still be struggling with applying the fundamentals.

    2. The simplistic to the point of drooling stupid arguments that we encounter is frustrating; there is no real meeting of minds or exchange between intellects. That's because there aren't any engaging from your position

      The pro-gun argument boils down to one thing, and one thing only: 1. "We want guns because they appeal to our emotions, not reason", and part 2., "we don't care about any rational thinking which denies us our emotional gratification, no matter who or how many people are hurt, or die, or who profits by exploiting our gullibility and emotional immaturity."

      It can all be summed up best by the famous quotation of Earl F. Landgrebe expressing the pro-gun position:
      "Don't confuse me with the facts." and extends as well to the corollary "don't expect me to reason logically."

      from wikipedia.org:

      Earl Fredrick Landgrebe (January 21, 1916 – July 1, 1986) was a politician and businessman. He served as an Indiana state senator and United States representative for the 2nd district. Langrebe was from Valparaiso in Porter County, Indiana. He is remembered unfavorably for his famous line at the Watergate hearings: "Don’t confuse me with the facts."[1] Landgrebe stuck with Richard Nixon until the bitter end.

      On August 5, 1974, Richard Nixon released certain documents revealing his orders to aides to hinder the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation of the Watergate break-in. When Landgrebe was asked on August 7 about the apparently unanimous support for impeachment of Nixon among his Republican colleagues following this disclosure, he said: "I'm going to stick with my President even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot." The next day, Richard Nixon announced his resignation.
      Sometimes it feels like the real task of writing on this blog is educating deficiencies that should have been corrected before anyone received a high school diploma.

    3. JimF, Dog Gone once again demonstrates that you are trying to work far above your level of intelligence here.

      You can't tell the difference between changing the topic and analogy, or making a value comparison between voting and the ability to own a lethal weapon.

      At one time, there was a waiting period before one could purchase a handgun in most states, but now all one needs is a "clean" driver's licence to be able walk out with at least one handgun. There are circumstances where no ID is required as well--although there is some debate as to the legality of such transactions.

      This is because some people deem firearms ownership as a "right".

      On the other hand, voting is becoming more restrictive with the purpose of eliminating the right of franchise to those who would vote in a way deemed "wrong" by the supporters of these measures.

      Voting is much more important to a true democracy than the ability to kill with ease.

      Anyway, Jim, you can deem this post whatever you want since you are a moron. Your comment only demonstrates that you have no idea of what is going on here, or what I am attempting to point out.

      While DG may hope to educate you, I think that is a pointless exercise. There is not hope that you will get your shit together enough to be able to perform simple tasks--let alone try to attempt to understand complex and abstract ideas.

    4. "This is because some people deem firearms ownership as a 'right'."

      This is because everyone, including the highest court in the land, deem firearms ownership as a "right".

      There, fixed it for you. ;)

    5. Not quite FWM ONE SCOTUS deemed firearms ownership an individual right; all the other SCOTUS decisions say otherwise.

  2. I found this out while doing research for an upcoming post:

    The American Legislative Exchange Council ended its task force responsible for promoting pro-gun legislation. This followed the controversy over ALEC’s ties to "stand your ground" laws around the country. ALEC will now focus its efforts on jobs, free markets and growth, but not firearms.

    Source, the Economist, Guns in America: The NRA’s star may be on the wane, Apr 19th 2012