Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in Nov

[GMDino]

(10-05-2016, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We already do, the military.

Aside from that, you're talking about something provided by the private sector versus the government. And you aren't required to pay a tax/fee for bearing a firearm. Firearms themselves are private property, the ability to have one is your individual liberty (at least since 2010) so as long as the government doesn't tax just your ability to have one, then it's not a violation of the civil liberty.

Don't even try Matt.  You're about to get sucked into the "dictionary/definition" hole so Larry can pretend somehow his rights are being infringed by someone getting a "free" ID.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I assume this is a long, no.

Does being poor make it a larger burden to exercise your right and liberty to own a firearm?

Can these voter cards be made by private companies?

Just looking for a little consistency here.

Oops...warned Matt too late. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2016, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We already do, the military.

Aside from that, you're talking about something provided by the private sector versus the government. And you aren't required to pay a tax/fee for bearing a firearm. Firearms themselves are private property, the ability to have one is your individual liberty (at least since 2010) so as long as the government doesn't tax just your ability to have one, then it's not a violation of the civil liberty.

Like lawyers.  Oh wait.

Not that I'm against providing lawyers to people who can't afford them.  I think that's a very good thing.

[BmorePat87]

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically bar taxes on guns? Why is this even a comparison?

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 06:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does the 2nd Amendment specifically bar taxes on guns? Why is this even a comparison?

The comparison came with the bumper sticker speak of "I have no problem with my tax dollars going to ensure rights". The taxation was a seperate discussion. So to answer your question: No one is comparing taxes on the two.

And as I said, the 24th Amendment was enacted because of unequal treatment. What is unequal about charging everyone the same percentage of taxable income to acquire a voting card? The is not the same as the poll taxes that it looked to eliminate.

If the card is given to you for free, someone else is just paying the "tax" if you and others want to classify the cost as a poll tax. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-05-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The comparison came with the bumper sticker speak of "I have no problem with my tax dollars going to ensure rights". The taxation was a seperate discussion. So to answer your question: No one is comparing taxes on the two.

And as I said, the 24th Amendment was enacted because of unequal treatment. What is unequal about charging everyone the same percentage of taxable income to acquire a voting card? The is not the same as the poll taxes that it looked to eliminate.

If the card is given to you for free, someone else is just paying the "tax" if you and others want to classify the cost as a poll tax. 

The inequality of a uniform percent was explained to you by Matt early on in the thread, so I won't reinvent the wheel there, but I will say that the courts have deemed any paid voting/ID card to constitute a tax. Doesn't matter if it's not the same as the poll taxes of Jim Crow America, it's a tax. It's like how modern firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment even if they're not the firearms the founders sought to protect.

I know you try to downplay court decisions by saying things like "if you and other want to classify", but this is what the courts have said. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 07:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The inequality of a uniform percent was explained to you by Matt early on in the thread, so I won't reinvent the wheel there, but I will say that the courts have deemed any paid voting/ID card to constitute a tax. Doesn't matter if it's not the same as the poll taxes of Jim Crow America, it's a tax. It's like how modern firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment even if they're not the firearms the founders sought to protect.

I know you try to downplay court decisions by saying things like "if you and other want to classify", but this is what the courts have said. 

...and you are making the leap that, if you are required to present a valid photo ID to vote and if such an ID is not provided for you at someones else's expense, you are being taxed to vote.

Just like the right to bear arms. No one is saying you cannot bear arms/ vote; it's just your personal responsibility to obtain the device necessary to do so.

If you the courts want to compare that to the poll taxes of Jim Crow then it is not the first, and most likely not the last time I question their interpretation on the Amendments. Last time I voted I had to present ID, this ID cost me money; was I taxed to vore?

WTS, I have conceded such a card should be paid for by others free.

Your comments still don't address thesome would be OKood with using tax dollars to provide someone with the tool required to vote, but not the tool required to exercise their right to bare arms

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I assume this is a long, no.

Then your reading comprehension must not be very good, seeing as I acknowledged in the first line that we already do.

(10-05-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does being poor make it a larger burden to exercise your right and liberty to own a firearm?

No. The government does not charge you for exercising your 2A rights. Civil liberties are protections from the government, not from other citizens.

(10-05-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can these voter cards be made by private companies?

They can, but they are still issued by the government, yes? Government issued IDs remain property of the state even once they are issued. A privately issued ID would not be an official form of identification.

(10-05-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just looking for a little consistency here.

It's perfectly consistent if you understand the concept of civil liberties.

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2016, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys OK with subsidizing the price of a hand gun for the poor?

Not a hand gun, but I would be okay with providing a rifle to every person who is a member of the State militia.

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2016, 09:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. The government does not charge you for exercising your 2A rights. Civil liberties are protections from the government, not from other citizens.

Rep.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 09:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1) Then your reading comprehension must not be very good, seeing as I acknowledged in the first line that we already do.


2) No. The government does not charge you for exercising your 2A rights. Civil liberties are protections from the government, not from other citizens.


3) They can, but they are still issued by the government, yes? Government issued IDs remain property of the state even once they are issued. A privately issued ID would not be an official form of identification.


4) It's perfectly consistent if you understand the concept of civil liberties.

1. Oh, I didn't realize you were serious when you compared a civilian's right to bear arms to the Military. My apologies, please understand it was not a reading comprehension issue on my part.  

2. And the government does not charge you for voting, you just need to obtain the required equipment to exercise the right.. Have zero idea the relevance of the second part

3. But both are paid for by private citizens. Seems you're focusing on the dealer and not the source

4. If you say so

So you do not want to use your tax dollars to help private citizens exercise their right to bear arms, but you are OK with using them for exercising their tight to vote. 

[GMDino]

You guys fall for this crap every time.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not a hand gun, but I would be okay with providing a rifle to every person who is a member of the State militia.

But if a citizen wants to exercise their right to bear arms, but cannot afford a firearm, should we require them to join a military to exercise that right? 

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 09:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Oh, I didn't realize you were serious when you compared a civilian's right to bear arms to the Military. My apologies, please understand it was not a reading comprehension issue on my part.  

2. And the government does not charge you for voting, you just need to obtain the required equipment to exercise the right.. Have zero idea the relevance of the second part

3. But both are paid for by private citizens. Seems you're focusing on the dealer and not the source

4. If you say so

So you do not want to use your tax dollars to help private citizens exercise their right to bear arms, but you are OK with using them for exercising their tight to vote. 

1. Well, that is the only liberty the 2A was interpreted to guarantee for over 200 years. Been less than a decade since private ownership was added by the courts.

2. If you have to purchase an ID from the government in order to vote, then yes, they are charging you to vote.

3. Doesn't matter who is paying it, matters who is charging it.

4. Glad you're getting it.

As to your last comment, no, that is not an accurate representation of my position.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Well, that is the only liberty the 2A was interpreted to guarantee for over 200 years. Benn less than a decade since private ownership was added by the courts.

2. If you have to purchase an ID from the government in order to vote, then yes, they are charging you to vote.

3. Doesn't matter who is paying it, matters who is charging it.

4. Glad you're getting it.

As to your last comment, no, that is not an accurate representation of my position.

Welp, it seems we (the courts) agree that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not one that requires enlistment in a Militia. To be honest; I'm not sure if we agree on this or not, seems you are hedging.

As to the rest merely semantics. I'm sure the private company charges for their service and just like my Drivers License, the required ID can be used for other functions. But I have conceded let's require other people to pay for the ID.

I got it quite a while back.

Let's just agree that I fail to grasp your accurate representation of your position.

WTS, the discussion with you, Pat, and even Fred has been thought-provoking and relatively free of condescension (although the reading comprehension thing pushed the envelope). I will stay this for a thread more directed to the subject matter. 

[GMDino]

(10-05-2016, 10:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I enjoy it. Yeah, some people like to wallow in ignorance, but trying to educate people about how their right and liberties are actually applied is an interesting time.

If they actually cared I'd agree with you.  Seen it way too many times to believe that is the case.

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 10:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: If they actually cared I'd agree with you.  Seen it way too many times to believe that is the case.

Well, I deleted that post because I decided not to go that route. But I will just say that I think trying to put the information out there is always important. The person you're arguing with may not car, but someone else may see the exchange and seek more information. I'm a government employee, an appointed official, and just an all around poli sci/public policy & admin nerd, so I like the idea of helping others understand this stuff.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 10:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: If they actually cared I'd agree with you.  Seen it way too many times to believe that is the case.

Oh, I missed the post of Matt's you quoted. I retract my earlier comment of the discussion being free from condescension

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp, it seems we (the courts) agree that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not one that requires enlistment in a Militia. To be honest; I'm not sure if we agree on this or not, seems you are hedging.

As to the rest merely semantics. I'm sure the private company charges for their service and just like my Drivers License, the required ID can be used for other functions. But I have conceded let's require other people to pay for the ID.

I got it quite a while back.

Let's just agree that I fail to grasp your accurate representation of your position.

WTS, the discussion with you, Pat, and even Fred has been thought-provoking and relatively free of condensation (although the reading comprehension thing pushed the envelope). I will stay this for a thread more directed to the subject matter. 

I don't agree with the court's interpretation currently, but that is the current way it is interpreted. That being said, the military is still a way to exercise your 2A rights paid by the taxpayers. The addition of private ownership doesn't remove that interpretation, just adds to it.

Sure the private company charges for their services, but who is requiring the purchase?

But yeah, this has been a pretty good discussion.

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I missed the post of Matt's you quoted. I retract my earlier comment of the discussion being free from condescension

Yeah, I get a little feisty and do that sometimes, and them decide not to go that route and delete it. This time it got quoted too quickly.