Should we have a common registration standard (if any) for gun ownership AND voting?

[phoenix2020]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

 

[MamboDervish]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

Different paperwork for different issues. Registering to vote, for example, will never be concurrent with running a background check - but registering a gun might be.

 

[mrjurrs]

I would be against the voting aspect, but would accept it in exchange for gun registration.

 

[Allan]

Wouldn't a national vote registration standard be unconstitutional? I thought States had domain over the voting process.

 

[Mycroft]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

So...

Not only do you want to take away an individual's rights (2nd Amendment), you want to take away State's rights (10th Amendment).

No thanks.

btw, there is no Constitutional right to vote.

The Right to Vote Is Not in the Constitution

If you’re looking for the right to vote, you won’t find it in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

www.snopes.com

 

[Exquisitor]

I don't want to touch gun ownership, the Constitution says you can keep your guns, but it doesn't say anything about procuring them.

Here's a good idea; you have to have your gun buyer's certification to vote.

In the certification class we learn that voting is a civic duty and how to vote, logically and responsibly.

For all those who died by the gun so we could vote.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

NO REGISTRATION of Firearms.

The sole purpose is to provide government with an "inventory" identifying who has what to make it easier to confiscate and/or prosecute when the inevitable "people don't need that" push comes around.

 

[jotathought]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

It's not that black and white unfortunately: Voting and gun ownership have two different sets of pros and cons, and voting covers a much broader spectrum of U.S. Policy / Law.

 

[jotathought]

NO REGISTRATION of Firearms.

The sole purpose is to provide government with an "inventory" identifying who has what to make it easier to confiscate and/or prosecute when the inevitable "people don't need that" push comes around.

Absolutely agree. History demonstrates that gun registries lead to gun confiscation, and follow a similar process to demonize weapons, register them, ban them and finally confiscate them. This was the pattern used in Cuba, China, Russia, Germany and other regimes in the 20th century. Why does the government need to know who owns what weapons if the majority are law abiding?

 

[SMTA]

NO REGISTRATION of Firearms.

The sole purpose is to provide government with an "inventory" identifying who has what to make it easier to confiscate and/or prosecute when the inevitable "people don't need that" push comes around.

I had a boating accident and all my guns are gone.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

Here's the problem with your argument, it is a "false equivalence."

Voting is a "civil right," i.e. a right accorded to citizens as a part of the civil structure of their society. The group agrees to allow this to those they identify as part of that society.

On the other hand, Self-defense is an "inherent (or as some say natural) right," i.e. self-enforceable and not dependent on any outside consent. As a tool-making creature, tools of self-defense are our "natural defense" against other animals armed with combinations of tooth, claw, sting, etc.. Even more-so against others of our own tool-using species who seek to dominate us.

Just as picking up a rock, or grabbing a stick, or use of any other tool is as natural to us as hunting, nesting, and other skills are to other animals...so too is the use of more advanced technologies.

I only need to "vote" if I wish to act in cooperation with others in some endeavor when willing to commit my skills, capabilities, and wealth via agreement.

I do NOT need to depend on others for my self-defense; thus I don't need to submit to the will of other's in this effort either.

So my right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment is merely our Founder's recognition of this inherent right. One found very useful against the British and pretty much all comers since the Revolution.

 

[Maccabee]

Different paperwork for different issues. Registering to vote, for example, will never be concurrent with running a background check - but registering a gun might be.

Yet felons can't vote. I'm pretty sure there's a way to check if you're a felon or not when it comes to voting.

 

[Maccabee]

So...

Not only do you want to take away an individual's rights (2nd Amendment), you want to take away State's rights (10th Amendment).

No thanks.

btw, there is no Constitutional right to vote.

The Right to Vote Is Not in the Constitution

If you’re looking for the right to vote, you won’t find it in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

www.snopes.com

No one said anything about taking someone's 2nd amendment rights.

 

[MamboDervish]

Yet felons can't vote. I'm pretty sure there's a way to check if you're a felon or not when it comes to voting.

Voting rights are conferred by the state.

• In the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
• In 18 states, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
• In 19 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.
• In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table 1. Details on these states are found in Table 2 below.

 

[MamboDervish]

Absolutely agree. History demonstrates that gun registries lead to gun confiscation, and follow a similar process to demonize weapons, register them, ban them and finally confiscate them. This was the pattern used in Cuba, China, Russia, Germany and other regimes in the 20th century. Why does the government need to know who owns what weapons if the majority are law abiding?

Well . . . no. That's not true. Registration alone does NOT lead to gun confiscation in all cases. There are many countries throughout the world, certainly in Europe, where guns have been registered for decades, and no gun confiscation has ever even been proposed. Nor is gun registration required for any country to ban and confiscate guns. You're implying cause and effect where none exists.

 

[code1211]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

I needed to prove my identity to register to vote as well as to purchase a gun.

The proof of identity to vote should only need to include that the person casting the ballot is proven to be the same person that registered to vote.

Whatever process proves this the one that should be used for any ballot to be counted.

 

[Common Sense 1]

NO!

 

[jotathought]

Well . . . no. That's not true. Registration alone does NOT lead to gun confiscation in all cases. There are many countries throughout the world, certainly in Europe, where guns have been registered for decades, and no gun confiscation has ever even been proposed. Nor is gun registration required for any country to ban and confiscate guns. You're implying cause and effect where none exists.

I didn't assert that registration leads to confiscation in all cases. In the case of the United States, why are Democrats so eager to get a firearm registry in place? What's will the outcome be?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Wouldn't a national vote registration standard be unconstitutional? I thought States had domain over the voting process.

Ever since their attempt to overturn states’ certifications, I’ve asked conservatives how voter ID can work without national standardization. Based on their complaints with the 2020 election, its’ impossible to support voter ID without federal guidelines.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I forgot who floated this in another thread, but it stuck with me. The idea is that as similarly constitutionally protected rights (to gun ownership; to freedom to vote), the ease with which these rights can be secured should be the same. In other words, 2nd amendment folks who insist on voter ID and registration should insist on ID for gun purchase and gun registration. Likewise, those who insist on the absolute minimum restrictions on the ability to vote should accept a similar standard for gun ownership. Rights granted or revoked on the basis of felony records, time served, etc. should be the same.

The goal here is not to debate gun registration in isolation, or voter ID in isolation, but the idea that the same standard should be followed for both. Or if there is a reason to treat them separately, why that is.

I voted yes, but there is one important distinction: the 2A prevents infringing upon a right of the people while voting rights are limited to US citizens.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ever since their attempt to overturn states’ certifications, I’ve asked conservatives how voter ID can work without national standardization. Based on their complaints with the 2020 election, its’ impossible to support voter ID without federal guidelines.

Hmm... what is the REAL ID Act if not federal guidelines?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Hmm... what is the REAL ID Act if not federal guidelines?

Right, so you agree it would need to be standardized federally, correct?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right, so you agree it would need to be standardized federally, correct?

That would certainly help, however I doubt that would satisfy those who wish to maximize voter eligibility (federally outlaw strict ID requirements) and support HR 1.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That would certainly help, however I doubt that would satisfy those who wish to maximize voter eligibility (federally outlaw strict ID requirements) and support HR 1.

Not necessarily. The problem is voter ID proponents seem to play into fears that it’s just a means to suppress voting.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not necessarily. The problem is voter ID proponents seem to play into fears that it’s just a means to suppress voting.

How is it that having strict ID requirements (and more) are not seen as just a means to suppress 2A rights?