|
|
|
|
|
by mothballed
103 days ago
|
|
This is revealed as a fraudulent premise in many states, though. For instance, Illinois doesn't require ID to vote, yet requires an FOID to bear a firearm. How is it that you don't need an ID to exercise the rights of voting 'citizens', but you need one to exercise the right of 'people'? Consider that virtually all 'citizens' are also 'people', and even if you argue they are not, the portion of voting citizens that aren't 'people' is inconsequential compared to the supposed "10%" that can't muster an ID. It's almost as if both sides of the argument are just using logically inconsistent arguments that just aligns with whatever gets the voting demographics they like. In fact, Vermont is the only state I know of that gives both full rights of citizens and full rights of people to those without ID in a manner consistent with the anti-ID argument usually presented. |
|
Consequences of errors with guns are higher than with voting, because elections are audited and mistakes and fraud are found and reversed.
You cannot helpfully audit misuse of guns, after the fact.