Great news: UN Human Rights Council to investigate American voter-ID laws

posted at 10:25 am on March 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Stop me if you’ve heard this joke before.  A Saudi, a Cuban, and an American political group walks into a room — and the American political group asks them to tell the US to be more fair about its voting practices.  Haven’t heard this one?  You may get a chance to see it in action if you go to Geneva and watch the UN Human Rights Council and the NAACP at work:


The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.

Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.

Eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, voter ID proposals are pending in 32 states and the Obama administration has recently moved to block South Carolina and Texas from enacting their voter ID measures.

“This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy,” said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.

Hey, who would know more about the “growth of democracy” than the member states of the UNHRC?  For instance, Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow women to vote at all.  Cuba and China are one-party dictatorships.  The UNHRC is a monument to the fatuity of moral relativism applied to global democracy; half of the member states should be in the dock of a human-rights tribunal rather than running it.

And this is the NAACP’s model of justice? Appealing to the democratic instincts of China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia?  That’s the biggest joke.  Or perhaps not, as John Hinderaker points out, citing one of the NAACP’s claims:

“The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.”

So this is the best the NAACP can do: Kemba Smith Pradia lives in the Midwest and has a criminal conviction on her record. Can she vote? Yes, because the state where she lives either doesn’t bar felons from voting, or doesn’t have a voter ID law, so she can vote fraudulently. But she worries that if she should move to Virginia, she will have to present identification. In that event, if Virginia law doesn’t allow felons to vote, she won’t be able to get away with breaking the law! Is that a human rights violation, or what?

Bear in mind that a few of the countries to whom the NAACP is appealing only have allowed women to vote at all in the past few years, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow it even now (or women to drive, or to walk by themselves, and so on). Many more of them don’t allow for meaningful political opposition from women or anyone else.

If the NAACP wants to argue against voter ID requirements, they should make their case to American voters, not an international panel of thugs and kleptocrats.  We are a self-governing nation, not a fiefdom of the UN — and thank the Lord for that.  The NAACP wants to make its arguments to some of the most oppressive states in the world because (a) the NAACP knows it has a losing case here in the US, and (b) they just want to embarrass Americans into knuckling under to their demands, mainly because their screeches of “raaaaaaaacism” have lost all their impact here at home.  They believe that international scorn from dictators like the Castro brothers will enhance their efforts to oppose voter ID laws, which only proves that the NAACP has a serious disconnect from reality.

Michael Ramirez points out the absurdity in the opposition to laws that require proof of identity before casting votes:

I’ll make the NAACP a deal: when the federal government stops requiring me to produce government-issued identification to purchase firearms — a right explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution — then I’ll stop supporting state requirements to produce government-issued identification at the polling place.

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

N A A C P

Nutty Angry Anarchist Commie Parasites

Twana on March 15, 2012 at 2:25 PM

It’s about damn time, too. Of course, a Dem acquaintance of mine who takes up space working for the county (not unusual — no one’s ever seen him doing any actual work) is whining about it and is wondering if the Post Office is going to check the ID’s of people who submit absentee ballots.

PatriotGal2257 on March 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM

According to Capitolwire:

The law also requires absentee ballot voters to provide their drivers license number or last four digits of their Social Security number.

steebo77 on March 15, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Can hardly wait to watch when the UN tries to monitor Texas.

More popcorn, pls.

petefrt on March 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

What a jackwad you are. Read the Constitution mental lightweight. Read the USSC court decisions jacka$$. The laws are CLEAR.the explanation I gave you was CLEAR. By way of example I just purchased a .40 caliber S and W. Guess what? I didn’t NEED ID. Instead what I HAD TO DO is fill out a form with my name , address, DOB, SS, check off that I was not a felon and several other questions, it was processed by my FFL and of course I passed. ( aka not a felon, no criminal record or history of being a mental case ,like you)

NOW SH8T for brains, not once did I produce ID. You’re a complete idiot liberal.

NO ID..GOT IT LOSER ?

You’ve been lectured and put down. Now go back to the CNN room where you’re obviously more qualified to make an arse of yourself. You’ve failed here.

PS~ The requirements for a rifle are even LESS stringent and STILL no ID needed.

You’re clueless, Dante

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM

It is the rule of law that matters. It is the Constitution that defends our rights that matters.

Once one understands the reality, it becomes clear just how horribly dangerous people like Justice Ginsberg and President Obama really are. The entire modern political Left is an anti-freedom abomination that would love nothing more than to undermine and destroy the Constitution.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I would agree with this EXCEPT you have not taken into account rights enforcement. The rest is spot on.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Secretary of defense Leon Panetta, in a hearing before Congress, and President Obama, answering questions from British Reporters, just declared that the Constitution means nothing to THEM, that they believe all that is required to wage war against another nation/entity is International Approval. Besides being a Socialist, we have known for some time that Obama is an ‘Internationalist’ who has been campaigning for ‘World supreme Leader’ for some time. He has demonstrated he has no love for this country, no respect for the U.S. Constitution or our Rule of Law, and the millingness to do whatever he has to do to push his agenda.

The U.N. is a worthless POS organization that does absolutely NOTHING. IMO the U.S. should boot the whole group – ‘Gotta go…don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here!’ And if they want to take the ‘domestic enemy’, Barak Obama with them to rule as their ‘king’ they can have him!

easyt65 on March 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM

The U.N., which does not even recognize our U.S. constitution, has no authority for ‘rights enforcement’ in this country. It’s like a French Mime on vacation coming to the U.S. and attempting to interject himself into a U.S. court case and demanding he and his interpretation of what is wrong/right decide the outcome. The appropriate response: ‘STFU & GET OUT!’

easyt65 on March 15, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I haven’t had a chance to read comments, but has anyone asked why do we need to keep participating in the UN? Such a farce. I mean that seriously, is there any compelling reason that we do stay and waste money there? How much money would we save if we kicked them out, told them to find a new home and quit participating?
No sarcasm. Seriously. Do we have to be there?

americanmama on March 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

americanmama on March 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ya – a lot of people have been questioning that.

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The reason these arguments about the 2nd Amendment always end up seeming so circular and/or fruitless is that the reality is that under the Constitution there is clearly no limit to what kinds of weapons an individual can own, and yet we all know having no limit would be lunacy nowadays, and yet we haven’t amended the Constitution to reflect the reality of the 20th Century development of superweapons from machine guns to nuclear bombs.

Everyone seems to be happier with the status quo where we argue legalistic details rather than fixing the obvious problem with an Amendment. Those who want to protect the right of self-defense from further infringement do not want the kinds of limits an Amendment might impose, and those who want to trample on the right are happy just violating the Constitution willy nilly the way they are already successfully doing.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The U.N. can stuff it where the Sun don’t shine.

Axion on March 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Obama is not an American, but an Internationalist. Never before in the our history has the Justice Department had so many lawsuits against so many individual states. Now the Won allows the UN to get involved in individual States Right issues within their own state boundaries. We are being attacked from within by our own government.Impeach this clown while there is still time.

volsense on March 15, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You don’t read very well. I said that in some instances identification is required and in other instances it is not.

You don’t read your own postings very well. What you said was:

One can purchase firearms and other arms without producing an id.

So, here’s the question you’ve failed to answer so far. Where, outside of illegal purchases, can one purchase a firearm without providing id? You cannot go into any gun shop, gun show, on-line firearms dealer, or any legitimate firearms transaction without producing identification. Prove me wrong.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You just countermanded your own Constitutional argument regarding gun rights. You. are. one. ignorant. liberal. Go find the Huffington Post Panty Sniffing room. I’m sure you’ll be welcomed there.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

The real disconnect is confusing universal suffrage – by itself, nothing but a recipe for mob rule – with liberty-securing government.

PersonFromPorlock on March 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The continued uselessness of the U.N. body never ceases to amaze me….

Turtle317 on March 15, 2012 at 1:10 PM

That’s some really nice property that the U.N. sits upon. Couldn’t a creative use of eminent domain be use to kick them out of the U.S.?

Fallon on March 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Those 18 acres of land the UN complex now sits on were (what a surprise) donated by a bunch of Democrats known as the Rockefellers.

Del Dolemonte on March 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM

So, here’s the question you’ve failed to answer so far. Where, outside of illegal purchases, can one purchase a firearm without providing id? You cannot go into any gun shop, gun show, on-line firearms dealer, or any legitimate firearms transaction without producing identification. Prove me wrong.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

No that I’m defending, Dante because he’s almost equal the ignoramus you are. But, if you want to be proven wrong, call ANY FFL in the Commonwealth of PA. And then ask them what you need to buy ANY gun. ID won’t be one of the things on the list. As proof of who you are they ask for residence, DOB, Place of Birth, Bithdate, SS # which is on a Federal FORM. You are then asked if YOU are the purchaser to which you SIGN an affadavit attesting to this and that you are not a felon and not crazy and haven’t lied about either. You then SIGN this and they go run your info. If you pass, you pay whatever the FFL’s fee is as it varies. If you don’t pass, you don’t get the weapon. The Feds have this covered. Beleieve it. Oh and BTW, you can even buy weapons on~line without any ID other than a debit/credit card. You still have to follow the process though to obtain the weapon. Pretty cool, huh ?
Ok. Got that?

Any questions?

Good.Thought not.

You lose.

Next.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You just countermanded your own Constitutional argument regarding gun rights. You. are. one. ignorant. liberal. Go find the Huffington Post Panty Sniffing room. I’m sure you’ll be welcomed there.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Pretty sure Dante is a Paulbot.

Del Dolemonte on March 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Pretty sure Dante is a Paulbot.

Del Dolemonte on March 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Really? I always thought he was more of an Obamatron.

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Everyone seems to be happier with the status quo where we argue legalistic details rather than fixing the obvious problem with an Amendment. Those who want to protect the right of self-defense from further infringement do not want the kinds of limits an Amendment might impose, and those who want to trample on the right are happy just violating the Constitution willy nilly the way they are already successfully doing.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The USSC would disagree with you on much of this and yes, the legalistic part of the argument MUST be a part of it. But the USSC has firmly established the right to own weapons within reasonable limits. No Constitutional Amendment amending seems necessary. Further, trampling the right has not been successful as the USSC has struck down TWO municipal ordinances in Chicago AND DC. This pretty much covers the bases EXCEPT that some cities now have lists of acceptable guns. This is also now being challenged in the Federal courts.

Limits ARE reasonable if the limits themselves do not undermine the spirit and letter of the Amendment and subsequent laws meant to enforce them.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM

But the USSC has firmly established the right to own weapons within reasonable limits. No Constitutional Amendment amending seems necessary.

The USSC can say whatever it wants about what it thinks is reasonable, but no matter what it says, the Constitution still says what it says.

There is no “reasonable” in the 2nd Amendment.

If you actually want us to obey the rule of law rather than be instructed by nine people in black robes, you have to favor either no limits on personal weaponry or you have to favor amending the Constitution. Everything else is ‘pragmatic’ bs.

To be clear: I understand the danger in amending the Constitution nowadays, with such an ignorant populace and craven, corrupt elites. It may be that our best course of action is to go ahead violating the Constitution for pragmatic, reasonable reasons. Just understand what you are doing and the price being paid.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Any questions?

Good.Thought not.

You lose.

Next.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Setting aside your complete lack of manners when engaging in a discussion, the whole point of the process you described is that you must identify yourself when purchasing a firearm. There are many ways of doing so, and not all include just whipping out your driver’s license. As you point out, to purchase a firearm you have to sign an affidavit attesting to your name, address, DOB, POB, and SSN on a federal government form. Please don’t tell me that you haven’t just provided identification. And please don’t deign to lecture me on purchasing firearms, you’re not the only person to have ever bought one you know? Have a nice day.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM

What a jackwad you are. Read the Constitution mental lightweight. Read the USSC court decisions jacka$$. The laws are CLEAR.the explanation I gave you was CLEAR. By way of example I just purchased a .40 caliber S and W. Guess what? I didn’t NEED ID. Instead what I HAD TO DO is fill out a form with my name , address, DOB, SS, check off that I was not a felon and several other questions, it was processed by my FFL and of course I passed. ( aka not a felon, no criminal record or history of being a mental case ,like you)

NOW SH8T for brains, not once did I produce ID. You’re a complete idiot liberal.

NO ID..GOT IT LOSER ?

You’ve been lectured and put down. Now go back to the CNN room where you’re obviously more qualified to make an arse of yourself. You’ve failed here.

PS~ The requirements for a rifle are even LESS stringent and STILL no ID needed.

You’re clueless, Dante

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Wow. Do you have any idea what you’re even trying to argue here? Do you realize you just supported what I was saying? I doubt it since your use of name calling and profanity is a sure sign that you lack intelligence.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 3:48 PM

HEY! United Nations!

Stay the hell away from OUR politics.

jpmotu on March 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM

That UN site in NYC would make for one helluva good parking lot.

==========================================================================

That group of racists have proven once again that they are just that — a group of racists. The National Association for the Advancement of Crappy Politics, that is.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM

That UN site in NYC would make for one helluva good parking lot.

Not really: Too close to the FDR Drive and parking is, to say the least, atrocious…lol

BlaxPac on March 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.

Jesus on a surfboard. These people are serious with this.

I swear, there are times like this when you *want* to build a retreat and just ride out the shite-storm we’ve let ourselves slide headfirst into.

BlaxPac on March 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I can think of few things that would more effectively reinforce my fundamental belief that I was in the right than a UN finding that I was in the wrong.

morganfrost on March 15, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Please don’t tell me that you haven’t just provided identification. And please don’t deign to lecture me on purchasing firearms, you’re not the only person to have ever bought one you know? Have a nice day.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Clearly you have NO idea what you’re talking about. Your last post is stark evidence. YOU don’t provide ID for a form. It’s called a “background “check. You provide the information ON THE FORM so it can be verified. ALL FFL’s are required to make you fill it out by FEDERAL LAW.

Man, where do the clueless on this board come from?

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You don’t read very well. I said that in some instances identification is required and in other instances it is not.

Ok Dante, this ^^^^^ is your statement, right ? Even Trafalgar ID’d it as yours. In any case, YOU are wrong. ID is NEVER required. The government cannot see your DL Passport or any other form of “ID”.IOW it doesn’t matter…Ok ? With me so far? (crosses fingers). What the government requires is for YOU to fill out a form which is given to you by the FFL you are purchasing the gun from. I bet you have have no idea what that is….lol, but anyway..I’ll cite this chapter and verse to you..ok ? and BTW..NOWHERE is it mentioned that ID has to be produced. Why? Because it is unnecessary. Anyway..here goes..

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm License holder (such as a gun shop).
The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth,SS #, place of birth, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS.
The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into their “bound-book”. A dealer must keep this log the entire time they are in business and is required to surrender the log to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person .

NO ID is ever asked for to show anyone at the FFL. The ID numbers are listed on the form and you are required to list ID numbers such as DL numbers or other government ID numbers BUT you don’t have to have it on your person…Ever…lol…

And, I am NOT supporting your argument because you said”..sometimes ID is required and sometimes it isn’t…”

THE FACTS : Producing your ID is never required. ok ?…lol…sheesh. For example, I know my personals by heart. I could have driven there without ANY ID and bought the guns I ordered because ALL of the info on me is ON THE FORM. It is checked on the spot at the FFL by NCIS. If I lied I could be prosecuted by the FBI, ATF and the Commonwealth of PA.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Maybe they’ll send in the blue helmets.

JellyToast on March 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM

How do the U.N. Members know these are really the NAACP people?

Did they check their I.D.?

profitsbeard on March 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You don’t read very well. I said that in some instances identification is required and in other instances it is not.

Sigh. If people would only educate themselves.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Then, why don’t you give a few examples of instances (other than private sales between individuals in the same state) where ID is not required.
Because, I’ll tell you little fella, I’ve had an FFL for a lot of years, and ATF is pretty adamant about things like that.
Why don’t you educate us poor rubes so that we can buy and sell guns without ID? An anxious public wants – nay, needs – to know.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Man, where do the clueless on this board come from?

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You clearly don’t have a firm grasp of the concept of identifying yourself. If you sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, telling the government who you are, where you live, where and when you were born, and your soscial security number, knowing the government will use that information to run required background checks on you, I’d say you’ve pretty much identified yourself to the government, wouldn’t you?

Other than that, you’re a very rude, angry person and unfortunately that makes having a discussion with you extremely distasteful. So good night.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Oh no, now you’ve done it! Expect a vitriol-filled rant from DevilsPrinciple, who is a very angry, some might say unhinged, person.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Pretty sure Dante is a Paulbot.

Del Dolemonte on March 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Really? I always thought he was more of an Obamatron.

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Same difference. Both are wannabe dictators.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 6:14 PM

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You’re a rather ill-mannered lout, aren’t you. And none too smart, either – as you’ve amply demonstrated.

But, do keep digging that hole you’re in. You’ll need it.

OT; some of these noobs are real trash.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

How do the U.N. Members know these are really the NAACP people?

Did they check their I.D.?

profitsbeard on March 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Wouldn’t that be racist?

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

According to Capitolwire:

The law also requires absentee ballot voters to provide their drivers license number or last four digits of their Social Security number.

steebo77 on March 15, 2012 at 2:28 PM

That’s good to know. I figured as much. But my Dem acquaintance had to of course act like one with his lame attempt at a straw man argument.

PatriotGal2257 on March 15, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Oh no, now you’ve done it! Expect a vitriol-filled rant from DevilsPrinciple, who is a very angry, some might say unhinged, person.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM

LOL @ unhinged.Here is your statement as to how guns are purchased Trafalgar:

So, here’s the question you’ve failed to answer so far. Where, outside of illegal purchases, can one purchase a firearm without providing id? You cannot go into any gun shop, gun show, on-line firearms dealer, or any legitimate firearms transaction without producing identification. Prove me wrong.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Are you sure about this? Because you run to someone else for validation and like some liberal act like I’m angry? And that the reason for your anger is that you don’t KNOW the process. Project much, Trafalgar ? I’m hardly angry, I’m laughing at you for your ignorance as to how a gun IS actually purchased. You do not “produce” ID. YOU do not lay out your social security card, license, DD-214 or whatever on some counter top. It is NOT like that and CLEARLY you have no idea of what the process is/was/will be.

Your name is an ID. Your drivers license is an ID. Your SS is an ID. Your BC is an ID, passports ARE ID. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THEM ON YOUR PERSON TO BUY A GUN. IF THEY ARE MEMORIZED, YOU FILL I THE FFL FORM 4473. That is not the same as “producing ID” as you stated. I already INFORMED you of the affadavit portion of the form which you echoed like some blank canyon wall. I informed you of the process. And yet, you persist in your ignorance. This seems to be a common theme for you.

Why ?

I think I was VERY clear about the process. You however, were clueless and remain so aka this:

I’d say you’ve pretty much identified yourself to the government, wouldn’t you?

Other than that, you’re a very rude, angry person and unfortunately that makes having a discussion with you extremely distasteful. So good night.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM

What you said ex post facto is NOT the same as KNOWING the process, Trafalgar which CLEARLY you did NOT know. It’s not semantics either.

You’re just in CYA mode because you KNOW you’re wrong.It’s ok, I accept your apology in advance because we shouldn’t trifle the board with more of the hate filled speechifying you seem to have been born with and are now spewing here like so much bile…..lol..: -)

Just say I’m sorry and all will be forgiven : – )…lol

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

OK, I’m sorry. I’m sorry I engaged in a discussion with such an angry, foul-mouthed, preening clown. I have already pointed out that having a discussion with you is extremely distasteful, and I have no desire to continue it. I think I’ll go clean my Glock 23…I got it after identifying myself to the government you know. Good day to you sir.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Voter ID Laws aren’t racist. Anybody at the U.N. going to determine that?

The Nerve on March 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM

To borrow from Andrew Jackson: The UN has made its decision, now let them enforce it.

blammm on March 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

The FIRST American president or congress who even THINKS about letting the U.N. (useless nations) tell the United States of America how to run OUR country, needs to be taken out to a tall tree and hung by their neck til dead! And leave the body as an example of someone who didn’t understand the words “Preserve, protect & defend!”

p51d007 on March 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

OK, I’m sorry. I’m sorry I engaged in a discussion with such an angry, foul-mouthed, preening clown. I have already pointed out that having a discussion with you is extremely distasteful, and I have no desire to continue it. I think I’ll go clean my Glock 23…

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Oh Dear…it appears that Trafalgar has lost his temper and the argument as a result….tsk..tsk..tsk…lol. Don’t..ummm ..hurt yourself cleaning your Glock….hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Pretty sure Dante is a Paulbot.

Del Dolemonte on March 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I’ll take your word for it.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 8:00 PM

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Far from it you dear, petulant little child. I believe you’re the one who lost what sliver of a temper you have a way back in this thread.

What a jackwad you are. Read the Constitution mental lightweight. Read the USSC court decisions jacka$$.

no criminal record or history of being a mental case ,like you

NOW SH8T for brains, not once did I produce ID. You’re a complete idiot liberal.

NO ID..GOT IT LOSER ?

You’ve been lectured and put down. Now go back to the CNN room where you’re obviously more qualified to make an arse of yourself.

You’re clueless

Your words not mine kiddo. Now you tell me who’s lost their temper. On second thought, don’t. You’re a noob and a lightweight on this site and I have no interest in anything you could possibly have to say.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Your words not mine kiddo. Now you tell me who’s lost their temper. On second thought, don’t. You’re a noob and a lightweight on this site and I have no interest in anything you could possibly have to say.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2012 at 8:09 PM

That’s right. I did say those words. Unlike you, I take ownership for what I say. But, I will presume that your lack of interest will be precluded by a lack of posting to me…lol…

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Travel (illegally) to Saudi Arabia, and vote in their election. Tell them they are racist for not letting your vote count. See how far that goes before they cut your hand off.

Molonlabe2004 on March 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Here is the membership of the UN Human Rights Council:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

I’ll betcha that just about every single nation on this list, except for the USA, has a requirement to show identification to vote in their elections – including faux elections. In fact, here’s a list of those countries that have national ID cards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country

Go to Google and type in “voter ID card”, click “Images” on the left-hand side and you’ll see a bunch of photos of foreign cards. Let’s look at some, shall we?

Ghana: http://www.ghananewsagency.org/details/Social/NIA-can-be-used-as-voter-s-ID-card-Dr-Ahadzie/?ci=4&ai=34961

India: http://indianlegaldoc.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-apply-for-voter-id-card.html

Kenya: http://www.herstorywins.com/2011/08/bunge-la-mwananchi-peoples-parliament.html

Mexico:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/resolutemediagroup/5394804090/

And so on and so on. Why doesn’t the NAACP take these and all the rest of the nations around the world to task for having such stringent requirements to vote?

JohnAGJ on March 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Clearly you have NO idea what you’re talking about. Your last post is stark evidence. YOU don’t provide ID for a form. It’s called a “background “check. You provide the information ON THE FORM so it can be verified. ALL FFL’s are required to make you fill it out by FEDERAL LAW.

Man, where do the clueless on this board come from?

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Probably from the fact that they have had to produce ID for every firearm they have ever purchased–just like I have. Maybe your FFL has his own methods, but I have always had to produce ID at every dealer I have used.

Leaving that aside, you really could learn some manners and etiquette.

stvnscott on March 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Then, why don’t you give a few examples of instances (other than private sales between individuals in the same state) where ID is not required.
Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Why should I? You just did.

Dante on March 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Again, there is no such thing as a right to vote. That “right” does not exist.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I actually agree with you on voting not really being a “right”

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Just curious – in which state do citizens not have the right to vote, subject to the protections outlined in the federal constitution? Nobody disputes that states are the ones that regulate their own elections generally.

JDF123 on March 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Just curious – in which state do citizens not have the right to vote, subject to the protections outlined in the federal constitution? Nobody disputes that states are the ones that regulate their own elections generally.

JDF123 on March 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

How about you point out where in the Constitution voting is spelled out as a right?

you still haven’t answered my earlier question. If I go vote as you – which I could do without voter ID requirements – would I be stealing your “right to vote”? Yes or No.

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

JDF123 on March 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

It’s not that tough. I’ll give you a hint – 15, 19 and 26.
They do say that a person cannot be denied the “right to vote” based on race, gender, or age (over 18). However, voting is never spelled out directly as one of the “inalienable rights”. There are many reasons for denying someone the “right to vote”, which could easily be interpreted as meaning it does not exist as one of the true rights.

dentarthurdent on March 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3