From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >Feb 10, 2026 at 9:34:36 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman :   
   >>BTR1701  wrote:   
      
   >>>From a pro-gun standpoint, this is progress, but not victory. Approvals   
   >>>don't erase the infringement. They reveal the needless bureaucracy of   
   >>>fingerprints, photos, forms, and months-long waits. Law-abiding citizens   
   >>>shouldn't need a bureaucratic blessing to exercise a pre-existing   
   >>>right. The Founding Fathers didn't file Form 1s to shorten musket   
   >>>barrels for home defense.   
      
   >>You keep comparing the constitutionality of ID laws to exercise   
   >>the right to vote with administration of gun ownership and carry laws.   
      
   >Conservatives generally defend voter ID laws by insisting that all   
   >voters will be able to figure out how to get a valid ID, so the law won't   
   >disenfranchise anyone. But the truth is that a certain small percentage   
   >of voters actually *won't* be able to figure it out, which means that a   
   >certain percentage will be de facto disenfranchised. And that is all the   
   >*more* reason to put these laws in place. If you're so dumb, befuddled,   
   >and incompetent that you can't manage to perform such a basic life task,   
   >then you are not qualified to vote.  You don't deserve to have a say   
   >over the direction of the country. Stay home and let the competent adults   
   >handle it.   
      
   You really really really want to open the door to whether I think   
   someone is so dumb, befuddled, and incompetent that he is not qualified   
   to vote? Let's go there.   
      
   First of all, it's con men, not conservatives, who push for this, same   
   as any other law. They think voters are so stupid that they can sew   
   disbelief in election administration that, because we didn't get the   
   outcome want, the election was stolen.   
      
   I say that someone who falls for such crap is too stupid to vote.   
      
   You know this isn't a conservative position since the opposition will   
   insist that identification is the only way to do something else they   
   should be at liberty to do, like board a train or bus in intercity   
   travel, because trains and buses get hijacked to Cuba. ID prevents this.   
      
   So now we discuss who is too stupid to travel.   
      
   And that gets us into a discussion about who is too stupid to be held   
   accuntable for crimes committed. A week ago, I read an op ed in which   
   the writer had studied which athletes were taking payoffs to throw games   
   so corrupt gamblers would win. Gosn, they came from places in which it's   
   difficult to move up the socio-economic ladder and were therefore too   
   stupid to understand that the lowest man on the totum pole is the one   
   held to account for the entire conspiracy and the corrupt instigators of   
   the scheme will always get away unscathed.   
      
   Your basic argument is that the stupid must stay home with respect to   
   any aspect of life in which they are expected to behave like a   
   responsible adult.   
      
   I'm a snob. I see stupid people walking around. They don't know they're   
   stupid. They are everywhere. You've backed me into a corner in which I   
   have to argue that even the STOOPID are expec5ed to behave like adults   
   and to be treated like adults, and being stupid doesn't mean they lose   
   their liberty.   
      
   Thanks. Thanks a lot.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)