Do you not have even the slightest interest or curiosity about why nearly every other country/democracy requires its citizens to be identified?

Set aside the question of voting: Given the state of security, unrest, and economic turmoil in our world, can you provide logical argument as to why you would not want the persons inside your country identified? In the USA, personal identification is required for every government related transaction (apart from voting) with silent approval from Liberals. Do you not find that odd?

Recognizing that Western European countries are universally praised by USA Liberals for numerous liberal/socialist reasons, do you not find it odd that none of those offering that praise have ever commented about the personal identification requirements in those same countries? If requiring personal identification there hurts the elderly, poor, and those that live in rural areas, should one not feel a responsibility to at least mention that when using such a country as a social justice role model for the USA?

Can you allow that a person may feel strongly about what they perceive as a matter of electoral integrity and them not be a racist, Nazi, minion or any other pejorative. Is not the freedom to have one's own thoughts and opinions even more basic than the right to vote? If you agree, then why be so insulting and offensive to anyone who merely views things differently than you?

One could suggest that you simply adopted your position regarding personal identification on the basis of fears, Nazi bogeymen, and imaginations about your political opponents while foregoing any interest in logically thinking through the issue to understand how your country and its citizens would benefit?

----------------------------------------------------------
1. It does indeed take an ID to have a bank account.
2. When you go to the Dr., they ask your age - at least every doctor I have gone to has.
3. At some time in that person's life, they did drive and had a driver's license. To this day, I still have my Mother's driver's license. I framed it and it's sitting here by me and Ive had it for years and years and years.
4. If the Dems feel they are being targeted..... perhaps so..... is it cause that's where the fraud is? Possibly... otherwise there wouldnt be so much 'squealing'....

I just heard on the news ... forgot which city it was in.. but they were interviewing this man who told of SELLING his vote for money. He got 25.00 for it. There were others who did the same thing he said... The Union bought a whole lot of votes for $50.00 from each person - mountains of them. So dont tell me there is not voter fraud. Especially when convicts still in prison can vote, dead people can vote, just to mention a few. If the Dems weren't so guilty of this, there would be no argument, would there be? You don't hear of the Republicans buying votes or caring whether they have to show an ID... that should tell ya something --- only the Dems!!!

One learns much from UHH contributors in the USA...

For example, conservative posters tell us that voter photo ID requirements are intended to protect the integrity of elections while liberals protest that the requirement only serves to suppress minority voting. Applying that logic in other areas, here are some similar "right-wing minority suppression plots" observed recently.

...was working on a project in the USA a few weeks ago and began to experience some physical discomfort. On advice of a US colleague, I visited a pharmacy to purchase Claritin-D, an over-the-counter antihistamine/decongestant product. The pharmacist informed me that a photo ID was required to purchase the decongestant ingredient. Is this a right-wing photo ID plot to suppress minority use of pseudophedrine?

Subsequently, my condition worsened and I elected to visit a storefront, walk-in medical clinic. I was informed that one must present a photo ID to receive medical services from a clinic. Is this yet another right-wing photo ID plot to suppress minority use of doctors?

A physician's assistant examined me, determined that I had a sinus infection, and prescribed medication. Back at the pharmacy, I was advised that a photo ID was required to purchase antibiotics. Another right-wing photo ID plot to suppress minority use of amoxicillin?

While working in a few days later in Houston, Texas, and with some free time, I inquired about attending the NAACP 2012 Annual Convention at the Brown Centre to photograph the activities. One session addressed approval of a resolution opposing any requirement for one to prove identity (or even citizenship) when voting in local, state, or federal elections. Curiously, the NAACP required two forms of photo identification to gain admission to their meetings. Amazingly, are we to believe this is another right-wing photo ID plot by the NAACP to suppress minority attendance at their Annual Convention?

Interestingly, it seems, USA liberals oppose the simple requirement for one to prove who you are before casting a vote for elected officials who impact major aspects of a society. In contrast, they are completely accepting of that same requirement for conducting ordinary transactions in one's everyday life.

"Curiouser and curiouser!", cried Alice [in Wonderland].

-----------------------------------

When you get a gun, you are not only checked from the inside out... but when I went to get my license, you not only have to go through this written test... there are 100 questions to answer, then you have to take a shooting test.. where they move the target farther away each time.. then you have to shoot rapid fire ... forgot how many times... then they fingerprint you then u have to wait several weeks before you can get your license... If anyone wants to get a gun permit to carry.... use an automatic to shoot with while taking the test... cause if you use a revolver... that is the only kind of weapon you can carry.. where as if you have an automatic.. you are able to carry both kinds. Now.. they have increased the length of years to 5 instead of 4... then you have to do it all over again...

No one should be able to buy a gun without a full background check and waiting period and training. Just as driving a car requires training and a license so should gun ownership. Just as cars are registered so should guns. No one objects to these rules for cars why should they object for guns? No one can get a driving license at a car show, why should you be able to get a gun so easily at a gun show?

I'm more worried about the person who gets his/her gun without a check than I am about someone stealing a gun from my house. That person often has something to hide; a criminal record, a mental problem, etc.


I received my father's weapons without a check, my children have received my weapons without a check, now they are passsing them on to their children without a check.
Do you mean to say that there are now four generations of gun owners that you are afraid of, and you don't even know any of us.
You sir, are a terrified idiot!

You make very good points and I couldn't agree with you more. Truth be told, I may even some day decide to own a gun for protection for the very reasons you outlined (I live in S. Florida) but I will always be against the legal sale and possession of assault weapons and oversize ammunition clips. When that criminal breaks into your house or my house I don't want him to be getting his automatic weapons that way, and also, when a criminal tries to rob my grandma in the supermarket parking lot (a popular scenario down here) I don't want her pulling out 'her' AK47 and starting a firefight right there in the parking lot. I want her to just return fire with 6-round clip .45 pistol the way God and the Founding Fathers intended for her too.

(Sorry about the tongue-in-cheek humor, I just wanted make the point that unfettered freedom should not be the NRA's goal.)