Hacker News Reader

Comment by asabjorn | Hacker News Reader

The minorities argument is hogwash. Read the list of things you can't do without a government ID and ask yourself how many are not doing any of those: have a bank account, getting a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes, apply for food stamps or welfare or medicaid/social security, apply for unemployment or a job, rent/buy a house, drive/buy/rent a car, fly, get married, etc etc

So what is the real story?

Former NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin explaining how prevalent voter fraud is in New York City and the need for Voter ID laws: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/117511800314022297...

A series on how common voter fraud is: https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/11/13/elections-fraud-20...

View on HN

Like gun ownership and free speech, you have the right to vote in America.

So, if the government wanted to make it harder for the bad guys to own a gun... why should the good guys have to suffer for it?

Similarly, just because the government wants to prevent bad guys from voting, then why should the good guys have to suffer the consequences?

96% of Americans have a cellphone and that require an ID: https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

Also, good guys have IDs to do one of the many things I listed that require IDs including poor people that need an ID for food stamps or medicare or social security.

It is actually quite hard to buy a gun as this journalist that thought it was easy found out when trying to buy one: https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-vi...

Assuming that you're right that 96% have an ID, then what problem are we solving by forcing the other 4% into getting an ID? Is it even a problem? Do you have data to show that it is a real problem?

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Btw, you shouldn't mix up Walmart with the government. They aren't. Walmart can structure their customer experience any way they want as long as they aren't breaking the law.

With the intersection between 96% with cellphones that need an ID and all the other places where an ID is needed the percentage without an ID will be much less than 4%.

For instance, it seem fair to assume someone without a cell phone is poor or very old. Such a person would utilize government services that require an ID such as foodstamps, medicaid or medicare or social security.

>96% of Americans have a cellphone and that require an ID

Citation that cellphones need an id?

They don’t. Maybe OP is thinking about postpaid plans?

Looking into it seems like only postpaid need ID, and it is hard to come by statistics on post vs pre paid. However, bank accounts require an ID [1] and only 6.5% of the US population was unbanked in 2017 which demonstrates the same point.

"If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number."

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin... [2] https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/

I'm pretty sure that you need an ID in order to buy a gun.

Here in Florida they run a background check if you want to get any kind of gun. Depending on the gun you have a 3 day wait period. Handguns have a 3 day wait period. Rifles and shotguns do not but they will do a background check regardless.

No one said that you have the right to buy one. You have the right to OWN a gun. You have the right to vote.

That doesn't make sense. Does that mean it's okay if we just throw away the votes of people who don't have ids? After all, they have a right to vote but not to have that vote count.

Not at gun shows or other common purchasing avenues.

If the seller is in the business of dealing with firearms, they do as a matter of federal law.

Please keep Veritas/O’Keefe/political BS off of here. They’re well-known to be serial fraudsters (with his latest attempt consisting of trying to plant false rape allegations during the Kavanaugh confirmation affair).

That doesn't make sense to say when talking about videos. Investigative journalists in all ages have received this charge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com