LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
Well, that is the $64,000 question, innit?
Amish man challenges ID requirement for firearm purch.
- Thread starter LibertyBeacon
- Start date
Well, that is the $64,000 question, innit?
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
OK, so to clarify a bit ... if someone is going to want to collect a government benefit like welfare, SNAP, etc. it of course makes sense that the government will demand some sort of ID to know to whom they are paying money. I do not see this as a violation of the fundamental human right to privacy as amplified by our 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Receiving the money is voluntary, and you are not being "forced" to show ID, you are voluntarily doing so to receive the benefit.
What I said initially:
Me said:
OK, so saying that it is wrong to have to show an ID for anything is a bit of a stretch. Strike that and change it to "most things". And there is nothing "wrong" with it on the surface unless it is being used to violate your privacy.
Contrast the welfare example with that of the OP ... furnishing ID to purchase a firearm. How is this firearm transaction similar to receiving social welfare payments from the government? How is it different? Do you see being forced to show ID to purchase a firearm the same as ID for social welfare payments?
We can start here .. are both natural rights?
I of course do have many IDs. I have a social security number, which is an almost universal ID. I have a state-issued driver's license. I have a passport. The SSN I had no choice in the matter. The others are all opt-in for me for an obvious benefit I get in return. No one is forcing me to travel or drive; these are things I want to do, either for work or for pleasure. But just because I have these IDs, and just because I routinely use them for banking relationships, and all sorts of other relationships doesn't mean it is right for the government to require that for a firearm purchase and expect everyone to think that is just a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
How is purchasing a rifle "interacting with the government"? And of what use would Mr. Hertzler's thumb print be for the purpose of simply buying a gun?
This_person
Well-Known Member
To answer both you and LB I would say that I don't want illegal aliens or convicted criminals buying weapons. Executing such a goal would fall to the government.
Would you consider this in any way to be infringing on the right to keep arms?
And yet when a Muslim woman doesn't want to remove her hijab for a driver's license photo, we get all bent out of shape.
To you all who do not see the need for a photo ID, do you have a bank account?
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
Yes, I do have a bank account and this is covered ground in this thread. Scroll up.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
If you put your money in a bank at all you could only access it in that bank. I imagine there were a lot of cases of mistaken identity or starting over as someone else, that is why wanted posters had pictures on them.
My point was that banks require a photo ID for transactions. They do this so someone can't just waltz in, say they're you, and withdraw your money.
If you're saying that government shouldn't require ID for firearm purchases, let me give you a scenario:
- I go buy a gun and give my name as LibertyBeacon. Since I don't have to show proof that that's who I am, the dealer sells me the gun.
- I go out and shoot a bunch of old ladies and drop the gun on the scene.
- Cops get the gun, see that it's registered to LibertyBeacon, and come knocking on your door.
Unless you're also arguing that guns shouldn't be registered, either, in which case I strongly disagree with you. There are a number of real reasons to require guns to be registered, that have nothing to do with government control, and I will enumerate them if you can't think what they might be.
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
Well, no. There are other options besides photo ID, as I've already covered.
Any reason you enumerate will be about government control.
You are right -- there are any number of reasons to require guns be registered. And all of them are violations of the basic human right to privacy.
What you're really talking about is anonymity, not privacy, and you do not have a right to that as far as I'm aware. If you think you have a right to anonymity, please tell me where you got that idea from.
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
I understand the difference between privacy and anonymity. I'm talking about the former.
But you're not. You don't even think you are, because you're smarter than that. You're just trying to convince me, and that's not going to work because *I'm* smarter than that.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Like with ALL rights, I believe that there are reasonable restrictions on rights. The main one is not being a citizen. Another would be choosing to take an illegal action. There are many reasonable discussion points like whether their crime was violent or used a weapon, whether the restrictions should only be against repeat offenders, etc. With respect to ID I do not see a reason to get into those distractions in this thread as any of those variables would still require some form of ID.
If it can be restricted then it's not a right, it's a gift from the government. The bill of rights are a list of the things that the government is not allowed to do, not a list of things we can incrementally dispense with.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So you fundamentally disagree with libel and slander laws, attorney-client privilege, laws respecting restrictions on releasing classified information, and the like?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Then we disagree :shrug:
In my opinion there are no rights that are universal. If someone's religion involves raping children, their religious rights go out the window. See what I mean?