Quote of the Day Sebastian: ID required for which rights?

At PA Gun Blog Sebastian articulates the "Voter ID" thing quite nicely in his take down of a reporter whining about the number of people who would be disenfranchised by voter ID,  after bemoaning that Americans care more about gun rights than voter rights.

Oh, but there’s no concern about millions people who might not be able to exercise their Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the same reason? This is complete and utter bullshit. I’ll put more thought into what to have for dinner tonight than what Stephanie Jones put into this article, for her to parrot such nonsense. Either you can’t condition the exercise of a right on showing state ID, or you can. If you can, it’s acceptable for both rights. If you can’t, it’s acceptable for neither. That’s the debate, and it’s one I think that is worth having. It’s also one I’m perfectly happen to be on the side of requiring no state ID for either, if Ms. Jones can decide voting rights are really that important. 

Emphasis added.     And this is just on treating voting on a Shall Issue basis.  Where if you meet a set of requirements (age, citizenship) you will get a card and you will be able to vote.

And speaking of disenfranchising poor people from a constitutional right...
The president bemoans the  availability of "cheap hand guns".  Well at least he didn't use the phrase "Saturday Night Special." The racist irony would be a bit too thick there.

While Chicago mulls over a "bullet" tax. 

How about May Issue?  There's still places where the State can decide for any reason to deny you a right.  Live in NYC or Boston or San Fan and you're not politically connected or wealthy?  Well screw you.

Remember, Martin Luther King Jr. himself applied for a carry permit.  And since this was the American South in the late 50's the police used their discretionary powers to deny his rights.  Fortunately, the South has advanced and now any law abiding citizen can get a carry permit regardless of their skin tone.

No, you want to go to a place where the police are empowered to infringe on the rights of anyone they damn please you'd have to go to the "North".  Or at least the North as the progressives define it.

After-all the , the police would still deny King a permit in Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, DC and much of new New York, California and Massachusetts, especially the urban and "urban" parts of those states.

A'yup the only state in that list that could be considered "Southern" is Maryland. Progress!

This all reminds me of this question:  If the State cannot trust the average citizen to keep and bear arms then why does that State trust the average citizen to vote?