>Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes.

>"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no.

I didn't mean to imply you would support something just because Europe does it. Many people who oppose voter ID laws are fine with Europe's laws. I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it.

If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't? If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights? What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights?

>I think the Second Amendment it says I can call Boeing and buy a F/A 18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights

>I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war.

Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me.

>This does not mean I agree with the Second Amendment as written but lets stay on track here.

>Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil

Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption.

If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns.

>You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. The reasons for this may be racial or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the US.

I did forget that one. I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue. Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states?

>You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights

Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections. Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.) It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections.

We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are very few investigations into voter fraud.

I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.