The New York Times’ Double Standard on Voting and Guns

 (courtesy nytimes.com)

The New York Times never met a gun control bill they didn’t like. When New York’s SAFE Act was passed as an “emergency measure” twenty-minutes after it was introduced in the legislature, nary a peep of protest did we hear from the Gray Lady. In fact, the paper’s editorial board lauded the act and all of it provisions, from the ban on “assault rifles” to the registration of ammunition sales to a seven-round limit on loaded magazines. As for the pre-existing requirements for firearms purchases – fingerprinting, background checks, tests, fees, etc. – and the de facto ban on law-abiding citizens carrying a concealed weapon in The Big Apple (which somehow doesn’t include the newspaper’s publisher), the NYT is A-OK with all of it. But, when Republicans pass bills requiring an ID to vote, we get this . . .

In all, nine states have passed measures making it harder to vote since the beginning of 2013. Most have to do with voter ID laws. Other states are considering mandating proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, after a federal court judge recently upheld such laws passed in Arizona and Kansas. Because many poor people do not have either and because documents can take time and money to obtain, Democrats say the ruling makes it far more difficult for people to register . . .

“What we see here is a total disrespect and disregard for constitutional protections,” said the Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina N.A.A.C.P. and leader of the Moral Mondays movement, which opposes the changes.

On the face of it this article on new voter registration laws seems fair and balanced, but the headline tells the tale: New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing StatesMore to our point, if the Times and the Democrats are so up in arms about new regulations affecting voting rights for poor people, why aren’t they championing gun rights for this same constituency?

Americans’ right to keep and bear arms is no less sacrosanct than Americans’ right to vote. At least it should be equal. All the bureaucratic barriers to firearms ownership – all of them – are unconstitutional. All of them affect the poor more than the rich. Truth be told, the Times and the Dems don’t see the equivalence because they don’t really care about Constitutional rights. They only care when it suits them, because all they really care about is remaining in power.

That is all.

comments

  1. avatar peirsonb says:

    Democrats say the ruling makes it far more difficult for people to register

    And yet photo ID is required to get into the Democratic National Convention. Weird.

    1. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

      food stamps and welfare checks… and to drive the car to the voting station (without insurance). or to work at the New York Times itself and anywhere legally in the State.

      Opposing the voter ID means only one thing. Allowing illegal aliens to vote, and allowing people to vote multiple times (both of which affects the Democrat party mostly)

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        It’s not just about illegals voting. As foreign as the concept is to us middle and upper class people, many poor people don’t actually have ID.
        It’s a good first step though. Next perhaps a History quiz. Then an essay question about why the US is a republic rather than a democracy. The pinnacle would be questions on Cuneiform literature, asked in Tolkien’s Elven language, with answers required in Klingon. Then nobody could vote…and therefore nobody could get elected, nobody could pass budgets, nobody could collect taxes, and all the bureaucrats would go home.

        1. avatar Citizen says:

          i c wat u did ther

        2. avatar Ben says:

          You can get state issued ID cards in most states for free.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      ;D

      I don’t think I’ve ever not been asked to show ID at a polling place, just to get in. Wah wah wah. Poor widdle illegal aliens; they get free health care and tuition, don’t need driver’s licenses, but the Dems get skid marks over having to show an ID.

  2. avatar Delbert Grady says:

    If ID requirements are passed, the liberals will just make sure the illegals get IDs. Whatever it takes to get their new voting faction of illegal aliens throwing the elections to the Democrats.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Remember the first rule of politics. The ballots don’t make the results, the counters make the results. The counters. Keep counting.”

      The Democrats will always be able to steal a close election because they control the counters.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      They already do that in Cali… mandating that everyone accept the Mexican Consular ID which is about as fake as you can get.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        A lot of businesses that serve alcohol don’t even accept Mexican Consular ID’s for proof of age. Go figure.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Wait until the Democrats find out about that. They’ll be passing out free booze outside of polling places.

  3. avatar WayneMHK says:

    From my point of view, the right to vote should be taken just as seriously, and with as much aforethought as the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, many are allowed to vote without it (the right OR aforethought).

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Your right to be armed doesn’t nullify my own right to also be armed. When unqualified persons are voting, they are effectively cancelling out the votes of people who are legitimate voters. That is a travesty of justice.

  4. avatar Mike H says:

    In case anyone hadnt noticed, the NY Time’s motto on nearly every subject under the sun: “four legs good two legs bette”r and when asked about the discrepancy the response is “weve always been at war with East Asia”.

  5. avatar Dev says:

    This issue shows how ridiculous our country can be. The right to bear arms was one of the first rights enumerated in the Constitution, yet there is restriction after restriction placed upon that right. Yet ask someone for id when voting and everyone gets in an uproar about violating their rights! Voting wasn’t even explicitly mentioned in the Constitution until 1868 with the 14th amendment!

    1. avatar int19h says:

      Just because something was not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it’s not a natural right, or not an important right.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    The New York Times makes me wish that I had a parrot.

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      I have a puppy in need of potty training that could fill in for you until you are able to engage your inner pirate.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Get an African Grey; they’re the best at parroting. But they’re about $800, and won’t really make you look piratey.

  7. avatar Hal says:

    If you are looking for fair, consistent and level-headed treatment from the old grey bag, your blood pressure would be better served if looked elsewhere. They are nothing more than a den of fringe liberals these days. They have very little meaningful input these days.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Over the last decade they’ve zoomed to the bottom of the can along with the Daily News and The Post. The Post has actually been a little better written lately, so the battle for the bottom continues apace.

  8. avatar Joshkins says:

    I honestly hate the whole “Democrat v Republican” deal and how TTAG is getting more political of late. Yes the New York times is a left leaning paper. Yes allot of left leaning people and organizations are anti gun, but it is not a defining characteristic. I mean look at how dead the entire anti-gun movement is. Any of the big Demies are not even touching that issue with a 10 foot pole, its a death sentence election wise, and supreme courts seem to be siding in the side of the second amendment. Or at least that’s how the rulings seem to be going.

    Branding an entire group of people(ie democrats) as beneath you or idiotic because some(even if it is a majority) don’t agree wit you one one issue seem petty. I mean honestly? You’ve never met a pro-gun democrat? Maybe just focus on gun news, in other words pro gun vs anti gun and none of this party bull crap?

    1. avatar Delbert Grady says:

      They might be “pro gun” Democrats but they vote Democrat, which puts anti gun politicians in power. Just because Obama backed down on gun control doesnt mean it isnt a major goal of his regime and the Democrats. What Obama cant do at the federal level he lets his minions do at the state level. NYs SAFE Act ring a bell? And you think the Democrats arent having any luck with anti gun legislation?

      You can keep your blinders if you like your blinders.

      1. avatar H.R. says:

        There’s nothing on your voter registration that requires you to have your party affiliation tattooed over your heart and to vote straight party line every single time.

        One could argue that if you could get a big enough group of pro-gun Democrats voting as a block in primary elections, they could possibly get gun control written entirely out of the party. It may not be possible, but if it is, no amount of ranting from Republicans and Independents could do it – only Democrats could.

        1. avatar Delbert Grady says:

          Yeah, and the Lucky Charms elf might appear and lead me to a pot of gold. Same odds as Democrats breaking rank.

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      “I mean look at how dead the entire anti-gun movement is. Any of the big Demies are not even touching that issue with a 10 foot pole”

      You just wait till there is ANY excuse, crisis or somewhat viable reason to return to the trumpeting of the bloody red shirt waving. Said shirt waving will be done almost ENTIRELY by people with a D next to their name, not to say some equally chodelike critters with an R might not hop on the band wagon.

      This is THE issue, and anyone who is a “pro gun democrat” (useful idiot?) obviously does not enjoy their firearms or freedom enough as they happily choose to side with politicians who openly declare their insatiable appetites for those VERY SAME freedoms.

      Walks like a duck etc. This is why I truly believe our 2 party system is beyond FUBAR.

      Ever hear about a fish that sits on the bottom of the ocean appearing wounded or dead so that its prey can close in with a false sense of security?

    3. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Here’s the Democratic Party’s position on gun control (from the National Party Platform):

      Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Damn… you posted the same thing as I was typing.

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        They’re doing it wrong.

      3. avatar H.R. says:

        If the Democratic party really wanted an open, honest national conversation about guns, they wouldn’t have tried to exclude the voice of millions of Americans from that conversation. Last year, VP Biden had his little chat sessions following Sandy Hook and at no point was any pro-gun group invited. They found a seat for Wal-Mart, but they could’t find room at the table for any pro-gun voice representing the People? That’s just plain shameful.

        Having said that, the Republican Presidential Candidate last time around gleefully signed an assault weapons ban into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. Republicans are quick to forget that, but it’s true. Romney was no friend to gun owners either.

        For instance, from an article in 2004 –

        “Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

        “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

        http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html

        So if you’re committed to protecting the Second Amendment, who do you vote for? The guy who wants to ban your guns or the guy who already has?
        Which toilet do you want to drown yourself in?

    4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      The Democratic Party’s openly stated platform on firearms is:

      “We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole —so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.” (bold mine)

      While I don’t believe Republicans are friends of the 2A, or any of the other 9 Amendments in the BoR, they are more likely to oppose gun control measures (at least when the spotlight is turned up) than Democrats. That being said, I don’t trust Republican politicians any more than Democrat politicians (or politicians in general). Remember, the criticism within Robert’s post has been earned by the Democratic Party, not branded upon them by TTAG.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Also don’t forget that the NYT is serving as a Democratic megaphone, and has been increasingly for years. [Keeping things on topic.]

    5. avatar Ardent says:

      I believe that ‘pro-gun democrat’ is a misnomer. I believe that would properly be described as a left leaning or liberal independent, since gun control is written into the democratic party’s platform.

      Just as a ‘pro choice republican’ would be oxymoronic and more properly described as a conservative or right leaning independent.

      In fact, with 300 million people largely divided between only two parties it’s difficult to believe that the vast majority aren’t more properly independents with various bents and different priorities on issues.
      I’m an independent. . . however my priorities more closely align with the republican platform and my highest priority is liberty and more specifically gun rights. As such I’ve never had opportunity to vote for a democrat in any election ever though I would in theory if said democrat were truly the better friend to the 2A than the republican running against him.

      A ‘pro-gun democrat’ would, I think, have to be someone who held some other issue at a much higher priority than 2A rights and thus was willing to sacrifice the latter to achieve the former.

      Much of the venom of pro-2A supporters for democrats in general probably has as much to do with the fact that they typically see themselves as self reliant and independent as it does with gun rights. It’s not just the 2A, it’s that those most interested in the supporting it often disagree with most other planks in the democrat platform as well.

  9. avatar South of I-80 says:

    Isn’t it silly that getting a $5 ID to vote is a racist burden, but >$300 to bear arms is suddenly NOT a burden?

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Plus most if not all of the states with ID laws have a hardship waiver, and will issue a state ID card for free to those who can’t pay for one.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      In many cases the only place that issues ID is very far away for many otherwise eligible voters, so factor in the travel expenses and losses incurred by taking a day off to get there and back…

      There’s no problem with ID requirement for voting – that’s how all other civilized countries do it, including “socialist” Europe – but if it’s a requirement, then the state better damn ensure that every eligible citizen gets the ID with no fuss.

      1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        I do agree with that, however the point the OP was making was that there is a double standard being applied to the cost of getting a state issue, photo ID vs. the cost of getting a concealed carry permit. If it’s an injustice that someone cannot afford one, why is it not an injustice when the second is too expensive? After all, they are both fundamental rights.

  10. avatar Roscoe says:

    “Democrats say the ruling makes it far more difficult for people to register”

    Maybe if Democrats spent less time and money working to break voting laws they’d have plenty of time and funds to assist LEGAL voters with acquiring the needed documentation to comply with ID requirements.

  11. avatar Julian says:

    A. I’m a naturalized citizen, came here with little to nothing. I got an ID.

    B. If you are low income earner there are ways to waive the fee for getting an ID.

    C. If you can’t afford to spend the time, make an appointment before hand, guess what when I was a legal resident at the bottom of the ladder working my butt off I did that, couldn’t afford to loose an entire day so I made an appointment before hand.

    D. If you are a senior, some states have discount for god sake or completely free.

    In other word if someone like me who came from a third world country managed to get one… anyone here can do it to…unless of course they lack the willpower to do so.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Or they are [ahem] not quite legal but here.

  12. avatar Korvis says:

    There was (and, really, remains) no voting-right equivalent to the 2A in the Constitution. Article I expressly contemplates that states will determine the “Qualifications requisite for Electors.” There is no generally applicable right to vote recognized anywhere else in the document.

    Even the wording of the amendments extending the franchise to certain groups contemplates abridgement of the right, e.g.: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”

    …the implication being that the right may be denied or abridged for other reasons, as determined by the states.

    Compare all that to “…shall not be infringed.”

    No other right is recognized as clearly and unambiguously as the 2A.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yeah, that was a result of the whole slave-owning indiscretion by the framers.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Not just that, they had property requirements for voting early on, too. Most of the wealthy guys representing the States (aka Founding Father) didn’t really fancy the rabble voting on matter of importance.

  13. avatar NotoriousAPP says:

    Let’s not fool ourselves, the Republicans would happily sell us out if it suited their political ambitions. Dems = Repubs.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Let’s not fool ourselves, democrats openly rail for more gun control and the only thing stopping them is republicans in congress. That’s the fact and has been the fact for at least the last 30 years.
      Looking to the states, in those where democrats hold a majority in the statehouse and the governors office there is more gun control than in those where the opposite is the case.

      Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, and don’t go around thinking that it doesn’t matter which party affiliation a candidate has, because it absolutely matters and the evidence is all around you.

  14. avatar alanhinMN says:

    Lets see, you need a passport or a birth certificate in order to get a job, how is that a hard ship for voting, oh wait…. are you telling me that poor people can’t meet that simple requirement to obtain a job? That must be racist.

  15. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Joshkins? This more than just Dem vs. Repub. party loyalty and tribalism. It’s more than mere disagreement on an issue of the day. This isn’t a matter of location of a proposed freeway, naming of a new library, or even the excise tax rate on hotel rooms. Firearms freedoms go to the core of the fundamental relationship between Citizen and State; particularly whether it even is Citizen and State, as opposed to Subject and State, or worse.

    There are people out there, in the streets and in the highest reaches of government, who in their soul believe that some people have an absolute right to rule others. What philosophical foundation they employ, and there have been many throughout history, really isn’t all that important. We’ve seen the Mandate of Heaven, the Divine Right of Kings, the God-King of ancient Egypt’s Pharaohs, Traditional Authority, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Caste System, and perhaps innumerable others. It’s all b.s. because it’s all based on rationalizing one’s arbitrary rule over another, and denying the individual sovereignty of the Individual. Well.

    Firearms freedom, right up there with freedom of speech (in all of its forms), is vital to the form and function of the only legitimate type of government; namely, that which derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. This is an absolute bedrock issue whose import cannot be overstated. The ambit of the freedoms of speech and arms more closely approximates the totality and nature of that Individual/State social contract, than any other one, two, or more tenets in all of political philosophy, in all of human history. It’s kind of a big deal, as the kids say, which is why they’re #’s 1 and 2 in the Bill of Rights.

    Really, absent the First and Second amendments, the U.S. today to us would be largely unrecognizable and likely unlivable.

  16. avatar geoffb says:

    Article IV Section 4 is as close as it, right to vote, comes to being spelled out in the Constitution.

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,”

  17. avatar darkstar says:

    OK serious question. If it’s a hardship for low income people to obtain an ID, how are they managing to go through life without said ID. Do you not need some kind of ID to apply for public assistance, or public housing? To cash a check? To purchase alcohol? I don’t get it. What a crock of shit……..Too hard to have voter fraud with an ID requirement, that’s really the issue.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Exactly this^

      If you want Medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks, jobs, assistance with housing or utilities or really anything else you’ll need government issued ID. One does have to wonder how these people without ID are getting along at all. Incidentally, you’ll need said ID to purchase a firearm as well, ‘shall not be infringed’ not withstanding.

      In my work I see all the most economically challenged people in my area. In fact they seek me out, the disabled, the jobless, the homeless. If you’re very poor and living in my county we’ve probably met since the organization I work for provides all of the homelessness assistance, housing assistance, low income medical care, utilities assistance, and other such services for the poor in the county. Virtually all these services are paid for by some sort of state or federal grant and if you want any of it you must provide a government issued ID. The poor almost universally have such ID on them all the time just like everyone else does and those who don’t can usually figure out how to get it the very day we ask for it. It turns out that when people want something, even poor people, they find a way to get it. Would they go out of their way to get ID to vote? Probably not because it’s just not important to them, but if it were they could.
      Incidentally about half the web based forms we use to enroll our clients in various programs also ask if they want to register to vote. Better than 90% decline assistance with registering. It seems to me that the poor aren’t terribly interested in voting, likely because it requires effort. To most of them it seems that the effort of waiting a moment while someone else fills out the registration for them is too much of a bother, let alone knowing when elections are being held and going all the way to the poll and having to register their vote. Many will complain that answering our questions so that they can receive free stuff is almost too much to bear so there isn’t much danger of them voting anyway (unless, like democrats in many cities, you offer them more free stuff, and a ride to and from the polls and even this doesn’t always convince them to go).

      The only thing made more difficult by the ID requirement is voter fraud plain and simple.

  18. avatar H.R. says:

    I also wonder what the big deal is with having ID to vote. I’ve always got my driver’s license with me and take my voter registration card on election day. If you can expect people to jump through the hoops to get a CCW permit, then what’s the big issue with proving that you actually are a registered voter on election day?

    The voter ID thing seems like a non-issue to me.

  19. avatar maltwit says:

    Liberals who say that voter I.D.s are racist are saying that minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get one … which is, in itself, racist and stupid.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    The NYT, suitable for birdcages everywhere.

    1. avatar gtfoxy says:

      If I had a bird I wouldn’t want his poop contaminated with the NYT’s refusive dribble. ..

  21. avatar Southern Cross says:

    There’s an old joke about voting in elections down-under.

    “Vote early. Vote often.”

    But with the systems in place, you will be found out very quickly and face criminal procedings under the fraud provisions of the electoral act. Doesn’t stop some from trying.

  22. avatar LongPurple says:

    “Back in the Old Corps” — if you were in the ranks and ‘the powers that be’ decided you were required to have some article of clothing or equipment, it was issued to you. You didn’t have to buy it. The same principle should apply to voter IDs. If regulations require a citizen to have an ID to exercise his right to vote, then the state that passed that law should absorb the expense of providing what it requires.
    Same situation with CCW issuance. If the state requires a CCW, let the taxpayers foot the bill, or drop the requirement.

  23. avatar cubby123 says:

    Liberals want universal background checks unless it s at the voting polls.There you don’t even have to show a drivers license.That s because the liberals need the illegal alien votes that they ship in and give cell phones in order to win.Of course our fighting forces votes don’t ever seem to get in in time to count.HMMM!

  24. avatar psychoboy says:

    When Texas put together their latest VoterID law, the federal government combed the landscape to find someone that the new law was going to disenfranchise…

    …and they came up with a college student who did not have the time to get her ducks in a row before the election. she did, however, have time to fly to DC to tell lawmakers that she didn’t have time to go home. No poor people, no immigrants, no minorities, no hardship cases…nobody else made a better case against the new law than this singular student, and she was effectively laughed out of court.

    to hear it from the Anti-ID people, the stats show that very few cases of in-person voter fraud exist. Since the number is so low, it’s “not really a problem”. However, when asked to provide a case of voter disenfranchisement, they cannot come up with any. There has yet to be one single provable case of a legal registered voter being denied the opportunity to vote.

    In short, when something never happens, it’s a problem that can’t be solved quickly enough. But when something only occasionally happens, it’s not a problem that deserves a solution.

  25. authentic Blues jersey sale, suitable for you in your sports life. free shipping and no tax.
    cheap Bucks jersey http://protect-a-bed.com/images/products/allerzip_smooth1.html

  26. The duration of CNA classes is between six to 12 weeks.
    You probably didn’t know, but the American Red Cross has provided nursing assistant training classes for more than two decades.
    You can check with the licensing authority of the respective state for the CNA certification renewal steps.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email