The difference is easy: guns can be used to kill people, elections can't (at least in any conventional sense).

Great point. I guess it depends on who you are speaking to.

Votes choose who gets the power to kill you.

Because unlike flying in an airplane (or buying liquor, or buying a gun, or any of the other examples that folks like to cite as supposed parallels), voting is THE basic, fundamental right of all Americans. The first three words of the Constitution aren't "We the Flyers"...and they aren't "We the Drinkers"...or "We the Shooters". The Constitution - and all the powers WE give to the government - come from "We the People," and the way that we express our collective ownership of this country and its government is through casting a ballot. And courts have always held that placing unnecessary roadblocks to discourage voting (such as the South's Jim Crow poll taxes) is simply not allowed. That's why I have complete faith that this monstrosity of a roadblock will be overturned by the courts long before we go to vote in November. If it is allowed to stand, I completely agree that there will be chaos and possible violence on Election Day.

who says that I am not ticked off at an overinvasive government?

We also need voters in order for democracy to survive. Trying to say we need a "literate" voter makes it seem like you would want some sort of requirements before you vote (highly illegal). Voter turnout in the US is abysmal. This will only make it worse.

Unfortunately, MontCoDem, the USSC has upheld the principle of photo ID for voters as a reasonable, unintrusive requirement (Indiana, 2008).

Interesting that you would throw in a reference to violence at the polls when it comes to a - thus far - constitutional law.

Actually, everything is a right of the people unless expressly prohibited through the Constitution or applicable state law (per the 9th amendment).

Supreme Court has made mistakes in the interest of politics and is no where near infallible (Dred Scott, Citizen's United, etc.).

... the Affordable Care Act ...

Not that I think the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, but I can at least appreciate the argument that it might be and who knows, maybe someday down the road it will be overturned and if it is it would just be another example of the Supreme Court realizing they were wrong.

Well that was a wildly speculative argument. I don't think anyone said any of the things you claimed (aside from the quote, which can be argued because democracy needs the right to vote.. making it the basic fundamental right) and many of your assertions are just plain wrong.

if you are able to vote -
you are the pig on the animal farm - with more influence than someone who's right has been diminished.

Mr. Ferraro, do you personally know someone who will be forbidden to vote, because they lack some form of acceptable identification? I don't mean someone who merely refuses to show ID as a form of protest, but someone who is referred to as truly being "disenfranchised"? Someone that is at risk of being denied their Right to cast a vote?
I read the arguments against the legislation, but I only see vague references to some "sector" of the population that would be denied access to casting a ballot.
As you strongly believe the legislation is bad, and felt compelled to write about it, can you give me a specific example of someone you know, who is at risk?
At this time, the only thing I take away from your post is that you dislike those who drafted the legislation, and that seems to be the position of many who stand against it. If there is a legitimate threat to our Right to vote, I would very much like to hear it.

Look up the people who filed the lawsuit against the state. They have been denied their right to vote.

@ Mr. Finnick... I'm not sure how my post was "wildly speculative" and exactly what I was asserting, other than offering an observation and opinion. If someone suggests that it is wrong or unconstitutional to require ID be shown at the polls, why would they not argue the same for the requirement as it pertains to the Second Amendment? Previously, you stated it has to do with the lethal potential of guns, but hands kill, cars kill, baseball bats kill, etc. so I am unable to make the connection that you tried to illustrate.
Nor do I understand where I am "just plain wrong". I welcome the opportunity to hear how you believe I am wrong. Since you would put forth the argument that the Right to Vote supercedes all other Rights, I would countert that the Right to defend against a government that becomes oppressive is equally important, and as we have seen throughout history, sometimes we cannot defend against such a government by simply voting.
I would "assert" that all our Rights are equally important. And unfortunately, as we become a society of increasingly dependent and irresponsible people, modifications are made to our Rights, in order to keep the Rights relevant to the times. We see an incredible influx of illegal aliens into our country. There are cities in our country that have given them a vote in local elections. I believe that is wrong, and I suggest we keep them from diminishing the Right that you and I have earned, as American citizens.

I did as you suggested, and found differing stories in the media.
Several stories state the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the NAACP, and other groups. Other stories list the ACLU, the Advancement Project and the Public Interest Law Center of Phila, but don't list the NAACP.
Further, some stories say the lawsuit was filed on behalf of 93 y/o Viviette Applewhite, who states her purse which contained her ID was stolen, and she fears she will be unable to replace it in time to vote. Other stories say she has never had a drivers license, and will be unable to vote.
I can continue to search for the facts, as they probably exist somewhere, but has she been denied the Right to vote? As far as I have learned, she has not been denied the Right to vote, as it pertains to this legislation.
And I would like to ask Ms. Applewhite if she receives social security benefits, medicare benefits, visits a doctor, if she rents or owns her own home, if she has a bank account, and how she attained any of these things, or went through 93 years in this country without some form of identification?
Who exactly has been denied the Right to vote? The law hasn't even been applied to an election in PA yet, so how did this legislation deny someone the Right to vote?
I am just seeking answers that some of you seem to have, but don't seem to want share.

Your post was wildly speculative because you take one argument about the right to vote and then apply it to other random rights from healthcare to purchasing guns. You also just assume that because people are concerned about the right to vote that they are unconcerned with other rights and that your rights are somehow less important than others (this is probably the most wildly speculative part of your post).
Guns make it easier to kill than all of the other weapons you mentioned, don't be silly.
Also, no one is trying to take your guns, so chill a bit. You should show your ID for guns because they need to be registered to specific people (you know, so you can safely have those guns instead of them ending up in the hands of people who are not stable enough for firearms).
You don't have to show a photo ID for healthcare (I never have) and if you have been going to the same bank your whole life and have the correct numbers or just use an ATM you do not need ID for that either.
How the woman came to not have ID does not really matter. What does matter is that she does not have it and due to her moves, she will be most likely unable to obtain a birth certificate in time for the election. This seems an unfair burden to place on certain parts of the population (especially on such short notice). This also adding to the fact that there have been no voter impersonation cases in PA and absurdly few in the US as a whole and that those parts would vote Democrat makes this wrong.

Thank you for your reply. While you and I will continue to disagree on this matter, it does create discussion from varying viewpoints, and perhaps gets others thinking about these issues.
To address some of your examples, let me say that I am asked for identification once a year when I go to my doctor's office. It is done so as a measure to guard against insurance fraud. I don't know how much insurance fraud may be occurring in my doctor's office, but they do ask for it. Would they deny me the visit to see the doctor if I didn't have it? I don't know, but they do ask for it.
I have been using the same bank for 20 years, and they ask to see my driver's license at least every 4 years, when the license is renewed. They do this to guard against theft. Again, would they deny me access to my account? I don't know, but
as a responsible member of American society, I have the necessary items that I would need, in order to conduct business in our country.
I guess some believe this legislation was enacted to stop a large block of Democratic voters from voting. Others believe it was enacted to stop illegal aliens from voting and to reduce the potential for voter fraud. I guess there is little room for compromise.
I will add that, yes, there are many in this country who are afforded more Rights than me. Many laws are written to protect the Rights of some, versus others. I am not a "protected class" of citizen.
It makes you wonder if you and I are living in the same country.

I would like to thank you as well for your thoughtful and civil post (something I usually find lacking on Patch).

You and I fundamentally disagree on this issue and on our rights in general.

You see this issue as safeguarding the voting process from those who are not citizens. I see it as a way to keep Democrats from voting.

You see the regulation of guns as interfering with your Constitutional rights. I see it as a way to ensure the safety of the population.

I understand your views and while I think they are somewhat valid because who would want non-citizens voting and who would want to take away our guaranteed rights, I do not agree with them.

I fear we will never come to a consensus, but at least we can speak about this in a civilized manner and at least listen to what the other is saying. When people stop listening to others, that is when nothing in this country will ever get done and it will be left to rot.

no - talking about the potential for violence is showing how wrong the law is.

how do we define a free country if security forces have to deployed in order to have a violence-free election?

Right on Roman. Schwartz has got to go !

Unfortunately that list is so full of inaccuracies, it cannot be relied upon. The systems used to compare the two lists could not even distinguish between various uses of spacing, hyphenation, even the ubiquitous Mc and O' surname prefaces threw it for a loop.

So even names like W. Wilson Goode, Jr and his son The III were on the list, along with four Philadelphia Councilmen and the old Veterans Stadium "drunk court judge" McCaffrey all appeared on the list. And each one had possessed the proper photo ID for YEARS!

I think you need to ask for a better list! It would undoubtedly be A LOT SHORTER than 759,000 people.

If you are going to use PennDOT to determine voting - that is a BIG problem.

I agree the lists need to be cleaned - but that should be independent of the Voter Id bill.

This was a purge to kill the Democrat's ability to get out the vote.

I am hoping for a large backfire.

Dude,
What laws are you talking about - or are you deflecting?

Think about it.
You get paid $120 per day twice a year to be an enforcer of a law designed to disenfranchise people?
You want to take these people's conscientious objection away from them?

Wow - sign me up to get prosecuted.