To be honest, I haven't even seen a gun transaction in years but what I remember involved both paperwork and waiting ... so I'm really still not seeing an equivalence.
Of course, maybe buying a gun has gotten a lot easier ... seems unlikely though.
The reality seems to be that few people have difficulty procuring ID ... while everyone has difficulty procuring a gun.
Both of these constitutional rights endanger the lives and livelihoods of others if not exercised responsibly.
When I bought my most recent firearm, it was fairly quick...the paper work took about 5 mins, the background check was nearly instant. I was in and out of the store in less than 15 mins. I've yet to be lucky enough to make it through a DMV line that quickly.
Right now it's a lot easier to purchase a gun...
ARMSLIST - For Sale: ATI AR15 223/556 new in box
That's the issue, I could be a felon for all this private seller knows, show up looking clean cut and respectable, hand them $500 cash, walk away with a "new in box" AR15...no backgrounds checks, no questions asked.
40% of guns sales go through these kinds of outlets.
Most people who are advocating universal background checks aren't even anti-gun...I'm okay with universal background checks, I've got multiple AR's, and AK, 2 shotguns, and an assortment of handguns as well as a concealed carry permit and carry just about everywhere that will legally allow it...I went through the proper channels for each and every purchase. I'm certainly not anti-gun by any means...I love guns and shoot on a regular basis. However, I respect guns, more importantly, respect the amount of damage they're capable of causing if not handled properly. Because of that, I have no problem with vetting people to make sure they're legal, competent, and mentally sound.
The vetting shouldn't be unreasonable like it is in some localities...I'd certainly never want to live under NYC or Cali's gun laws...however, it shouldn't be so lax that 40% of transactions happen with absolutely zero vetting other than "yeah, this guy looks alright to me".
As for voting, the republican "voting control" measures remind me of democratic "gun control" measures as they go beyond validation, and cross into the realm of deterrence.
As someone who favors the libertarian policy of "we should only be governed just enough to make sure our rights to life, liberty, and property are reasonably protected" and as someone who opposes wasteful government regulations, I'd have to vote against voter ID laws. To me, putting in place a policy that requires people to spend money in order to vote, all in the name of preventing an issue that wouldn't haven't changed the outcomes of any recent elections anyway, is the definition of wasteful spending.
However, the voter ID laws really aren't aimed at preventing the democrats from cheating, regardless of how they're packaged. The purpose of the voter ID laws are to help republicans win more elections going forward by disenfranchising people who typically don't vote for them.
The idea that "we'll put in place a policy that could potentially jeopardize the ability of 15 million registered voters, to make sure that those other 80 people don't try to cheat" somehow jives with "we need to keep the integrity of the system in place to make sure that election outcomes are as close as possible to representing the will of the registered voters" is completely backwards.
If you have to pick a system that's as close to accurate as possible, you error on the side of +80 and not on the side of -15000000.
