Elections California bans voter ID

[Darkballs]

I must hae missed where the right to vote without ID was in it

It's right there in the 1st Amendment. Use that big brain of yours.

It gives us the right to vote, right? Still with me?

Now where in the Constitution, does it say anything about my government first requiring me to provide a special little voter ID before I get to use my god given right? Because I don't see anything.

Which begs the most elementary of questions: How is it not an infringement to require me to do so?

This is basic ConLaw 101. You want to work around it, you either just straight up provide these ID's at no cost or hassle to every citizen in your district; or, show us actual evidence of voter fraud which you think justifies this infringement.

The burden isn't on us, the people, to prove that getting an ID is too big a deal. It's on the State to prove that an infringement, even one you think is slight, is justified. This is at the core of our Constitution.

And I know you'll trash your own rights the second you think it gives you a slight political advantage, but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to join you on your knees.

 

[andnowweknow]

You said "Why are you so interested in solving non existent problems?" to another poster. What problem was California fixing when they banned ID's?

California hasn't banned ID's ding dong.

 

[Yoricks Wisdom]

Three cheers for ConLaw 101

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

So, would you say that taking away an AR-15 is not an infringement upon your right to bare arms?

Taking away an AR-15 still leaves you with a 2nd amendment right. You can still pack your 9mm, shot gun, .45, .22, muzzle loaders, and various other guns.

So I guess you are arguing that we can ban AR's since it doesn't infringe upon your right.

 

[badascan]

Why are you so interested in solving non existent problems?

Am I "so interested" or sharing an opinion?

 

[TrueBias]

Republicans keep pushing for voter ID because they know a lot of people in the Democratic base do not have valid ID's.

The scare tactic they keep using is that there is widespread voter fraud or illegals voting - which is simply not true.

Translation:

We have a way to prove that votes are authentic. But let's skip authentification because one side said it's a way to question voter fraud.

Agreed. I want NO way to know a vote is real.

 

[spamking]

So, would you say that taking away an AR-15 is not an infringement upon your right to bare arms?

Taking away an AR-15 still leaves you with a 2nd amendment right. You can still pack your 9mm, shot gun, .45, .22, muzzle loaders, and various other guns.

So I guess you are arguing that we can ban AR's since it doesn't infringe upon your right.

Please read what I posted again and think about it for a second. That's not what I said or would say at all.

Anything (removing a gun) that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right (using the most commonly owned rifle in the country), even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

 

[spamking]

But it doesn’t. It doesn’t prevent you from fully expressing a right. it doesn’t even discourage you from exercising it. For example, you believe the 2A encompasses a right to self defense. You’re telling me that if someone tried (for example) to break into your home and threaten you, you can’t defend yourself because you don’t have a suppressor? Come on man. Your expansion of the word “infringement” to encompass every single preference, convenience, and desire you have has gotten to be ridiculous at this point—and that’s even with me using the Roberts Court’s wildly expansive view of the 2A.

You people were complaining about paying for an ID as a means to discourage or disenfranchise voters and I complained about paying for a tax stamp to buy a suppressor, but now you're going to try and gaslight me into believing that being forced to pay $200 for something to protect my hearing doesn't discourage people from buying them? A suppressor is an accessory. It enhances the shooters experience. Owning one allows us to take full advantage of our 2A rights. Proclaiming otherwise is just outright stupidity. Placing the tax stamp requirement on NFA items is 100% meant to discourage people from making those purchases.

No, I'm not telling you that I couldn't defend myself if someone broke into my house and didn't own a suppressor. But if there was a domestic violence victim who went to buy a gun to defend herself and she had to wait 10 days to get it . . . THAT is an infringement.

You aren't changing my mind. Can we move on now?

 

[BFoe]

You people were complaining about paying for an ID as a means to discourage or disenfranchise voters and I complained about paying for a tax stamp to buy a suppressor, but now you're going to try and gaslight me into believing that being forced to pay $200 for something to protect my hearing doesn't discourage people from buying them? A suppressor is an accessory. It enhances the shooters experience. Owning one allows us to take full advantage of our 2A rights. Proclaiming otherwise is just outright stupidity. Placing the tax stamp requirement on NFA items is 100% meant to discourage people from making those purchases.

No, I'm not telling you that I couldn't defend myself if someone broke into my house and didn't own a suppressor. But if there was a domestic violence victim who went to buy a gun to defend herself and she had to wait 10 days to get it . . . THAT is an infringement.

You aren't changing my mind. Can we move on now?

Dude, you are the one who brings this 2nd Amendment complaining into every discussion we have. It literally feels like it happens every single discussion. This thread is about voting rights, you brought 2A into this. And then you complain that I’m somehow “gaslighting” you by bringing up things like the gun laws in colonial times, SCOTUS decisions on the 2A from the 19th century, or the massive database of colonial texts which prove your interpretation is wrong. You’ve certainly been gaslit, but not by me.

It’s already well established that on this topic, you operate off of feelings and not data, so sure—we can move on whenever you’re ready. Just know that each time you interject this pro-gun lobby bs into our discussions, I’m going to smack it down.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Please read what I posted again and think about it for a second. That's not what I said or would say at all.

Anything (removing a gun) that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right (using the most commonly owned rifle in the country), even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

Removing an AR does not prevent you from fully expressing a 2nd amendment right.

 

[andnowweknow]

Am I "so interested" or sharing an opinion?

So interested...in having less American citizens being allowed to vote. Clearly actually.

 

[spamking]

Dude, you are the one who brings this 2nd Amendment complaining into every discussion we have. It literally feels like it happens every single discussion. This thread is about voting rights, you brought 2A into this. And then you complain that I’m somehow “gaslighting” you by bringing up things like the gun laws in colonial times, SCOTUS decisions on the 2A from the 19th century, or the massive database of colonial texts which prove your interpretation is wrong. You’ve certainly been gaslit, but not by me.

It’s already well established that on this topic, you operate off of feelings and not data, so sure—we can move on whenever you’re ready. Just know that each time you interject this pro-gun lobby bs into our discussions, I’m going to smack it down.

Wow. You're a legend in your own mind. It's fascinating how you pick and choose what rights to try and defend.

 

[spamking]

Removing an AR does not prevent you from fully expressing a 2nd amendment right.

Putting boundaries and barriers on what type of firearms someone can use does exactly that.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Putting boundaries and barriers on what type of firearms someone can use does exactly that.

So you are saying that your right to vote is being violated because you can't vote in a different state's elections?

The absence of you being allowed to vote in California does not infringe on your right to vote in New York.

 

[spamking]

So you are saying that your right to vote is being violated because you can't vote in a different state's elections?

The absence of you being allowed to vote in California does not infringe on your right to vote in New York.

How you read what I post and come up with various situations in your head is astounding.

No, that's not what I've said.

Will you please stop playing this game?

 

[Fedor>Cain]

How you read what I post and come up with various situations in your head is astounding.

No, that's not what I've said.

Will you please stop playing this game?

Yes it is lol.

You made a blanket statement that falls apart with any sort of scrutiny.

It's pretty obvious that your statement only applies to things you agree with.

 

[spamking]

Yes it is lol.

You made a blanket statement that falls apart with any sort of scrutiny.

It's pretty obvious that your statement only applies to things you agree with.

Wow. I made a statement that applies to a specific issue. Apparently, it's not obvious enough what it applies to for you.

 

[koquerelle]

And make no mistake, that is their purpose.

It is their purpose, but I fail to see how having an ID is a bad thing. Let the government help people get an one. It will be useful for many things.

I took care of my dad and I had so many problems because he ended up with one valid ID at some point. It was a pain in the neck.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Wow. I made a statement that applies to a specific issue. Apparently, it's not obvious enough what it applies to for you.

You're a liar.

Here is your quote lmao..

Anything (removing a gun) that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right (using the most commonly owned rifle in the country), even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

It's very clear that you aren't talking about a specific issue and are talking about rights in general.

Rights are not absolute. Free speech is not absolute. You can't make terroristic threats for example.

Freedom of the press is not absolute. You can't be Alex Jones and spread lies or you will get railroaded in the ass for example.

Felons can't own guns.

Felons can't vote in some states and in others they can.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Please read what I posted again and think about it for a second. That's not what I said or would say at all.

Anything (removing a gun) that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right (using the most commonly owned rifle in the country), even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

Great now apply that to voter ID laws designed to make it harder for blacks to vote.