Elections California bans voter ID

[Sinister]

Nice job omitting the rest of my post that address your stupid question. You can't possibly figure out how rampant voter fraud is if you can't verify whether or not its even happening. That's the point.

You didnt even answer his question. He asked you HOW you illegally vote in Cali, and you went on a tangent about something else entirely.

 

[RoastBeast]

well one is the right to shoot people and the other is the right to participate in democracy, so surely you can understand the perceived double standard.

The right to bear arms is not a right to shoot people. You're grasping at straws here.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

The right to bear arms is not a right to shoot people. You're grasping at straws here.

then what is it? are the guns for decoration?

 

[SirRealKiller]

then what is it? are the guns for decoration?

The right to bear arms is not just about shooting people. It's about hunting, recreation, and as a deterrent. 85% of times a gun was brandished in self defense it was never fired. However, you do have a right to shoot, stab, or beat someone who may die as a result if that's is what is required to defend yourself. Guns are tool, shooting people is just one use for it. And in the overwhelming majority of times it was used to shoot someone in self defense they deserved it.

 

[sickc0d3r]

And what stops them.

The registered voter list for the precinct they're in, signature verification, some personal info requirements like last 4 of their social, duplicate vote detection, the fact that it's a crime (felony in my state, not sure about CA) and it's not worth the risk trying to slip one illegal vote past the system, in person, with camera surveillance at most places. Or if they use a provisional ballot, then the verification process that prevents unregistered voters from voting after they submit the ballot.

 

[SirRealKiller]

The registered voter list for the precinct they're in, signature verification, some personal info requirements like last 4 of their social, duplicate vote detection, the fact that it's a crime (felony in my state, not sure about CA) and it's not worth the risk trying to slip one illegal vote past the system, in person, with camera surveillance at most places. Or if they use a provisional ballot, then the verification process that prevents unregistered voters from voting after they submit the ballot.

The signature verification is such BS though, like anyone there could really be sure.

 

[BFoe]

Nice job omitting the rest of my post that address your stupid question. You can't possibly figure out how rampant voter fraud is if you can't verify whether or not it’s even happening. That's the point.

But we do verify it when it happens. We bust people for various types of voter fraud, it’s just super uncommon.

States have mechanisms in place to prevent fraud at registration, at the polls, and as a matter of legal recourse if a voter believes fraud has been committed.

Not if an ID is required. And you have to have an ID to perform many less important things in society but somehow not to vote? Dumbfuckery.

That’s sort of circular reasoning, isn’t it? To put some restriction in place that someone can’t meet and then say they haven’t met the minimum requirements to vote because they can’t meet that restriction you just put there?
—If a person is over 18, a citizen, and can prove residency in their state, they’ve met the minimum requirements to vote. Period.
That’s literally it, aside from being registered by the registration deadline if their state has that.

Who can and cannot vote | USAGov

Can you vote in federal, state, and local elections? Learn about qualifications such as citizenship, minimum age, registration, and more.

www.usa.gov

What “dumbfuckery” is, is engaging in this action which burdens voters, disenfranchises voters, and reduces voter turnout, when there is absolutely no identifiable reason to do that. There’s no data indicating significant fraud, so why are we hurting voters? Citizenship and residency is verified at registration, a person signs their name and recites their address when they show up at the poll, and if a bunch of people showed up falsely claiming to be a certain voter when they weren’t, we’d find out when all those actual voters showed up and found out they were marked as having voted.
None of that is happening.

—This whole voter ID bullshit is nothing more than an attempt by conservatives to make it harder for their opposition to vote.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

The right to bear arms is not just about shooting people. It's about hunting, recreation, and as a deterrent. 85% of times a gun was brandished in self defense it was never fired. However, you do have a right to shoot, stab, or beat someone who may die as a result if that's is what is required to defend yourself. Guns are tool, shooting people is just one use for it. And in the overwhelming majority of times it was used to shoot someone in self defense they deserved it.

ohhhhhh, so the constitution mentions the right to hunting and recreation?

 

[SirRealKiller]

ohhhhhh, so the constitution mentions the right to hunting and recreation?

No, it mentions the right to bear arms which basically means do whatever the fuck you want with your guns.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

No, it mentions the right to bear arms which basically means do whatever the fuck you want with your guns.

if only there were some sort of context to what the guns were for, like "security" or something.

 

[spamking]

Well the smacked it down comment was a little in jest, but mainly came from things I’ve brought up that I felt you ignored—but then you mentioned a long post of mine (a novel, if you will) on this topic that you didn’t see, so that partly explains it.
But any time you want to address my point about 900 examples of colonial texts of “bear arms” meaning what I say it means, and practically 0 examples of it meaning what you think it means, please feel free. It’s an open invitation

Time for my novel.

The 2nd Amendment specifically grants the right to keep and bear arms to "the people," not the military. While the amendment mentions the militia, this is only in the introductory clause, explaining why it's essential for people to have the right to arms. Without an armed populace, organizing a militia wouldn't be feasible. The right to bear arms belongs to the people, not just a formal militia.

Do you need me to provide examples of idioms and synonyms of the word "bear"? We don't need Corpus Linguistics for that.

Assuming you're quoting something like this from Heller:

The following exchange during oral arguments in Heller also demonstrates that bear arms is a military idiom, not a synonym for ‘carry a gun.’ Solicitor General Paul Clement claimed that bear arms means “to carry them outside the home.” Justice Souter asked him, “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?” Clement replied, “I would say that and so would Madison and so would Jefferson.” But Souter wasn’t convinced: “In the eighteenth century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded, no, that is not the way they talk: “I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter didn’t need to point out that bear arms appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

The word bear is synonymous with the word carry. The phrase "to keep and bear arms" is a military idiom but it's most definitely synonymous with carrying a firearm. When the phrase is used in the military what do you think they mean to say? Do you understand that military jargon may not align with civilian jargon, but is in no way 100% limited to use in military situations?

The idea that a phrase has been deemed to only be usable or only fits for use in a military setting is ridiculous. "Bear arms" was a commonly used military term meaning "to carry a weapon" when discussing proper etiquette for wearing headgear. It wasn't specifically related to combat but rather referred to routine, everyday responsibilities.

The right belongs to the people, not the government or militia. This interpretation strengthens the idea that individuals have the right to possess and carry arms suitable for military use (This is what I mean by fully expressing our 2A rights). It suggests that the Second Amendment protects the people's right to be prepared for, and properly equipped for, open combat at any time.

Regardless, until DC v. Heller is overturned the scope of the 2A is very clear whether you agree with it or not.

Are you willing to answer my other question, though—what do you mean by “fully expressing” a right?

 

[SirRealKiller]

if only there were some sort of context to what the guns were for, like "security" or something.

Well, at the time it was written gun ownership was a matter of course. Nobody would have questioned anyone's right to own a gun. People at the still depended on hunting for food, guns to protect their animals from predators, and to protect themselves. The constitution does not lay these things out specifically because it was not something they would have even questioned at the time. The reason for the second amendment was that due to the British they believed standing armies were a threat to democracy. They believed a well regulated militia should be allowed to be kept and people should be allowed to keep arms for this purpose as well. Now "well regulated" in those days didn't mean they should be restricted by government, the term in that day was used to say that they should be trained and outfitted like the military. So, in fact, the authors would likely have no issues with US citizens having fully automatic rifles like our military does.

Shall we continute?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Well, at the time it was written gun ownership was a matter of course. Nobody would have questioned anyone's right to own a gun. People at the still depended on hunting for food, guns to protect their animals from predators, and to protect themselves. The constitution does not lay these things out specifically because it was not something they would have even questioned at the time. The reason for the second amendment was that due to the British they believed standing armies were a threat to democracy. They believed a well regulated militia should be allowed to be kept and people should be allowed to keep arms for this purpose as well. Now "well regulated" in those days didn't mean they should be restricted by government, the term in that day was used to say that they should be trained and outfitted like the military. So, in fact, the authors would likely have no issues with US citizens having fully automatic rifles like our military does.

Shall we continute?

i said "security" not "well-regulated" you had your default regurgitated talking point queued up for a different response.

guns are for shooting or threatening to shoot. this isn't rocket science.

 

[Darkballs]

What “dumbfuckery” is, is engaging in this action which burdens voters, disenfranchises voters, and reduces voter turnout, when there is absolutely no identifiable reason to do that. There’s no data indicating significant fraud, so why are we hurting voters? Citizenship and residency is verified at registration, a person signs their name and recites their address when they show up at the poll, and if a bunch of people showed up falsely claiming to be a certain voter when they weren’t, we’d find out when all those actual voters showed up and found out they were marked as having voted.
None of that is happening.

Agree on all points.

We should also point out, people pushing voter ID law aren't proposing some new tech or otherwise better version of ID that somehow is more useful for preventing fraud than say my regular state ID. It's just an additional card we've got to carry around that brings nothing to the table.

Hell, this isn't even how voting works. A vote has to be matched to a registered voter. The safeguard is in that process, not the 80-year old volunteer checking ID's at the local community center.

I think we all know that proponents of Voter ID laws are just lying. They know it's an extra burden and they know it will result in less votes. They just believe it arms them with an excuse to blame the person for not taking whatever extra steps they want to put them through.

 

[oldshadow]

The registered voter list for the precinct they're in, signature verification, some personal info requirements like last 4 of their social, duplicate vote detection, the fact that it's a crime (felony in my state, not sure about CA) and it's not worth the risk trying to slip one illegal vote past the system, in person, with camera surveillance at most places. Or if they use a provisional ballot, then the verification process that prevents unregistered voters from voting after they submit the ballot.

No ID required to register and no ID required to prove you are that person.

How many states require you to give last 3 of SS number.

Here is a link to what is required.

Voter identification laws by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[koquerelle]

Who is against that? I gather that people are against making voter id laws when data shows there are barriers to obtaining it for many Americans.

It's why I think the government should do something about it. Can you imagine the problems you face if you don't have a proper ID?

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I took care of my dad at one point and I faced many hurdles because he didn't have 2 proper IDs. Imagine having none.

The Republicans want voters to have IDs. Make them accept a program where people get a free ID.

 

[Andy Capp]

It's why I think the government should do something about it. Can you imagine the problems you face if you don't have a proper ID?

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I took care of my dad at one point and I faced many hurdles because he didn't have 2 proper IDs. Imagine having none.

The Republicans want voters to have IDs. Make them accept a program where people get a free ID.

Yeah, there's apparently only a certain segment of the US population who would manage to find a problem with that. But the leadership has to be convinced of that and that the political will exists before it will get done. Here's hoping, I guess.

 

[sickc0d3r]

No ID required to register and no ID required to prove you are that person.

How many states require you to give last 3 of SS number.

Here is a link to what is required.

Voter identification laws by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

You're required to identify yourself as a citizen over 18 when you register or the first time you vote. Your name along with the last 4 of your social works as ID, what's wrong with that?

This is the Cali state link: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/registering-vote

 

[oldshadow]

You're required to identify yourself as a citizen over 18 when you register or the first time you vote. Your name along with the last 4 of your social works as ID, what's wrong with that?

This is the Cali state link: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/registering-vote

The new law bans requiring ID. ID should be required to register and then some type of proof it's you when ypu vote.

No proof is required to register not even a SS card.

The voter registration application asks for your driver license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four numbers on your Social Security card. If you do not have a driver license, California identification card or Social Security card, you may leave that space blank. Your county elections official will assign a number to you that will be used to identify you as a voter.