DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[oneaudiopro]

Can you describe how it’s possible to cheat voting in California without voter fraud being easily detectable

Easy......This is a democrat run state so there is no motivation to even try to investigate fraud as it would disrupt their voters.

 

[couragewolf]

Easy......This is a democrat run state so there is no motivation to even try to investigate fraud as it would disrupt their voters.

So that massive audit they just did a few years ago didn’t include California votes? Why wouldn’t democrats want to know if republicans were cheating?

 

[couragewolf]

Sorry guys I just don’t buy this voter fraud bull. When you vote for democrats or republicans you’re basically voting for the same party and same interest groups they don’t need fraud to win every single election when you vote pro billionaire interests every time no matter who wins

 

[Jimi Jah]

Can you describe how it’s possible to cheat voting in California without voter fraud being easily detectable

Easy. Lie on the application. Purging illegal voters is a low priority here. Otherwise California wouldn't be against showing ID to vote.

 

[grandpapeepap]

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2021/09...-idaho-counties-shows-less-than-1-error-rate/

Here we see the republican stronghold of idaho actually had LESS trump votes in some places than they originally said after an audit. Must be fraud

 

[grandpapeepap]

Easy. Lie on the application. Purging illegal voters is a low priority here. Otherwise California wouldn't be against showing ID to vote.

You do have to show ID on your first election here in california. Its there on the website i linked before.
In most cases, NO. California does not generally require voters to show identification at the polls. You may need to show ID only if ALL of the following apply:

• You're voting for the first time in a federal election.
• You registered by mail or online, and
• You did not provide your CA ID or SSN when registering.
  
  remember the AB60 License would have the restrictions on voting right on it so they wouldnt be allowed to vote anyways

 

[BOLT1908]

And people in other states were caught voting for trump twice and getting caught or using their dead relatives to vote for trump. Facts over feelings crowd when you show them the facts still like to stick with their feelings. Like how you have to be a citizen to vote in california

Not sure where you think I’m saying “red states are innocent” or that I only think CA is the problem.

Our nations voting system has been corrupted and people continue to argue on the behalf of the “party” they identify with.

I’m sick of the team jersey rules. The government doesn’t care about your rights.

I may disagree with someone but I promise I care more about their rights than the government does….if you have your rights then I still have Mine.

I don’t care if you voted for someone different than me. I’d still climb in a wrecked car or a burning building for you as well as vote for your rights.

Notice how my point is corruption needs to stop and our rights are ours….and the response is immediately an attack against Trump. I’m failing to see where I ever mentioned that I’m his advocate in any way….

People have been so brainwashed that if you say “freedom” or “America” this odd Trump syndrome comes out. Gate to tell you, America was here long before Trump…and so was freedoms.

It’s your responsibility to be voting for things that are going to secure our rights and freedoms….REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY IT IS. stop being led to slaughter by these politicians with millions. They do not care about YOU. They are NOT HERE TO HELP.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Not sure where you think I’m saying “red states are innocent” or that I only think CA is the problem.

Our nations voting system has been corrupted and people continue to argue on the behalf of the “party” they identify with.

I’m sick of the team jersey rules. The government doesn’t care about your rights.

I may disagree with someone but I promise I care more about their rights than the government does….if you have your rights then I still have Mine.

I don’t care if you voted for someone different than me. I’d still climb in a wrecked car or a burning building for you as well as vote for your rights.

Notice how my point is corruption needs to stop and our rights are ours….and the response is immediately an attack against Trump. I’m failing to see where I ever mentioned that I’m his advocate in any way….

People have been so brainwashed that if you say “freedom” or “America” this odd Trump syndrome comes out. Gate to tell you, America was here long before Trump…and so was freedoms.

It’s your responsibility to be voting for things that are going to secure our rights and freedoms….REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY IT IS. stop being led to slaughter by these politicians with millions. They do not care about YOU. They are NOT HERE TO HELP.

Ill continue not voting for the major parties that do the things you are talking about, we can enjoy our crumbled cookie together

 

[Deleted member 6005]

How did a thread about a magazine lawsuit turn into pages of voter fraud discussion?

 

[Jimi Jah]

This issue affects everything gun related here. The people we put in office wrote the mag ban laws.

BTW, we issue drivers licenses here to illegal aliens. I know, I have one. No one at any polling place requires the so called Real ID.

I use my illegal alien license here for everything. It is accepted even to buy a gun if I present my passport. I don't intend to ever get a Real ID here. Don't need it plus it comes with a lot of bennies.

 

[grandpapeepap]

This issue affects everything gun related here. The people we put in office wrote the mag ban laws.

BTW, we issue drivers licenses here to illegal aliens. I know, I have one. No one at any polling place requires the so called Real ID.

I use my illegal alien license here for everything. It is accepted even to buy a gun if I present my passport. I don't intend to ever get a Real ID here. Don't need it plus it comes with a lot of bennies.

Yeah the ab60 license has on it "limits apply" which they would check to see if they could vote and they couldnt right? Please look into this past your feelings and memory like the 1980 election you remembered but happened in 96 actually and the people were born here or naturalized citizens who thought they could vote that election but had to wait a cycle. Im sure those "illegals" have a passport to show when they do stuff like you too right

 

[couragewolf]

Easy. Lie on the application. Purging illegal voters is a low priority here. Otherwise California wouldn't be against showing ID to vote.

You can literally check to see online yourself if someone voted in your place or when you vote it will tell you. If what you’re saying was actually happening it would be reported all the time. I don’t understand how the system doesn’t already account for this to me it seems to have pretty clear attestation

 

[couragewolf]

Voter ID is the only real solution to keep the trust of voters in our elections. With several of our elections coming down to just a handful of voters separating the winner, accuracy is imperative. If you're against voter ID then you must believe that voter fraud at any level is acceptable. There is absolutely NO reason not to enact this very simple solution. Nuff Said.

It’s really not there are plenty of ways to achieve this without force voters to undergo unconstitutional hurdles in order to exercise their rights. If California gun owners can’t on principle understand why putting barriers in front of constitutionally granted rights how on earth are we supposed to make the arguments that we intend to make against the unconstitutional California prohibitions against gun owners?

 

[JohnBrowning]

It’s really not there are plenty of ways to achieve this without force voters to undergo unconstitutional hurdles in order to exercise their rights. If California gun owners can’t on principle understand why putting barriers in front of constitutionally granted rights how on earth are we supposed to make the arguments that we intend to make against the unconstitutional California prohibitions against gun owners?

You're deluding yourself and showing you've never lived anywhere outside the CA bubble.

California's requirements to vote are a joke, unenforced, and for some reason the CA DOJ absolutely refuses to allow any substantial audit of any of it. Hmm. Wonder why.

Stop being part of the problem. When I voted in TN, you had to show proof of citizenship IN PERSON when registering to vote, and had to show your ID TWICE to get into the ballot box. That's only a problem if you're not legally able to vote and/or so dumb you shouldn't be voting.

 

[shroom]

You could buy a Gatling gun if you had the cash.

As the amendments were being written private citizens were employing Gatling guns and heavy mortars and cannons so I think the inferred intent is pretty established the nature of the point was that citizens should be able to sufficiently rise up against a tyrannical government using their own private arms. I actually think the argument that private citizens should be able to own nukes is more plausible in reference to the 2a than “we should prevent semi auto rifles from private ownership because they didn’t imagine such weapons back then” as an argument.

Intent behind the authoring of the document is everything and in this case it’s clear.
Here’s a pic of a tshirt from an actual website for the centrists in the crowd

Well, no, no one had gatling guns as they weren't invented yet. Even rifled firearms weren't adopted as standard issue until the brits and the p1851. There were many "repeating" flintlocks being experimented with in Europe. They were however incredibly expensive, difficult and time consuming to manufacture. Not something the average private citizens would be able to afford to own, not even something the great powers would be able to equip their armies with.

One notable use was the Danes who made a handful and equipped some royal guards with them.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Someone forgot I mentioned the 1800's, not 1792. Yes, one could buy a Gatling gun the later 1800's when they were invented. The founders mentioned arms. Not types and acceptable models. They realized the technology would change.

If you need ID to exercise your 2nd amendment rights and to enter a federal building or get on a plane, cash a check or buy a can of spray paint in a hardware store you should be required to show it when you vote. That is more important than a can of spray paint.

It's not about the numbers, it's about voter integrity and confidence in our elections. Other countries require this. We don't because one party is against it. Why is that?

 

[couragewolf]

Someone forgot I mentioned the 1800's, not 1792. Yes, one could buy a Gatling gun the later 1800's when they were invented. The founders mentioned arms. Not types and acceptable models. They realized the technology would change.

If you need ID to exercise your 2nd amendment rights and to enter a federal building or get on a plane, cash a check or buy a can of spray paint in a hardware store you should be required to show it when you vote. That is more important than a can of spray paint.

It's not about the numbers, it's about voter integrity and confidence in our elections. Other countries require this. We don't because one party is against it. Why is that?

They are creating unconstitutional barriers to access some rights so we should just go ahead and create unconstitutional barriers to other rights is a pretty liberal perspective and I think the ratchet of freedom loss should be unlocked not continually cranked in the wrong direction.

 

[shroom]

Someone forgot I mentioned the 1800's, not 1792. Yes, one could buy a Gatling gun the later 1800's when they were invented. The founders mentioned arms. Not types and acceptable models. They realized the technology would change.

Yea you did, my bad. The other guy said when the amendments were being written and I got you two mixed together.

For the record I agree, just as the 1st and 4th and etc amendments encompass speech and property that didn't exist in the 1700s the 2nd obviously encompasses arms that didn't exist back then as well.

I just take issue with people saying that dudes could buy gatling guns in the 1700s when repeaters barely existed (yea that was the other guy and not you but regardless.)

 

[Skilly]

Easy. Lie on the application. Purging illegal voters is a low priority here. Otherwise California wouldn't be against showing ID to vote.

you should try voting a couple of times in the next election and see how that works out for you.

 

[oneaudiopro]

you should try voting a couple of times in the next election and see how that works out for you.

I just don't understand why ANYONE would oppose voter ID. If so, please state your reasons.