Bianco vs Hilton | Who’s more pro 2A?

[Plenty_Pack_556]

California has about half a million residents per assembly district; the number of registered voters per assembly district is about 300,000. Overall, California has a 60% vote share for democrats, or on average about 60,000 more democrats than republican votes per assembly district. Assuming that what you mean by "single issue voters" is votes per republican, then on average if all CAguns members by coincidence lived in a single assembly district, they would probably not even swing that district the other way.

Now in reality, that calculation is wrong. The biggest reason is that some state assembly races are decided by smaller margins. So if we could identify one of these swing districts, and make all 37,000 CAguns members sell their houses and move there, we would have a chance to decide maybe one district. That would not change the majority in the state legislature at all, but it would be fun. Note that such a plan was proposed decades ago: to have a few hundred gun people move to Alpine county (population of the whole county: about 1200). There they could swing the election for sheriff, DA, county supervisors, and school board (note that Alpine county doesn't even have a high school).

But there is another factor: Roughly a third of all gun people in California (between a quarter and a half) are democrats, not republicans. While they may be single issue voters, they would probably not vote for the candidate you would like.

The salvation for California gun rights does not come from electing republicans. It requires convincing democrats that being anti-gun is pointless and ultimately damaging. Being obnoxious towards democrats does not accomplish this task.

If you don't know what single issue voter means, maybe Google it?

 

[Deleted member 11316]

Taxes can only be increased by constitutional amendment which means 2/3s of the legislature votes for it and then there's an automatic companion bill that goes on the next ballot, it can only happen with voter approval. It was literally put on the ballot. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1

Real question though, if not a gas tax then how would you like to pay for roads? As I stated in a comment above, Ca pays for almost all of it's own roads whereas states like Texas get welfare from the feds for 40% of their road spending which is significantly higher than ours in both total dollars and especially per capita.

Vehicle registration fees, sales tax, tolls that aren’t privatized, general state budget funding, weight based vehicle taxing (since everyone loves abusing Section 179 for “business” cars over 6k gross weight), local property tax, freight and logistics taxes(taxing UPS/Fedex/Amazon for all the vans, etc)

Plenty of things bro

 

[treelogger]

If you don't know what single issue voter means, maybe Google it?

I do know it. But you're making the implicit assumption that everyone here is a single issue voter with the 2A as their single issue. Both parts of that assumption would be wrong.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I do know it. But you're making the implicit assumption that everyone here is a single issue voter with the 2A as their single issue. Both parts of that assumption would be wrong.

2A should be the single issue.

I joined caguns, not cacars, cabikes, camusic, planned parenthood, democraticunderground, whatevers.

But many of the members of "For Guns" forums are usually temporary gunowners.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

2A should be the single issue.

I joined caguns, not cacars, cabikes, camusic, whatevers.

But many of the members of "For Guns" forums are usually temporary gunowners.

That's literally a fantasy you made up. The rate of divestiture for firearms owners is like 1-2%. You are just trying to find a reason to talk about people that don't vote how you like. That's cool, it's natural, but it's also shortsighted because you are giving anti gun people good reasons to ban guns. The more gays you can get to buy guns the better. I'm sorry but you may have to suck some s to get what you want. I don't make the rules.

 

[JackRydden224]

I used to be a 2A single issue voter but seeing how Newsom dealt with the homeless industrial complex, illegal immigration and the money laundering project known as the highspeed rail I feel like 2A is a smaller piece of pie. California is F-ed on so many different levels.

 

[Deleted member 11316]

That's literally a fantasy you made up. The rate of divestiture for firearms owners is like 1-2%. You are just trying to find a reason to talk about people that don't vote how you like. That's cool, it's natural, but it's also shortsighted because you are giving anti gun people good reasons to ban guns. The more gays you can get to buy guns the better. I'm sorry but you may have to suck some s to get what you want. I don't make the rules.

What do you think about voter ID

 

[treelogger]

2A should be the single issue.

That's your political opinion. Not everyone agrees. Actually, in this state at least 60% of the voters do not agree; the real number is probably more like 80-90%.

I joined caguns, not cacars, cabikes, camusic, planned parenthood, democraticunderground, whatevers.

Not everyone who is interested in guns is also single-mindedly focused on them, and willing to throw all other parts of their life and all other societal and political concerns under the bus for them.

But many of the members of "For Guns" forums are usually temporary gunowners.

It is both disingenuous and insulting to use the moniker "temporary gunowners" for people who put a lot of time, effort and money into pro-gun activities, but don't happen to have the same political belief you do. Do you want to fight for gun rights? You might start by not pissing people off left and right (pun intended). And by framing gun ownership as a solely republican hobby, you are making it easier for democrats to be anti-gun.

What do you think about voter ID

I know the question wasn't addressed at me, but ...
First, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
Second, if you are interested in voting rights, the current voter ID proposals are a big step backwards. But more interestingly, strict voter ID requirements (such as proving citizenship with a birth certificate or passport to register, or to actually vote) will hurt republicans more than democrats: a larger fraction of republican voters are from the precariat class, and will be unable to get the required documents. This is particularly true on the MAGA wing of the party. In reality, calls for voter ID are dog whistle for being anti-immigrant and anti-minority: the idea that lots of illegal aliens are voting is demonstrably false, but pretending to fix it helps whip up the anger (and therefore political participation) of the right wing faithful, as they see anything that hurts "those people" (typically darker skinned) as good.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

What do you think about voter ID

I've never seen any data that says that voter fraud, in the form of people showing up and impersonating another registered voter, is occurring. I also think that we already have so few people voting that any way we can make it easier for citizens to be more civically engaged would be good. The SAVE act that is currently being debated by congress seems highly suspicious that it's actually "saving" elections because it will require people to use the name on their birth certificate so for example women who get married and change their name would need to come up with new documents in order to vote even though their name is legally changed. I think voter ID ideas like this are primarily designed to give one group an unfair advantage over another, the opposite of fairness. We designed our government around every citizen getting a vote so unless our established system actually has a problem I don't support changing it. If someone can show that there is indeed a problem then we should change it.

 

[Jimi Jah]

What do you think about voter ID

Most countries have it including the western democracies, except one.

You need an ID for nearly every act in America, except voting. Even 73% of democrats support it.

Democrat leadership does not. They claim black and brown people are too stupid or unable to get an ID in America. That is blatantly racist. They know it's nearly impossible to cheat with voter ID. In Mexico, they issue a voter ID card free to every registered voter. Fraud is almost unheard of there.

Without dead or illegal voters the democrat party would be pressed to win an election. They would have to construct a platform people support. That means some of their political positions would have to change. They would also need to clean up the voter rolls.

So far they are resisting any changes.

 

[gorgothmog]

With a supermajority of democrats in both state houses, any governor veto will be overridden. With that condition, the State Assembly and Senate run the show completely

We need to rob them of their super majority, first.

 

[treelogger]

Even 73% of democrats support it.

Democrat leadership ... claim black and brown people are too stupid or unable to get an ID in America.

Without dead or illegal voters the democrat party would be pressed to win an election.

All these statements are nonsense, and in some cases demonstrably wrong. But they are common talking points from the tea party / MAGA wing of the Republican Party. Which is fine, that's how politics is done: lie about your opponent. Except it tends to fall back on the people, because it turns out there is a large segment of voters in the middle of the spectrum that hate the anti-intellectual lies, independent of which side it comes from. Republicans are doing this (and it makes sense for them!) because they need to stir the anger of their base, and that base is large enough to hold elected republican politicians hostage. But what works for de Santis and Paxton does not work nationwide, nor in California.

The problem here is when we tie gun control and gun politics to republican standpoints. In a place that is dominated by democrats (such as California), that is instant death to gun rights. And in the long run, tying gun debates to lies that can be debunked is not a good strategy.

 

[Enthused]

There really isn't any Democrat single issue 2A voters, otherwise they wouldn't be a Democrat. So by process of elimination, that means every Democrat gun owner in this state places some other issues above the 2A for their voting priorities. This applies even on a California online gun forum, which is why some people may be surprised at this idea.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

That's literally a fantasy you made up. The rate of divestiture for firearms owners is like 1-2%. You are just trying to find a reason to talk about people that don't vote how you like. That's cool, it's natural, but it's also shortsighted because you are giving anti gun people good reasons to ban guns. The more gays you can get to buy guns the better. I'm sorry but you may have to suck some s to get what you want. I don't make the rules.

Hey, what is the title of this thread?

We talking about 2A here. I said nothing about gays or sucking s, you seem to be projecting.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Other countries have voter ID. I'm still searching for the reasons we don't here. Can anyone explain why that is so?

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Other countries have voter ID. I'm still searching for the reasons we don't here. Can anyone explain why that is so?

Democrats need dead people and illegals voting.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Democrats need dead people and illegals voting.

That literally doesn't happen. Do actually care about reality or you just want to talk ? If you have evidence of this go ahead and produce it and I will 100% support reforming the voter id system.

 

[treelogger]

Other countries have voter ID. I'm still searching for the reasons we don't here. Can anyone explain why that is so?

Part of the reason is the 10th and 4th amendment. As an example: In Germany, every person has to register with the city or county where they live. If you move, you have to go to a government office (the "Meldeamt", literally reporting office), and register your new address. Furthermore, everyone age 16 or over has to have an ID card (Personalausweis), which is not identical to either passport or driver's license. Failure to either register the residence address, or to get an ID card will get fines; those are initially reasonable small (I mean paying 30 Euros for forgetting to register for a year). In the US, that would not fly, because it is an unreasonable search, which is why there is no national ID card.

In the US, the only ID card that many people have is the driver's license. The need to have one does't violate the 4th amendment, because it is tied to a reasonable government function (licensing and checking drivers). But the driver's license does not tell you that a person is a citizen, or that they were born in a particular place. It simply tells one that this person has passed the driver's test and is capable of driving. Driver's licenses are also issued by 50 different states, because of the 10th amendment, so there can not be a central federal database of drivers. But using a driver's license for voting fails, because quite a few people of voting age do not have one, and don't need one.

That is the amazing thing in the US: a significant fraction of the population has no ID card, because they don't need one. And given our long history of freedom, the US would react very badly if you forced everyone to go to a government office and do paperwork there. What do you think the Bundy family would have done.

So, it would be possible to have a universal ID card for US citizens. But we would have to change our constitutional and political systems so much, it is not compatible with the current US mindset.

 

[gorgothmog]

Democrats need dead people and illegals voting.

You got a website, a citation, a link to something? In the Age of Epstein nothing is a surprise anymore, and election integrity issues are something the uniparty employs to divide Americans. I don't think it's in the uniparty's interest to need dead and illegal people voting. The point is to get you to THINK that dead and illegal people are voting in droves so that you have serious doubts about the integrity of the system. The desired effect of that distrust is to pit Democrats and Republicans against each other on the surface while officials from both parties enrich themselves at the cost of the average American. However, I think the uniparty corporatists went a little too far over the years in spreading their surface-level division, that in 2015 they accidentally produced a populist candidate by the name of Donald Trump. I won't comment on Trump's actual presidency, as we are literally witnessing history being made right now. I'll just emphasize that "Democrats need dead and illegals voting" is a tactic used by the Uniparty/Epstein Class to divide the electorate against itself.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I have an illegal alien driver's license here in California. I'm keeping it because I like the benefits California provides. I don't care for our sloppy motor voter registration here that doesn't require proof of US citizenship. Our "honor" system is lacking in honorable people, hence the massive fraud we have in California, like auto repair shops operating from a second floor office building. Must be hard getting your car up there for service.

I also carry a US passport. That is my "federal ID". That works on planes, gunstores, federal buildings and anywhere else.

Democrats in congress are blocking any reform because they claim "brown" people can't get ID's easily here. That claim says they are incapable of getting a valid ID here.
If that was true they couldn't qualify for welfare benefits, a bank account, rent a hotel room, get on a plane, train or bus or even buy spray paint in a hardware store that requires a valid ID.

Ask any brown person on the street if they have an ID. You will find everyone has one, including illegal aliens. It may not be a legit US ID but they have one from whence they came.