[AWB]Dems prep ground for 2014 Electoral Defeat

[giblets]

Was it the Republicans who did this to my state? Or is it possible that both sides are guilty of gerrymandering?

You realize they don't necessarily benefit equally from gerrymandering, right?

[SlowwHand]

This guy uses analogies that are easy to understand as true.

[Felch]

You realize they don't necessarily benefit equally from gerrymandering, right?

As long as both sides are rigging elections, I don't want to hear any complaints about it from either side. If the Dems took a principled stance against gerrymandering, then that'd be different.

[giblets]

As long as both sides are rigging elections, I don't want to hear any complaints about it from either side. If the Dems took a principled stance against gerrymandering, then that'd be different.

You don't want to hear any complaints? That's too bad. Sadly your proclamation that you don't want to hear it doesn't change the factual accuracy of what Dinner said.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sadly your proclamation that you don't want to hear it doesn't change the factual accuracy of what Dinner said.

True so true, if only it would. And by "factual accuracy of what Dinner said" that in reality means incoherently wrong on numerous levels.

[regexcellent]

Feinstein's bill bans handguns with detachable magazines. That is, everything but revolvers. Oh man, she has really shot for the stars here. This will be entertaining. Harry Reid is going to take one look at it and then chuck it in the garbage.

Why are California's senators so retarded? And not just on gun control; Barbara Boxer literally endorsed infanticide circa 2000.

[Felch]

You don't want to hear any complaints? That's too bad. Sadly your proclamation that you don't want to hear it doesn't change the factual accuracy of what Dinner said.

You're right, it's terrible that I'm sick of hypocrisy. Instead I should just cheer on the Democrats, because when they do the wrong thing, it's for the right reasons. Hooray for criticizing our opponents, and then turning around and doing the exact same thing. Us Democrats are the best, and when we manipulate democracy, it's for the people's own good.

[giblets]

All your whining about how Dinner is supposedly a hypocrite doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were able to leverage their victories in state government elections in 2010 to create a map that would strongly favor the Republicans.

[regexcellent]

That's how the game is played in this country. With luck the same results will be seen in 2014 after Feinstein's gun control bonanza crashes and burns like Hillarycare in the '90s.

[Felch]

All your whining about how Dinner is supposedly a hypocrite doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were able to leverage their victories in state government elections in 2010 to create a map that would strongly favor the Republicans.

And all your whining about the Republicans doesn't change the fact that the Democrats try to cheat as well, but just aren't as good at it.

[giblets]

Hmm... nope, that still doesn't refute this:

The repubs are going to continue to do well in bi year elections simply because they gerrymandered house districts at the state level to hell and back.

Keep trying, maybe you'll post something relevant.

[regexcellent]

Hey Lonestar, M1 Carbines are on the list of "Assault weapons." So are all pistols with a threaded barrel. It's pretty ridiculous.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

[SlowwHand]

Extremely. While people are busy worrying about tha availability of firearms, they better be mindful of ammunition. That's where we'll get kicked in the nuts.
Don't buy something like a Bushmaster right now. People are freaking out and buying heavy and prices are up. Wait and buy later.
Another thing to be considered a threat, the possibility of gun shows going away.

[Robert]

If I would be an American I would seriously consider moving to Europe.
So many people buying guns and heavy weapons.... this must go out of control.

And debating weapon owners about weapon restrictions is like debating kids about restricting gaming activities. There will be always reasons to advocate your ridiculous point of view. In the end it's not the arguments that define someones opinion, it's someones opinion that defines ones arguments.

I'm absolutely pro-democratic lawmaking.
And if the majority of the people doesn't want gun control, then democracy has it's way.
The problem here though is that gun-ownership isn't something that only affects the owners. Those who oppose it, the kids, the weak, those who don't have weapons, can still be killed by them.

Maybe someone should invent weapons that can only harm people who own weapons themselves. That would be a truly democratic approach to control gun ownership.

[Lonestar]

If I would be an American I would seriously consider moving to Europe.
So many people buying guns and heavy weapons.... this must go out of control.

In many states it's more difficult to get ahold of firearms(legally) then it is in some European countries and Canada(Finland comes to mind). Our Federal system creates a mish-mash of gun laws.


There's over 300mil privately owned firearms in the US(although some people claim it's closer to 400mil). Let's say that 20% of them are "evil black rifles", like the AR Family, the AK family, FALs, PTRs, Kel-tecs, Beretta Storms, And M-14 derivatives that have been "tacticooled up". This doesn't count semiautomatic rifles that are functionally the same as Black Rifles, like M1 Carbines(the US Government dumped over 4 million of them into the civilian market), M-14s, and Mini-14s.

So, we're around 60 million or more.

How many of those are used in crime? Or mass shootings? The answer...not many. Most violent crime committed with firearms is done with handguns. But handguns tend not to be target of gun legislation in the US. They aren't scary enough and they're accepted as home defense weapons, while only "crazy spree killers" use black rifles.

And debating weapon owners about weapon restrictions is like debating kids about restricting gaming activities. There will be always reasons to advocate your ridiculous point of view. In the end it's not the arguments that define someones opinion, it's someones opinion that defines ones arguments.

I'm absolutely pro-democratic lawmaking.
And if the majority of the people doesn't want gun control, then democracy has it's way.
The problem here though is that gun-ownership isn't something that only affects the owners. Those who oppose it, the kids, the weak, those who don't have weapons, can still be killed by them.

You drink Alcohol?

More people get killed by alcohol-related deaths in the US than by firearms in the US. Heck, more people get killed by Vehicular homicide(most of those occured with the killer being under the influence or intoxicated) in the US then by firearm-related Homicide(which also includes cops killing people, and self-defense in the numbers).

Alcohol destroys families as well, it certainly affects people other than the consumers.

So, why not ban alcohol? It has no use other than the sensation it provides the consumer.

Well, the answer is that we trust consumers of alcohol to generally be responsible, and that the societal costs of banning The Devils Drink would far out weigh the societal benefits.

(IMO, this argument could be made about weed as well)

The same answer is with firearms. We trust legal firearm owners to be generally responsible, and that the societal costs of banning the things far outweigh the societal benefits. Especially with more guns then people in the country.

Maybe someone should invent weapons that can only harm people who own weapons themselves. That would be a truly democratic approach to control gun ownership.

Like Alcohol?