Debate about Gun Control

[noway2]

In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack. The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government. An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic. As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so. Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

[David Horn]

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

Yeah, because Europeans are so oppressed and all that.  

[Eric the Green]

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.

Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-16-2017, 04:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

Yeah, because Europeans are so oppressed and all that.  

Compared to Americans, the Europeans are oppressed.

[Eric the Green]

(10-16-2017, 11:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 04:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

Yeah, because Europeans are so oppressed and all that.  

Compared to Americans, the Europeans are oppressed.

They are just oppressed by different people. Europeans still have the vestiges of a class system, and just as much resentment against immigrants and foreigners; but Americans are oppressed by businessmen. Europeans pay more taxes, which red-state and red-county Americans call "oppression," but it's not oppression, because (unlike in America) they DO get something for their money; like free health care and education, and wonderful transportation systems. Some European countries have less stringent safeguards for free speech and religion and such (no constitution or bill of rights), but on the other hand they have up to date parliamentary systems instead of the elected (or selected) king that we have; and by the way their elections are not as dominated by money, and they don't go on forever like ours do. And they are ahead of us in caring for their environment, which is ourselves, and our lives. And, of course, they don't have maniacs on the street killing people everywhere, without restriction and without the people giving a damn about it, as is happening here. Red/purple state/county Americans call their gun laws "oppression," but it's not, because the government is not thereby given permission to imprison or shoot them, as Americans fear-- BUT as does happen here in America all the time even with our permissive gun laws. And Americans consider gun laws to be "oppression," but it means more freedom to walk the streets and go to concerts. And their businessmen are not as cheap and mean as American businessmen are; workers get 3 or 4 times more time off, and flexible work schedules.

No, I'd say the Europeans are still well ahead of Americans when it comes to freedom and oppression. We could learn from them, instead of insulting them as Republicans do.

[Eric the Green]

(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.

Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-17-2017, 11:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.

Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.

I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

[Eric the Green]

(10-17-2017, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 11:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.

Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.

I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

But isn't it interesting that overall, despite all the hype about Chicago guns and murders, Illinois has a good record on gun laws AND gun violence. Yes, a few urban areas where poor people are still concentrated, thanks to our inadequate federal social programs and low taxes, have more murders, more drug gangs and more criminals who can go next door to a red state and buy or steal as many guns as they want with their drug money, thanks to our drug wars and opioid epidemics. I wouldn't want to live in a black ghetto. But virtually all urban areas in the USA are "Democratic strongholds" today, because urban areas are urbane, well-informed, diverse, and not parochial deserts locked into traditionalist delusions and capitalist, self-reliance memes that blame blacks and poor people for their low taxes (but too high according to them). 

Urban Democratic governments, you could well say, should do better to help their poor citizens, if they could (which they can't, according to Republicans, because that perpetuates dependence). Supposedly urbane but poor cities and their violence, you say, proves Democratic Party policies don't work.

But how much can urban mayors and councils do by themselves? The fact is, blue states are far better off than red states, because they vote Democratic, have social programs, make investments in education, health and infrastructure, have gun control, and have regulations on pollution and mistreatment of workers and consumers. Blue states are safer and more prosperous than red states. That makes our urban areas and blue states much better places to live, and consequently also more expensive to live in, because they are the desirable places. So, because people have to pay more, although they also earn more, in order to live in blue states, and give more to the federal government than red states do, but get less back, resources are limited for these cities to do ALL that should be possible for all their people. But, they do better than the red states do at that. Parts of Chicago may be in trouble, but look at New York, near the top in gun laws and near the bottom in gun deaths; who wouda thot back in 1970 that New York City would be one of the safest places to live? Maybe Chicago will get there too, if they keep on the blue path. And Los Angeles too. Illinois is rated 8th in gun laws, and has the 12th best rate of gun violence. Illinois' slightly higher level and rank in gun violence compared to its gun law rating would be entirely due to the lax gun laws and huge exports from red state Indiana next door. Even so, Indiana's rank for gun violence is slightly worse than its gun law ranking. You see a similar problem in Maryland, which has some new strict gun laws, but Maryland criminals have easy access to guns from the red and purple states to the south and west.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

But thanks for the discussion and your views; it gives me a good basis for responding as best I can. And maybe the truth emerges sometimes from discussions.

And I'm so proud of my state on this issue

[Eric the Green]

Blue and red states and their gun control ratings:

Blue states

Hawaii A-
California A
New York A-
Massachusetts A-
Connecticut A-
Rhode Island B+
Vermont F
Maryland A-
New Jersey A-
Illinois B+
Minnesota C+
New Mexico F
Oregon C
Washington B


Red states:

Idaho F
Montana F
Wyoming F
Utah F
North Dakota F
South Dakota F
Nebraska D
Kansas F
Oklahoma F
Texas F
Louisiana F
Arkansas F
Missouri F
Mississippi F
Alabama F
Georgia F
South Carolina F
Tennessee F
Kentucky F
West Virginia F
Indiana D-

[noway2]

Your list makes me proud to live in a state that got a D- and as a pejorative, it's not so affectionately called "The California of the South".

I really, I mean really, hope this country Balkanizes into at least a "red" zone and a "blue" zone and the sooner the better. I will gladly take freedom over your government and taxes; you say the blue zones are so much better off for it, but all it sounds like to me is stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant.

[Eric the Green]

(10-17-2017, 04:05 PM)noway2 Wrote: Your list makes me proud to live in a state that got a D- and as a pejorative, it's not so affectionately called "The California of the South".

I really, I mean really, hope this country Balkanizes into at least a "red" zone and a "blue" zone and the sooner the better.  I will gladly take freedom over your government and taxes; you say the blue zones are so much better off for it, but all it sounds like to me is stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant.

Must be North Carolina, since that's the only state on the coast in the South that got that grade. Fortunately, it's a purple state, and its people have not fully decided which way to go. But the state certainly has some of the most adamant and tyrannical Republican right-wing assholes in the country. And many more people die from guns, crime, suicide and accidents, all in the name of "freedom" and "the right to bear arms." Yes, I'm with you, I think. Break-up of the country into red and blue zones might be what we need so that the blue states can move forward, while the red states stew in their own resentment, intolerance and backward thinking and have to live with the results without us having to pay to rescue you constantly. Meanwhile, I don't think California is going to be known as "The Carolina of the West." We are better than that.

Well, that's the meme, and the slogan; yes. If your government imposes taxes on you, it's only to give to fat, lazy and ignorant people (and many would go on to say, or imply covertly, the black, brown, yellow, red people). But buying into this slogan, as red states do, means that you lose out on the benefits of taxation and government programs. The results are pretty clear, overall, that quality of life declines in those states. And you don't have any protection from the boss if (s)he decides one day that you aren't "productive" enough, and fires you. Or if Wall Street decides to gamble away everyone's wealth and economy and imposes a great recession upon us, and millions lose their jobs through no fault of their own. 

In a red state that resents "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant," you are on your own in these situations. And meanwhile, you probably got inferior education, and now you can't afford healthcare, your environment is deadly, products you buy at the store are unsafe, your streets are full of potholes, your bridges are falling down, your drug epidemic is beyond cure, your prisons are full and expensive anyway, your freedom is impaired by the religious right, and many more gun deaths, massacres of innocent people and violence generally happens; just a bitchy, unsafe state with no hope and no cheer; that's what red states mostly are. That's the results of your people's resentment against "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant."

And it's clearly the uneducated (and thus "ignorant") who vote for these Republicans in red states, and who disparage education and want to reserve it for the rich and strip it of all meaning and value. So, who's "ignorant"? I say, it's those who resent "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant."

But thanks for your views; it's good to have alternatives on this board to mine and other liberals. I don't mind at all   

After all, your phrase "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant" couldn't be a better example of the ideas that are wrong in America today! It makes my point very well.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-17-2017, 05:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 04:05 PM)noway2 Wrote: Your list makes me proud to live in a state that got a D- and as a pejorative, it's not so affectionately called "The California of the South".

I really, I mean really, hope this country Balkanizes into at least a "red" zone and a "blue" zone and the sooner the better.  I will gladly take freedom over your government and taxes; you say the blue zones are so much better off for it, but all it sounds like to me is stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant.

Must be North Carolina, since that's the only state on the coast in the South that got that grade. Fortunately, it's a purple state, and its people have not fully decided which way to go. But the state certainly has some of the most adamant and tyrannical Republican right-wing assholes in the country. And many more people die from guns, crime, suicide and accidents, all in the name of "freedom" and "the right to bear arms." Yes, I'm with you, I think. Break-up of the country into red and blue zones might be what we need so that the blue states can move forward, while the red states stew in their own resentment, intolerance and backward thinking and have to live with the results without us having to pay to rescue you constantly. Meanwhile, I don't think California is going to be known as "The Carolina of the West." We are better than that.

Well, that's the meme, and the slogan; yes. If your government imposes taxes on you, it's only to give to fat, lazy and ignorant people (and many would go on to say, or imply covertly, the black, brown, yellow, red people). But buying into this slogan, as red states do, means that you lose out on the benefits of taxation and government programs. The results are pretty clear, overall, that quality of life declines in those states. And you don't have any protection from the boss if (s)he decides one day that you aren't "productive" enough, and fires you. Or if Wall Street decides to gamble away everyone's wealth and economy and imposes a great recession upon us, and millions lose their jobs through no fault of their own. 

In a red state that resents "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant," you are on your own in these situations. And meanwhile, you probably got inferior education, and now you can't afford healthcare, your environment is deadly, products you buy at the store are unsafe, your streets are full of potholes, your bridges are falling down, your drug epidemic is beyond cure, your prisons are full and expensive anyway, your freedom is impaired by the religious right, and many more gun deaths, massacres of innocent people and violence generally happens; just a bitchy, unsafe state with no hope and no cheer; that's what red states mostly are. That's the results of your people's resentment against "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant."

And it's clearly the uneducated (and thus "ignorant") who vote for these Republicans in red states, and who disparage education and want to reserve it for the rich and strip it of all meaning and value. So, who's "ignorant"? I say, it's those who resent "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant."

But thanks for your views; it's good to have alternatives on this board to mine and other liberals. I don't mind at all   

After all, your phrase "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant" couldn't be a better example of the ideas that are wrong in America today! It makes my point very well.

I assume that your subsidies come from more productive people/businesses/taxpayers. The reality is that you're either directly relying on them or you're banking on them still being around in the future as far the debt. You don't seem to be very sharp for a so-called/self proclaimed educated. I know the types of people who vote Republican. I know the types of people who vote Democrat. I can tell you that one group is much more independent/individualistic than the other group. I can tell you that one group is less costly than the other group. I can also tell you that one group is more financially secure and wealthier than the other group as well. Me, I'd take the Republican group over the Democratic group every day.

You have a wealthy group movie stars/musicians. A group of very wealthy lifelong politicians who either married up like Kerry or married in like Pelosi or spent their lives primarily serving themselves like the Clinton's. You have a government workforce and a welfare state. You have the bulk of the educators and administrators these days. I'm sure you have businesses who are used to receiving lots of government perks and a ton of small businesses surviving off government grants. I'll even say that you have a bunch of trust fund kids and some billionaires who have so much money that they don't care about taxes.

I wouldn't care if Minneapolis/St.Paul and all the issues associated with both of them disappeared with a few legal strokes of a pen. I wouldn't care if broke apart and became three states or if a portion of it voted to return to Mexico. California ain't all that important to me. Minnesota is actually more of a purple libertarian state than a blue state.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-17-2017, 02:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But isn't it interesting that overall, despite all the hype about Chicago guns and murders, Illinois has a good record on gun laws AND gun violence. Yes, a few urban areas where poor people are still concentrated, thanks to our inadequate federal social programs and low taxes, have more murders, more drug gangs and more criminals who can go next door to a red state and buy or steal as many guns as they want with their drug money, thanks to our drug wars and opioid epidemics. I wouldn't want to live in a black ghetto. But virtually all urban areas in the USA are "Democratic strongholds" today, because urban areas are urbane, well-informed, diverse, and not parochial deserts locked into traditionalist delusions and capitalist, self-reliance memes that blame blacks and poor people for their low taxes (but too high according to them). 

Urban Democratic governments, you could well say, should do better to help their poor citizens, if they could (which they can't, according to Republicans, because that perpetuates dependence). Supposedly urbane but poor cities and their violence, you say, proves Democratic Party policies don't work.

But how much can urban mayors and councils do by themselves? The fact is, blue states are far better off than red states, because they vote Democratic, have social programs, make investments in education, health and infrastructure, have gun control, and have regulations on pollution and mistreatment of workers and consumers. Blue states are safer and more prosperous than red states. That makes our urban areas and blue states much better places to live, and consequently also more expensive to live in, because they are the desirable places. So, because people have to pay more, although they also earn more, in order to live in blue states, and give more to the federal government than red states do, but get less back, resources are limited for these cities to do ALL that should be possible for all their people. But, they do better than the red states do at that. Parts of Chicago may be in trouble, but look at New York, near the top in gun laws and near the bottom in gun deaths; who wouda thot back in 1970 that New York City would be one of the safest places to live? Maybe Chicago will get there too, if they keep on the blue path. And Los Angeles too. Illinois is rated 8th in gun laws, and has the 12th best rate of gun violence. Illinois' slightly higher level and rank in gun violence compared to its gun law rating would be entirely due to the lax gun laws and huge exports from red state Indiana next door. Even so, Indiana's rank for gun violence is slightly worse than its gun law ranking. You see a similar problem in Maryland, which has some new strict gun laws, but Maryland criminals have easy access to guns from the red and purple states to the south and west.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

But thanks for the discussion and your views; it gives me a good basis for responding as best I can. And maybe the truth emerges sometimes from discussions.

And I'm so proud of my state on this issue

It's interesting to know that the grade doesn't matter when it comes to the results. A B+ should have less deaths caused by/related to gun violence than a C+ for your view to have any merit with an educated/intelligent gun owner. I'm sorry but you come across as someone who is uneducated/ignorant. Don't feel bad, you're not alone, lots of blues come across to me as being that way. Uppity Blues are pretty much clueless people. I don't know why uppity blues are so clueless and often classified as loonies by the educated folks who reside some where in the middle. I don't read as many books as my so-called uneducated friends. It would be interesting to see how you'd react when facing a regular group of educated people that you have been conditioned to believe, treat and view as uneducated people without thinking twice. I doubt a criminal is going to travel to Indiana to buy a gun legally. I assume a criminal will contact another criminal and purchase them illegally or purchase a bunch of them that were stolen from a gun shop located in Indiana or any other state in the Union.

[David Horn]

(10-17-2017, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

Whoa! Chicago sits as an island of gun control in the middle of a sea of wide-open gun sales. Look at the laws in Wisconsin or even those outside Cook County in Illinois. Guns don't just grow on trees. As far as gun violence in Minnesota, I'm less knowledgeable about that, though I doubt you are actually citing statistics.

[Eric the Green]

(10-17-2017, 08:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 02:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But isn't it interesting that overall, despite all the hype about Chicago guns and murders, Illinois has a good record on gun laws AND gun violence. Yes, a few urban areas where poor people are still concentrated, thanks to our inadequate federal social programs and low taxes, have more murders, more drug gangs and more criminals who can go next door to a red state and buy or steal as many guns as they want with their drug money, thanks to our drug wars and opioid epidemics. I wouldn't want to live in a black ghetto. But virtually all urban areas in the USA are "Democratic strongholds" today, because urban areas are urbane, well-informed, diverse, and not parochial deserts locked into traditionalist delusions and capitalist, self-reliance memes that blame blacks and poor people for their low taxes (but too high according to them). 

Urban Democratic governments, you could well say, should do better to help their poor citizens, if they could (which they can't, according to Republicans, because that perpetuates dependence). Supposedly urbane but poor cities and their violence, you say, proves Democratic Party policies don't work.

But how much can urban mayors and councils do by themselves? The fact is, blue states are far better off than red states, because they vote Democratic, have social programs, make investments in education, health and infrastructure, have gun control, and have regulations on pollution and mistreatment of workers and consumers. Blue states are safer and more prosperous than red states. That makes our urban areas and blue states much better places to live, and consequently also more expensive to live in, because they are the desirable places. So, because people have to pay more, although they also earn more, in order to live in blue states, and give more to the federal government than red states do, but get less back, resources are limited for these cities to do ALL that should be possible for all their people. But, they do better than the red states do at that. Parts of Chicago may be in trouble, but look at New York, near the top in gun laws and near the bottom in gun deaths; who wouda thot back in 1970 that New York City would be one of the safest places to live? Maybe Chicago will get there too, if they keep on the blue path. And Los Angeles too. Illinois is rated 8th in gun laws, and has the 12th best rate of gun violence. Illinois' slightly higher level and rank in gun violence compared to its gun law rating would be entirely due to the lax gun laws and huge exports from red state Indiana next door. Even so, Indiana's rank for gun violence is slightly worse than its gun law ranking. You see a similar problem in Maryland, which has some new strict gun laws, but Maryland criminals have easy access to guns from the red and purple states to the south and west.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

But thanks for the discussion and your views; it gives me a good basis for responding as best I can. And maybe the truth emerges sometimes from discussions.

And I'm so proud of my state on this issue

It's interesting to know that the grade doesn't matter when it comes to the results. A B+ should have less deaths caused by/related to gun violence than a C+ for your view to have any merit with an educated/intelligent gun owner. I'm sorry but you come across as someone who is uneducated/ignorant. Don't feel bad, you're not alone, lots of blues come across to me as being that way. Uppity Blues are pretty much clueless people. I don't know why uppity blues are so clueless and often classified as loonies by the educated folks who reside some where in the middle. I don't read as many books as my so-called uneducated friends. It would be interesting to see how you'd react when facing a regular group of educated people that you have been conditioned to believe, treat and view as uneducated people without thinking twice. I doubt a criminal is going to travel to Indiana to buy a gun legally. I assume a criminal will contact another criminal and purchase them illegally or purchase a bunch of them that were stolen from a gun shop located in Indiana or any other state in the Union.

You are splittling hairs on those stats. Both Minnesota (C+) and Illinois (B+) have gun laws that are more advanced than the nation, #12 and #8 respectively in their gun law ranking. And they both have lower gun death rates, even though their ranks are reversed. But Chicago is next to Indiana, which exports lots of guns to Chicago. Wisconsin is also more permissive than Illinois, rating a C-. Criminal gangs in Chicago do indeed get their guns legally from Indiana, where it is easier to get guns legally. Most red states like Indiana have no restrictions at all, to speak of. And, since guns are so common in America, even in blue states, where laws may have been permissive not long ago, criminals can easily steal them in any state. But it's much easier pickins in red states like Indiana, because they have the most guns available to steal.

Also, there are many factors that contribute to any one measurement of human behavior such as the number of gun deaths per capita. Being a blue state in general helps to lower violence in general, because of the better social support. Vermont, for example, is near the top in most other rankings of well-being and social support among blue states, so although its gun death rate falls lower than its rank on the other scales, thanks to its grade-F permissive gun laws, it is still safer than red states in gun deaths, because of its strong Democratic-Party-created social support system. The same applies to Minnesota, which has been a blue state longer and more consistently than most others, even if it's less blue now.

Republican voters certainly are the clueless ones, even if well-educated. I would not see you as in the "middle" in your views, but there is always hope; if you think you are wiser than myself or others, so much the better. Let's see you unfold your wisdom, and see who appreciates and learns from it. Since I am educated and well-informed, and also open to human potential and spiritual truth, I would not be likely to react to people based merely on conditioning, even if I express my liberal/left views here without much restraint. And I am well aware of who is educated, and who is not. That's not very hard to spot. 

And it's been shown indeed that some very conservative folks are as well-educated and well-read as many liberals are, especially when it comes to certain issues like climate change, of which I am more particularly aware. Educated folks are just not the primary source of support for the Trump wing of the Republican Party, or Trump-voting independents. Trump voters, it is also well-known, are less well-educated and less well-read than others. They vote and support Trump on the basis largely of fear and prejudice. But those are general trends; exceptions apply.

[Eric the Green]

(10-17-2017, 06:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 05:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 04:05 PM)noway2 Wrote: Your list makes me proud to live in a state that got a D- and as a pejorative, it's not so affectionately called "The California of the South".

I really, I mean really, hope this country Balkanizes into at least a "red" zone and a "blue" zone and the sooner the better.  I will gladly take freedom over your government and taxes; you say the blue zones are so much better off for it, but all it sounds like to me is stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant.

Must be North Carolina, since that's the only state on the coast in the South that got that grade. Fortunately, it's a purple state, and its people have not fully decided which way to go. But the state certainly has some of the most adamant and tyrannical Republican right-wing assholes in the country. And many more people die from guns, crime, suicide and accidents, all in the name of "freedom" and "the right to bear arms." Yes, I'm with you, I think. Break-up of the country into red and blue zones might be what we need so that the blue states can move forward, while the red states stew in their own resentment, intolerance and backward thinking and have to live with the results without us having to pay to rescue you constantly. Meanwhile, I don't think California is going to be known as "The Carolina of the West." We are better than that.

Well, that's the meme, and the slogan; yes. If your government imposes taxes on you, it's only to give to fat, lazy and ignorant people (and many would go on to say, or imply covertly, the black, brown, yellow, red people). But buying into this slogan, as red states do, means that you lose out on the benefits of taxation and government programs. The results are pretty clear, overall, that quality of life declines in those states. And you don't have any protection from the boss if (s)he decides one day that you aren't "productive" enough, and fires you. Or if Wall Street decides to gamble away everyone's wealth and economy and imposes a great recession upon us, and millions lose their jobs through no fault of their own. 

In a red state that resents "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant," you are on your own in these situations. And meanwhile, you probably got inferior education, and now you can't afford healthcare, your environment is deadly, products you buy at the store are unsafe, your streets are full of potholes, your bridges are falling down, your drug epidemic is beyond cure, your prisons are full and expensive anyway, your freedom is impaired by the religious right, and many more gun deaths, massacres of innocent people and violence generally happens; just a bitchy, unsafe state with no hope and no cheer; that's what red states mostly are. That's the results of your people's resentment against "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant."

And it's clearly the uneducated (and thus "ignorant") who vote for these Republicans in red states, and who disparage education and want to reserve it for the rich and strip it of all meaning and value. So, who's "ignorant"? I say, it's those who resent "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant."

But thanks for your views; it's good to have alternatives on this board to mine and other liberals. I don't mind at all   

After all, your phrase "stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant" couldn't be a better example of the ideas that are wrong in America today! It makes my point very well.

I assume that your subsidies come from more productive people/businesses/taxpayers. The reality is that you're either directly relying on them or you're banking on them still being around in the future as far the debt. You don't seem to be very sharp for a so-called/self proclaimed educated. I know the types of people who vote Republican. I know the types of people who vote Democrat. I can tell you that one group is much more independent/individualistic than the other group. I can tell you that one group is less costly than the other group. I can also tell you that one group is more financially secure and wealthier than the other group as well. Me, I'd take the Republican group over the Democratic group every day.

You have a wealthy group movie stars/musicians. A group of very wealthy lifelong politicians who either married up like Kerry or married in like Pelosi or spent their lives primarily serving themselves like the Clinton's. You have a government workforce and a welfare state. You have the bulk of the educators and administrators these days. I'm sure you have businesses who are used to receiving lots of government perks and a ton of small businesses surviving off government grants. I'll even say that you have a bunch of trust fund kids and some billionaires who have so much money that they don't care about taxes.

I wouldn't care if Minneapolis/St.Paul and all the issues associated with both of them disappeared with a few legal strokes of a pen. I wouldn't care if broke apart and became three states or if a portion of it voted to return to Mexico. California ain't all that important to me. Minnesota is actually more of a purple libertarian state than a blue state.

I don't rely too much on subsidies, although perhaps a bit more than earlier, since energy subsidies for example have become more available. I have been an independent businessman like you for many years. Your assumptions don't seem too sharp. I doubt you could match my actual education level, and I doubt you have been a school teacher like me. But I don't disrespect those like yourself who are independent businessmen, although I wonder in this age of climate change whether the products you sell are green enough. Oh well, all of us have far to go in that department too. I don't have an electric car or solar panels yet. I hope to get them one of these days.

Independent/individualistic is your value preference, but that does not make your values better. Interdependence and social support and compassion are values too. These days, there are very many wealthy Democrats, because they are well-informed, and because they see where obedience to the slogan ""stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant" leads the nation. They may not live in your neighborhood, but in yuppie and uppity neighborhoods in big cities there are plenty of wealthy Democrats who aren't dependent on the social services, which they still vote for because they know it's right to do so. Yes, they probably don't mind paying taxes too; they are rich enough not to care. Still, the most wealthy in America do vote Republican, and do hate and resist taxes. Wealth just is not such a totally reliable indicator anymore of how people vote; exceptions apply to the wealthy=Republican and poor=Democratic paradigm.

The Clintons did not spend their lives primarily serving themselves; that's just the smear propagated by Republicans and has very little basis in fact.

Those who care only about taxes, instead of the prosperity and intelligent behavior of the nation, are the ones who vote Republican and screw up the country big time. To care only about whether the government is forcing you to pay taxes, and to think that only poor, lazy, or dependent people benefit from those tax dollars, is to support the destruction of the social fabric of the nation and allow it to squander its resources on tax breaks and needless wars (including drug wars, walls against immigrants, and other such xenophobic-nationalist nonsense).

I say to TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party types: pay your damn taxes and stfu about it. And I hope your tax bills go sky high, and soon!

[Classic-Xer]

(10-18-2017, 11:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

Whoa!  Chicago sits as an island of gun control in the middle of a sea of wide-open gun sales.  Look at the laws in Wisconsin or even those outside Cook County in Illinois.  Guns don't just grow on trees.  As far as gun violence in Minnesota, I'm less knowledgeable about that, though I doubt you are actually citing statistics.

Look at the laws in Wisconsin and ask, why isn't there more deaths related to gun violence in Wisconsin than there is in the South Side of Chicago. I assume that the South Side of Chicago doesn't have as many people as the entire States of Wisconsin and Minnesota combined. You live in the middle of a sea of wide open gun laws, yet you don't feel the need to have one yourself or feel the need to move some place else. Why is that? You'd think that you'd be witnessing gun fights and ducking from bullets or being threatened at gun point by your crazy redneck neighbors and gun toting strangers all the time by your views and the way you talk. Now, the reality is that you're no more threatened by gun violence than me. So, what's up??? Are you unable to admit that because you're a blue? Are you looking for attention from blues or are trying rally more blues for support/the cause? You're biggest threat is being hit by a stray bullet during hunting season as you've said in the past. Me, my greatest threat is being caught in the middle of a gun fight in the wrong part of town at the wrong time. I tend to avoid the wrong parts of town so it isn't much of a concern.

Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

[noway2]

(10-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

You are absolutely correct, yet the "blues" keep harping about wanting more and more restrictions that will have zero effect about that which they perpetually harangue. Their wet dream will have zero effect on the ones that they really should fear; it will only on those that don't threaten them to begin with. The fact that they can't or more likely won't (admit) to see(ing) this is only making them enemies who will oppose them on this issue alone and as a result they lose ground on all sorts of other issues. The fact of the matter is that the lawful gun owners are standing up and saying NO, NO MORE GUN RESTRICTIONS. NOT ONE DAMNED INCH! But the Democrat party just doubles down on the stupid.

[Eric the Green]

(10-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 11:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

Whoa!  Chicago sits as an island of gun control in the middle of a sea of wide-open gun sales.  Look at the laws in Wisconsin or even those outside Cook County in Illinois.  Guns don't just grow on trees.  As far as gun violence in Minnesota, I'm less knowledgeable about that, though I doubt you are actually citing statistics.

Look at the laws in Wisconsin and ask, why isn't there more deaths related to gun violence in Wisconsin than there is in the South Side of Chicago. I assume that the South Side of Chicago doesn't have as many people as the entire States of Wisconsin and Minnesota combined. You live in the middle of a sea of wide open gun laws, yet you don't feel the need to have one yourself or feel the need to move some place else. Why is that? You'd think that you'd be witnessing gun fights and ducking from bullets or being threatened at gun point by your crazy redneck neighbors and gun toting strangers all the time by your views and the way you talk. Now, the reality is that you're no more threatened by gun violence than me. So, what's up??? Are you unable to admit that because you're a blue? Are you looking for attention from blues or are trying rally more blues for support/the cause? You're biggest threat is being hit by a stray bullet during hunting season as you've said in the past. Me, my greatest threat is being caught in the middle of a gun fight in the wrong part of town at the wrong time. I tend to avoid the wrong parts of town so it isn't much of a concern.

Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

The South side of Chicago is impoverished and has many young people who make money selling drugs and engage in turf wars over the drug trade. Guns and their ease of availability are an important factor in gun deaths. Noone says it's the only factor.

The site I posted mentioned that people in south Chicago get their guns from Indiana, where it's much easier to buy them. Criminals and gang members also steal guns. Despite laws, there are still some guns in Chicago available to steal, and a few probably can still be bought. Other parts of Illinois and Chicago are not full of shootings. Overall, Illinois has a lower gun death rate than most other states, because of its gun laws, which are also stricter than most other states (but not strict enough; Illinois only gets a B+ so there are loopholes).