Tribune article on the subject suggests this was blatantly opportunistic and not unexpected. I don’t think it’s a good example of a deliberate strategy.
In today’s environment, party switching after an election needs to trigger an immediate special election. It’s corrupt, and tantamount to swindling the public.
I think they had one in NC who either flipped one side of government or made it into a super-majority.
3 Likes
It should, but good luck getting the legislatures in the states where this is going to happen to do anything about it.
2 Likes
I just don’t understand what characters like this expect to happen at the next election.
It was his second term as Mayor too.
I’d be curious to hear your ideas about gun control.
You have to think about one shot. One shot is what it’s all about. The deer has to be taken with one shot. I try to tell people that - they don’t listen.
1 Like
If I had my druthers, they would not be in circulation at all, save for anyone wanting one would need to provide extraordinary justification for such, get a license following training, and demonstrate adequate security (i.e. British rules). I mean, even the military don’t walk around with guns; they’re kept in a very secure and controlled armory until they’re needed.
But I realize that that ship has long sailed. So, for a start, I’d like to see:
- Universal background checks
- Gun registry
- Assault weapons - i.e. high-muzzle velocity rifles - banned
- Large/extended magazines banned
- An end to open carry in public spaces, and concealed carry to be subject to a license
- An end to “stand your ground”
These are the low-hanging fruits, as I think everything other than universal background checks and a registry have been the law - and passed constitutional muster - only being reversed quite recently.
On those first two particularly, they are the natural conclusion of the gun lobby’s deflection that mass shootings are a mental health issue. They are, so we need to make sure that crazy people can’t buy guns and we need to know who has what guns in case they go crazy later and we need to take them away. And, failing all of that, the other controls should mean that the guns they can take on a spree are less lethal and require more frequent reloading.
5 Likes
“One shot, two kills” – Tom Berenger, to his good friend Billy Zane
I’m with you, mostly. Let me get my thoughts together
2 Likes
She caused a Republican supermajority.
It was super shady. She’d been a good democratic legislator for like ten years, retired, sat out for a few terms, came back in for some reason, got elected, and swapped on the flimsiest of pretenses.
1 Like
Correction:
Bob Menendez has announced that he is stepping down “temporarily” from his job as Senator. So he’s going to leave Democrats one vote short of 50 in the Senate, with no mechanism to have his seat filled either by appointment or election. What a complete fuckstick.
We’re days away from Senate Majority Leader McConnell.
…committee assignments. He needs to just “step down” permanently.
2 Likes
Let’s face it, there’s no reason to flip in circumstances like this other than for personal gain. How do you even explain it? You prefer the Republican platform? The GOP has no platform; literally, they decided just not to do one for the last general election.
1 Like
I do no want the right to have guns taken away.
The reasons that our forefathers put that in the Constitution ( Bill of Rights) are still there.
That has not changed - its the guns that have changed.
If you need an automatic gun to protect yourself then you are in a position to require help anyway.
An assault rifle with a million rounds is completely different than a flint lock.
I would like to see a complete ban on any fully automatic but not manual or semi automatic fire arms.
Require very extensive background checks. Convicted of felonies, violent or under influence/possession automatically lose the right.
Require extensive education and continuing education to own or possess.
Make sentences for conviction of any crime involving a firearm (including those about the firearm, not just using it) as strict as we can make them.
And the law is the law regardless of who you are or what your job is. Law enforcement have same requirements and accountability as anyone
1 Like
Not being combative here - hoping to keep this debate in the civil/constructive zone that it is currently.
On not taking any guns away, why is that?
As to the constitution, the 2nd amendment leads with there being a need for a well regulated militia, which (until recently) governed the interpretation of the amendment. Once the US stood up a full time military, the need for a militia evaporated. Does this not mean the circumstances have changed?
I agree that semi-automatic weapons aren’t, in and of themselves, the problem. With AR-15s and the like, it’s the muzzle velocity that’s the real issue, along with the of rate of fire, because a single hit from such a weapon is designed to be unsurvivable.
Obviously enforcement is the rubber hitting the road. Whatever the laws are now or become later, they’re nothing without enforcement.
1 Like
Regarding Melendez, there’s an avalanche of Democrats calling on him to resign. The fact that this completely normal behavior is notable is an indictment of Republicans, who continue to consort with and promote miscreants, crooks, liars and 5th columnists.
Melendez will resign. Why these guys (it’s always guys) think they will somehow buck the finding out phase of this is baffling. Just quit and get yourself off the front page; the longer you stay there the worse it will be for you.
There is absolutely no way on this good green earth that Melendez will keep his Senate seat through his trial and possible acquittal, so there is no saving it. Just fucking go!
1 Like
When this debate revolves around what is meant by the 2nd amendment, I just tune out. The 2nd amendment, much like any other amendment, and every guiding legal principle I’ve heard my entire life, has no intrinsic meaning. These mean whatever the SC wants at the moment, and the “true meaning” at the moment will be something new in a decade or so.
Therefore, just have a debate on who needs guns, what guns they need and how they should be regulated. Change the minds of the public, and hopefully over time, the SC will reflect the changing views of the public.
2 Likes
Thank you for the response.
ANY is an important part of your responce. I am absolutely FOR taking some guns but against taking all guns.
I feel that guns themselves are not the problem - the type of guns is part of the problem.
There is also historical precedent of government taking guns and then oppressing the population or part of the population.
Personal protection is a right.
Hunting and shooting are very popular activities that are not without benefit.
After 250 years taking all guns now after their history and popularity would feel an abuse of power. After all we are supposed to be governed by the people.
However, I do feel current types and levels of guns are ridiculous.
I want gun owners to be responsible and accountable, and show the people that they deserve the right to own/possess a gun.
I also think there is no reason for any adult to have more than 1 rifle and 1 handgun. Limit to 1 ofceach per adult in a household. Minors can not own or posses them.
Just some of my thoughts off the top of my head.
1 Like
The reason they put that in is because they had a very strong distrust of the military. Now we worship the military blindly, without question.
2 Likes
And they did not trust government. I also don’t trust government.
But I have never, not do I ever intend to, own a gun.
But I don’t have anything against those that obey the law and own guns that are not automatic. Unless they feel they need an entire armory.