A Red March to Fix The States

Okay I can agree with you on that, at least for marijuana. IF we legallzied weed, then people would stick to it and not get into harder drugs.

Poverty and government-dependency rates going down managed to be conducive to the Great Society. Teen pregnancy rates going down right now manages to be conducive to policies on both sides against teen pregnancy. Reality and politics don't always intersect.

Gay marriage isn't federally banned, and state bans are on their way out simply because the hardcore homophobes are getting old. Leftists are just as in favor of censorship as the far right; they only have different idea of what to censor. See my comment earlier re: the Patriot Act. California has a three-strikes law, and you don't get much more leftist than California in the US. Looser immigration restrictions, and perhaps prostitution, you might get, but the former would be out of cynical vote-grabbing - proof of citizenship for voting being one of the most railed-upon issues, and no efforts (like, say, English lessons) are in evidence to keep immigrants from being marginalized.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:44:45 AM by DomaDoma

So explain why Finland has the most firearms related homicides in Europe then? They have the loosest gun control laws on the whole continent.

^

Because Fins are nuts?

Why does California, New York, and Washington DC have so many firearm related crimes per capita compared to other states? They have the tightest gun control laws in the USA. Yes, Oakland/LA/NYC are highly populated, but DC isn't a sprawling metropolis, and it's had the highest homocide rate in the USA for the longest time, and it's our damn capitol.

Both your tidbit and mine are pretty much just directly opposite coincidences that can't be used as actual causation. Due to state sponsored firearms policies, the US has experimented with just about every and any type of gun control short of none or all.(We've gotten pretty close to all before, and I'm not a supporter of no gun control)

I bet the UK has more homicides per capita than Finland, because just as big a percentage of the people being shanked or beaten in the UK are there as people being shot in finland.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:50:32 AM by Barkey

Well, of course if you're selecting for gun-related homicide specifically, then yeah. Finland is well below several European countries counting homicides as a whole.

Why does California, New York, and Washington DC have so many firearm related crimes per capita compared to other states?

Because urban poverty. The gun control laws don't do anything when faced with organized crime. Get rid of poverty, then you can control guns effectively.

@Doma: Even if we only got rid of drug prohibition, it'd be a huge improvement: Drug prohibition is the chief cause of unemployability (criminal records), criminality (inability to find legit income coupled with expensive black market drugs do that) and most importantly, loss of liberty and civil rights in the United States.

Getting rid of it justifies pretty much anything.

As for guns, people murder each other. When they have guns, they shoot each other. When they don't they shank, strangle, poison, bludgeon or run over their victims. Finland's got more gun violence, but less homicide overall. When Finns go murderous, they get da gunz out... But the rate at which they go postal ain't particularly impressive (or infamous, really).

edited 18th Dec '11 8:53:49 AM by SavageHeathen

^^

Without Urban poverty, there ends up being very little need to control guns.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:51:20 AM by Barkey

But that doesn't jsutify allowing everyone to have a gun. Most people simply don't need them.

No because it still encouarges the sale and manufacture of guns for people who don't need them.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:54:56 AM by Erock

Only below the Ukraine and Estonia but I chose gun related deaths because we were talking about gun control.

As long as there are thugs with guns around, people do have a reason to have guns. Control for the sake of control is pointless and authoritarian. Why is it better for the people at large to be disarmed? Most importantly, for whom?

Unless violent crime's up through the roof, the only reason government might want to disarm people is to make them easier to control.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:58:51 AM by SavageHeathen

edited 18th Dec '11 8:57:03 AM by SavageHeathen

Drug laws are one of the most serious things wrong with this country, yes. But repealing them only takes care of a portion of Fourth Amendment issues, leaving the progressive government to tramp all the hell over everything else, other Fourth Amendment issues included. It's taking a load off the prison system only to clog it up again with leftist crusades: hate-speech offenders and at-will employers and people who don't put their twelve-year-old in a car seat.

Bingo, by the way, on gun control - when it's not about stupid accidents and people failing to grasp that safety and justice never bat a thousand. But you will recall that gun crime was on its way down during the Clinton administration, but gun control was still a huge deal.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:02:24 AM by DomaDoma

As long as there are thugs with guns around, people do have a reason to have guns

Point is, ina good coutnry there aren't really.

Control for the sake of control is pointless and authoritarian

Not if ti's an object that sole purpose is to be shot.

Why is it better for the people at large to be disarmed? Most importantly, for whom?

For everyone, so there are less guns and therefore harder for criminals to get them.

Unless violent crime's up through the roof, the only reason government might want to disarm people is to make them easier to control

No, the govenrment might want - hevane forbid - less people armed and less gun deaths and weakened criminals.

See, you view guns as something that is controled.. I view guns as a privilidge. A Nd please, stop calling any view counter to yours authoritarian.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:02:37 AM by Erock

For other citizens? I'd rather not have the thought every time I leave the house that people I pass have guns.

-citation needed-

As a representative of the physically puny, I'd really rather trust to a gun, thanks.

EDIT: Well, as you can see, the issue is still up for debate. I think my point has been made.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:05:21 AM by DomaDoma

Alright Savage, I'll give you credit. I knew you made this thread from the name but I didn't expect what the OP gave as the plan.

Bleh... besides the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, most States have laws of length of residency before you are a "citizen" of that State, I guess it would work. I could see some... unforeseen consequences... if your Leftists don't vote or vote for the wrong people, but otherwise, this is a much better and much more workable plan than anything you've come up with before.

Of course, now the fight would shift, if it did work to plan, to whether or not we'd be a social democracy or a socialist-anarchist state...

What's the plan for all the states that vote blue nationally but red locally, and vice versa?

Prioritize suppressing conservatism at a national level, (since it affects us all): Tolerate it at the local level while we dismantle it nationally...

Give unions the ability to lobby and fund campaigns or independently commission ads and events... But prevent corporations and churches from doing it. Make sure than rich guys can't give campaigns more than the Average Joe can comfortably afford. Shamelessly subsidize left-wing propaganda through union/association subsidies, while defunding churches and conservative advocacy groups.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:58:21 AM by SavageHeathen

Because surpressing people with differing political opinions totally isn't authoritarian.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:55:25 AM by Erock

Good thing that it's a pretty well-armed group of sheep you wolves are planning on voting with.

Utopia justifies the means, Erock.

Although that really depends on how we're defining "suppress." At this point, Savage is talking about working within the system, albeit in an unorthodox manner.

...surprisingly.

And, really, it's all fair game if you lose the election.

Now, if he wanted to just take over by force (which would be less surprising), then yes, we would have a problem. But hey, this isn't the 1850s, and it's not as if he's using it like they did in Kansas. At least we get something good out of the endeavor...

You shouldn't try to impress the opinions of a small group upon everyone, instead, you should convince them.

I'm sure a fair amount of independents and Democrats would move to centre and cntre-left if I could break it down for them.

As it is, Savage is right. Conservatives are overrepresented in the US. However, it would also be bad to get rid of the Senate and such.

So, I like Savage's plan better. A bloodless culture war. It's actually surprisingly clever. I'm sure the States in question would just pass tougher laws to make it harder to vote in their elections as a new resident, but if you got enough determined activists you could do it.

Like I said, the real question is who wins the ideology war: social democrats or socialist-anarchists?

My main problem with the idea, aside from my aforementioned "you could never convince people to do it" is that it's founded on the assumption that, to me, is one of the main problems with US politics today: specifically, the assumption that there are only two sets of political opinions that exist.