Tony Cornish says no chance of bans passing this year..

[bofe954]

The purpose of these bills wasn't to get new laws passed. The bills served and continue to serve the purpose of getting the "gun nuts" (their words, not mine) all worked up and out in force. I'm very far left (think Bernie Sanders kind of lefty) and most of the people I associate with are also fairly liberal. While I happen to enjoy firearms, I can't think of any of my liberal friends that care one way or the other about gun laws. Why do you think the anti-side can't get people to show up, because it's just not that big of an issue to us lefties. I'm sure the left will do what they can to keep the gun talk going in hopes that the pro-gun crowd will keep working to get single issue pro-gun candidates on the ballot next time around. If they do, the dems will cruise to victory again. (Kind of like what happened with the gay marriage thing last time around.)

There are a lot of people that typically vote democrat that aren't like your friends.

Unions members typically vote democrat. I can tell you there will be a large number of them voting for whoever is not democrat next time around because of this commotion, that didn't gain anybody anything.

Pre-election union meetings make it a point to tell their members specifically NOT to just "vote gun". They literally tell them, "don't just vote gun" because it is a problem for them. It is a lot easier to get those members to do that if they haven't had to take days off to go to the capitol and attend hearings, and if they aren't faced with thousands of dollars of their stuff becoming illegal and the prospect of becoming felons.

The "pro-gun crowd" doesn't need to get "single issue pro gun candidates on the ballet", just candidates who are not anti gun. The same candidates they had last time will be fine.

I can't think of anybody who will benefit from this mess, but the republican party, the NRA, and those who profit from firearms and firearm related merch.

I'd love to hear a better explanation about how proposing a bunch of laws that don't pass, and irritate a bunch of people helps the democratic party I'd love to hear it.

[whiteox]

No, one-issue/pro-gun conservatives will not vote out dems, there aren't enough of them. I'm a liberal, but at the office I'm surrounded by conservatives. There are only a couple that could care at all about any of these new gun laws that have been proposed. The majority of the conservatives I know say things like "Who needs a 30 round clip" or "Why shouldn't you have to get a background check to buy a gun". The type of people that have been showing up to these hearings and making noise, are similar to the people that wanted a ban on same sex marriage. They are similar in the fact that they are the fringe of the republican base, not the norm.

While there aren't enough pro-gun republicans to sweep dems out of office, there are likely enough of them to affect the primaries. (Since most people, republican or dem don't care about those either.) What the dems are hoping is that next election, they will get to run against the single issue pro-gun candidates who are considered to far out on the fringe to win the general election. Or even better yet for the dems, the pro-gun single issue candidates can't win the primary, but the gun activists won't be happy with that so they'll push them to run as a 3rd party . (Ask Norm Coleman how that worked out. )

I don't follow. I haven't heard a great deal of Republicans coming out in favor of these bills. Republicans ALREADY oppose these sorts of bills. Republicans don't have to clean house in the primaries to weed out the gun-banning Republicans because, by and large, those sorts of Republicans don't exist.

Here's what I see. I see people like me who voted straight DFL in the last election either staying home, finding a third party candidate, or holding our noses and voting Republican if only for the one time. The one thing I can tell you I will NOT be doing in 2014 is pulling the lever for my current Democratic House Rep who signed on as a sponsor for HF 241. In fact I will be actively supporting whoever looks like they can beat her.

I thought Democrats had figured out that messing with guns is not what people want but apparently the need a wack from the clue stick. I'm happy to oblige.

I've stood up for everybody else's rights for the last twelve years even when doing so was not in my own interest. When it came time for them to stand up for my rights, I've been thrown under the bus. They can **** right off until they figure it out.

[Hmac]

I've stood up for everybody else's rights for the last twelve years even when doing so was not in my own interest. When it came time for them to stand up for my rights, I've been thrown under the bus. They can **** right off until they figure it out.

You're not alone in feeling betrayed by the self-serving liberal double standard.

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/ ... -everybody

[St. Olaf]

Here's what I see. I see people like me who voted straight DFL in the last election either staying home, finding a third party candidate, or holding our noses and voting Republican if only for the one time. The one thing I can tell you I will NOT be doing in 2014 is pulling the lever for my current Democratic House Rep who signed on as a sponsor for HF 241. In fact I will be actively supporting whoever looks like they can beat her.

First off.....except for a few nutty zealots, the DFL appears to have gotten the message.

Second, keep in mind that gun control is more a rural vs. urban fight than a strict IR vs. DFL fight.

And, I must say that both my DFL legislators are supportive of gun rights (being non-urban) and I'm happy with them and damned happy with the way the Senate has flat out dumped the worst of the anti-gun crap.

I have no problem supporting the DFL at this point, but I'm watching them carefully.

This morning I hear that a Republican is courageously going against some of the zealots in HIS party and sponsoring the gay marriage bill.

That's a good move toward the political parties cooperating for the good of all, and I think Minnesota is setting good examples for the rest of the nation in trying to move more toward the middle, with sensible and moderate handling of divisive issues (with both sides being mostly polite to each other).

The only way government can break the gridlock and move forward is for people to stop insisting on extreme positions and instead move toward the middle.

In Minnesota, it seems we're beginning to do that and I'm proud of us.

[AlephZero]

I've stood up for everybody else's rights for the last twelve years even when doing so was not in my own interest. When it came time for them to stand up for my rights, I've been thrown under the bus. They can **** right off until they figure it out.

I love this statement right here. It succinctly describes exactly how I feel as well.

[jdege]

The only way government can break the gridlock and move forward is for people to stop insisting on extreme positions and instead move toward the middle.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-11-21/features/9911230225_1_unicameral-legislature-factions-american-governance

Ventura says unicameralism would make government both "responsive and limited." However, that is an unlikely combination of attributes.

When Americans want something from government, and want it intensely and protractedly, they usually get it. When they don't, they probably shouldn't.

But nowadays government, a seismograph trembling to tiny tremors of appetites, is "responsive" to a fault.

Bicameralism is, as Ventura says, conducive to gridlock. But there are 6 billion people on this planet and about 5.7 billion of them would be better off if they lived under governments more susceptible to gridlock.

Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement.