Problem with polls like that (and like comparable abortion restriction debate and Medicare for all debate) is the reality that the devil is in the details and you can get huge swings in answers based on very small tweaks in the question. And for guns at least, very few Americans know exactly what the current laws are and even fewer know what is actually in all these “common sense” bills popping up all over.
It is represented by its mix of people (democracy). The fact that one group of people disagree with a person and there are more of them doesn’t change the fact that all are represented equally. Like we have to remind the “equity” folks - fairness does not come from outcomes but from the process. If rural MN wants more votes, have more kids, convince more folks to live there, create more economic opportunity, become more welcoming to Latin American immigrants, etc etc.
That policy is downstream from this one.
Not all that happens in Cali happens in the same extreme in MN.
How long ago would an "assault weapons ban" be really unlikely in Minnesota? How about colorado?
Regardless of what some people here want!
It's true, but what other tool do we have available to judge how a diverse population feels about a topic? I can know what my friends group thinks, but beyond that small sample size were left with imperfect solutions, in this case polls.
Actually as I recall the old Clinton ban had fairly high support. Probably even more so than today, as at the time they were a fairly unusual possession compare to the millions owned now.
How would outstate pay the bills - a huge flood of funding flows from cities to rural.
I think a lot of that comes from rural areas trying to draw people from the cities?
Last data I saw said close to 70% of all MN taxes paid in by 7 country metro but only about 50% of expenditures in 7 county metro so a fairly big flow to outstate. Also, a fair amount of that "metro spending" supports statewide resources such as courts, agencies, U of M etc. that in theory would have to be recreated in the new phantom state.
Ah you are correct in that. Senators and reps voted accordingly (brady bill)
This is a pretty dangerous path. Seems they are legislating their own ideology into parenting. It always starts in Cal, coming soon to other blue states like WA, OR, CO, and MN. In fact, Colorado could even pass CA in a race to the progressive left as the opposition has no political power at the state level (supermajority both houses and GOV, SOS, AG, etc) and moderate Dems are becoming increasingly scarce. The only limiting factor is how far left/progressive the Gov is willing to go as he does have national political aspirations.
I do agree that hate kills, and that ignorance and political hyperbole drive hate.
Audrey Hale comes to mind.
Text of the law. Interpret accordingly.
Sure, let's cherry pick one example instead of paying attention to an entire class of children that experience so much hate they try to commit suicide 40% of the time...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Yes, it says nothing about being in boys bathrooms. We have a nutcase on our school board who likes to twist truths like this so I am a little sensitive to people saying things about our schools that are not true. Our school as a common (small) bathroom open to either gender that has the supplies. But they are NOT in boys bathrooms.
