Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
There is a minor difference between a state not enforcing federal laws, and a state threatening to arrest federal agents for enforcing federal laws.

But I am sure you already know that.

Oh yeah... the OP... right (I thought we was on different track, my bad).

I'd like to see them try it.

Then, the Feds ought to cut ALL federal stuff in that state. That'll shape 'em up.

I wonder how much Wyoming relies on Federal money. I imagine not as much as other states do, like CA.

If they are running a surplue they may even be able to make do without the Federal money.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wonder how much Wyoming relies on Federal money. I imagine not as much as other states do, like CA.

If they are running a surplue they may even be able to make do without the Federal money.

Well, there is more federal spending per Capita in Wyoming than in California.

Federal spending gets a suprlus of $1,466 per capita in California.
Federal spending costs the government $1,205 per capita in Wyoming.

On average you can count on red states taking more federal money and blue states giving more federal money.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, there is more federal spending per Capita in Wyoming than in California.

Federal spending gets a suprlus of $1,466 per capita in California.
Federal spending costs the government $1,205 per capita in Wyoming.

On average you can count on red states taking more federal money and blue states giving more federal money.

I'm beginning to suspect Grey Templar is going for the record of most factually incorrect statements posted in a row on Off Topic.

I really didn't know about how much money Wyoming gets or anything. I was just asking, no need for the flamebait.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I really didn't know about how much money Wyoming gets or anything. I was just asking, no need for the flamebait.

I'm not flamebaiting you. Just commenting that you post a lot of things that are factually incorrect. Haven't you noticed how many posts I've spent correcting you on stuff?

No, you seem mostly to go around being a jerk. And I see nothing where I was factually incorrect. in my previous post you were talking about. I was asking a question.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I see nothing where I was factually incorrect. in my previous post you were talking about. I was asking a question

Some people might mistake this for a statement:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I imagine not as much as other states do, like CA.

Since you seemed to assume that CA relies on federal money, when it is in fact a donor state.

Ok, I was wrong on that. I did phrase it in a form that made it clear I was unsure. Now are we done nitpicking people's statements?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, I was wrong on that. I did phrase it in a form that made it clear I was unsure. Now are we done nitpicking people's statements?

For now

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, you seem mostly to go around being a jerk. And I see nothing where I was factually incorrect. in my previous post you were talking about. I was asking a question.

No-one reading your previous statement would think you were asking a question. And you know you weren't asking a question.

And I'm sorry you find me to be a jerk. I don't think the same of you. I think you come to discussions with a fairly honest attitude. It's just that you have a lot of misconceptions in your head (I don't know why, perhaps its the sources you follow?)

Sorry if me pointing that out offended you, but seriously, there's no point pretending it isn't a thing. I mean, while this conversation has gone on you made another factually incorrect claim in the other gun thread (stating that all tyrants immediately banned weapons).

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
but I wouldn't say that those Democrats are part of a fringe with no real political power.

Neither would I, which is why I didn't refer to the Democrats as being on the fringe. People who want a complete ban on guns are the ones that are out in the field. Dems aren't calling for a total ban either.

I agree that 'assault weapon ban' is to vague to be much use, and titled as such to be more of an appeal to emotion then to reason.

Spoiler:

There are plenty of democrats that would love a ban, Dianne Feinstein being one.

 Frazzled wrote:

There are plenty of democrats that would love a ban, Dianne Feinstein being one.

There are elements of the fringe in any party, but they don't control the agenda. She has been there for how long and how many bills proposing a total gun ban has she gotten passed?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

There are plenty of democrats that would love a ban, Dianne Feinstein being one.

There are elements of the fringe in any party, but they don't control the agenda. She has been there for how long and how many bills proposing a total gun ban has she gotten passed?

Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I see nothing where I was factually incorrect. in my previous post you were talking about. I was asking a question

Some people might mistake this for a statement:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I imagine not as much as other states do, like CA.

Since you seemed to assume that CA relies on federal money, when it is in fact a donor state.

Its a statistical misnomer. California has 43% of all welfare monies or something. In the game of statistics, you can make it whatever you want it to be. Thats why numbers are great!

California could have 98% of all welfare cases, that doesn't change the fact that the money that California sends to the federal government covers all it's federal spending and still has money left over to support the red states.

 Frazzled wrote:
Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.

That was a limited ban on certain weapons, of which even they couldn't well define, and that was not renewed. That is not the same thing as a total ban on all guns, which is what was said. Banning all firearms is a fringe movement. One can be a ranking member and still have untenable ideas that will never get full party support, Republicans have a lot guys like that as well. Most Democrats do not call for a total ban on all firearms, if they did, the Assault Weapons Ban would have been renewed before this point.

 d-usa wrote:
California could have 98% of all welfare cases, that doesn't change the fact that the money that California sends to the federal government covers all it's federal spending and still has money left over to support the red states.

The point is the statistic can be made up. Depending on the numbers you use California is a net importer or exporter of federal money, and what year.

Frankly I don't care. I just don't want any more Californians coming to Austin trying to make it San Francisco II.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.

That was a limited ban on certain weapons, of which even they couldn't well define, and that was not renewed. That is not the same thing as a total ban on all guns, which is what was said. Banning all firearms is a fringe movement. One can be a ranking member and still have untenable ideas that will never get full party support, Republicans have a lot guys like that as well. Most Democrats do not call for a total ban on all firearms, if they did, the Assault Weapons Ban would have been renewed before this point.

Its also the same exact law she is reintroducing tomorrow.

 Ahtman wrote:
That was a limited ban on certain weapons, of which even they couldn't well define, and that was not renewed. That is not the same thing as a total ban on all guns, which is what was said. Banning all firearms is a fringe movement. One can be a ranking member and still have untenable ideas that will never get full party support, Republicans have a lot guys like that as well. Most Democrats do not call for a total ban on all firearms, if they did, the Assault Weapons Ban would have been renewed before this point.

I think you're missing the point, Ahtman.

The first AWB was always thought of as a first step by the anti-gun policy shops who helped write it, like the VPC and the idiots at the Brady Campaign. You cannot go straight from A to Z, you have to take a lot of little steps along the way. New York's a good example. From no mag cap limit to a 10 mag cap limit now to a 7 mag cap limit. Think that'll be the last bill we see on the issue? I don't.

I liken the whole thing a lot to abortion, the more I think about it. Abortion proponents react forcefully to even "common sense" legislation proposals like parental notification laws because they know the ultimate goal of them all is to try and make abortion functionally unavailable, one step at a time. The same is absolutely true with firearm supporters and opponents.

I understand incrementalism, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are for complete disarmament, but that many aren't opposed to some common sense legislation in the firearm realm. Not every bit of legislation is a slippery slope, and crying tyranny at every step and refusing to compromise doesn't make for a very reasonable position. I'm not up for bans for the most part, though I am against people owning Grenade Launchers and the like, but believe in better background checks, more restrictions on the free-for-alls that are traveling gun shows. It is to easy and to tempting to get away with goofy gak at a gun show that you could not do at a FLGS. I don't like gun shows, tbh, and think we should be supporting brick and mortar stores more. The ones that are more like conventions then traveling carnivals I don't have that much of an issue with, like the buying and trading at Knob Creek.

 Ahtman wrote:
I understand incrementalism, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are for complete disarmament, but that many aren't opposed to some common sense legislation in the firearm realm.

Again, we could say the exact same thing about abortion bans. I'm not sure why those on the liberal side of the aisle aren't attacking Planned Parenthood for being uncompromising. Of course this whole thing is about incrementalism. It has to be, because the sort of firearm overwhelmingly used to commit homicide isn't being touched by any of this stuff these people are coming up with.

Not every bit of legislation is a slippery slope, and crying tyranny at every step and refusing to compromise doesn't make for a very reasonable position. I'm not up for bans for the most part, though I am against people owning Grenade Launchers and the like, but believe in better background checks, more restrictions on the free-for-alls that are traveling gun shows. It is to easy and to tempting to get away with goofy gak at a gun show that you could not do at a FLGS. I don't like gun shows, tbh, and think we should be supporting brick and mortar stores more. The ones that are more like conventions then traveling carnivals I don't have that much of an issue with, like the buying and trading at Knob Creek.

That's great. You should probably write your legislators and let them know that. Biden has said we don't have the time to do the whole background check thing currently, which is why we need to focus on new laws, so I'd recommend starting with him and advising that we start enforcing current law before feeling the need to draft new ones.

 Ahtman wrote:
I understand incrementalism, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are for complete disarmament, but that many aren't opposed to some common sense legislation in the firearm realm. Not every bit of legislation is a slippery slope, and crying tyranny at every step and refusing to compromise doesn't make for a very reasonable position. I'm not up for bans for the most part, though I am against people owning Grenade Launchers and the like, but believe in better background checks, more restrictions on the free-for-alls that are traveling gun shows. It is to easy and to tempting to get away with goofy gak at a gun show that you could not do at a FLGS. I don't like gun shows, tbh, and think we should be supporting brick and mortar stores more. The ones that are more like conventions then traveling carnivals I don't have that much of an issue with, like the buying and trading at Knob Creek.

So why don't the congress critters follow these simple steps:

1. Explain the goal
2. Explain how the proposed legislation will allow the goal to be met
3. Explain the costs of enacting the legislation

Then allow us to decide how we feel about it and we can contact our congress critters to tell them how to vote.

I would love to see this applied to the proposed new assault weapon ban. What is 'reasonable' about it? It places a ban on a commonly owned class of fire arm, one which is VERY rarely used to commit a crime. What is the goal of this legislation?

 Frazzled wrote:
Diane Feinstein is not "fringe." She's one of the ranking members of the Senate. Her first gun ban was enacted in 1994.

Her views on gun control are. There is little popular or political support for a total ban on guns, and pretending that it might happen in spite of that is playing imaginary games.

Its a statistical misnomer. California has 43% of all welfare monies or something. In the game of statistics, you can make it whatever you want it to be. Thats why numbers are great!

"Some stats are fictional or misleading, therefore I choose to think of that stat as fictional and ignore it in order to carry on believing what I want to believe" is weak as piss.