Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In cities, guns are mostly owned and used by criminals. One of the strongest arguments I ever heard in favor of the right to bear arms, had to do with actual bears. A city girl I am, I've never in my life felt safer because someone was there who had a gun. But I talk to people who live in the country, especially since I moved to Rocky Mountain states, and there is actual dangerous wildlife out there. Things that can kill you, easily. I think if I lived out in the forest, I might actually want a gun. Not to mention the fact that, like in the film, "A Clockwork Orange" if some miscreant(s) ever came to your remote country dwelling and broke in intending you harm, the police are a long ways away. You're kind of one your own.
In cities, even medium to small cities, people are more used to relying on and needing infrastructure. The idea that you have to pay taxes if you want to HAVE infrastructure is part of their normal.
In cities, since there are more humans around you, one must adjust one's thinking to accommodate them lest they live in perpetual conflict with their many neighbors. It is more likely that you will know many people who are not exactly like you. Coming from many backgrounds. And when you know people in person, you humanize them. You see their suffering, the fact that the way they are is due to the life that brought them there. You come to understand that we can only get along if we can live and let live.
An ideology of "Look, dress, act, worship, and be just like me, or I'll perceive you as a threat and want you run out of my community" does not fly in the city. Not to mention that in a city, most people do not own the homes they live in. So the whole "This is MY land and I'm gonna defend my own, don't you take my money, and keep the government outta my business" mindset makes a lot less sense.
And in the modern Republican party, I find that a schoolyard bully mindset is celebrated. I was shocked when I mentioned this to my brother, who is a conservative Christian and a school teacher, and he chucked and said, "Yeah. Well, we needed a bully to stand up to the Democrats." Bullying in a city is more likely to end in somebody getting shot. Bullying in the country is a time honored tradition. Where Biff the football player in his glory days got the prettiest cheerleader because it's the natural order of whitebread John-Cougar-Mellencamp's-Ain't-That-America-Home-of-The-Free-Yeah. In the city, the poor would put a bullet in him and the rich would roll their eyes and call him pretentious and stupid.
Honestly if America ever went to the popular vote, where the basic majority of American voices speaking chose our leaders, the Republicans would be boned. It's the electoral college giving rural areas more weight that even gives them a shot.
But when I talk to people who live where there are actual bears and mountain lions and (more dangerous than you'd think) elk and so on... I do worry that going to a system that shuts them out and ignores their needs could be a problem.
But you know, what it comes to for me is the question of who is willing to walk their talk. Because if the GOP actually stood for limited federal power and more states' rights, the way that many adherents think, I could probably support them more. But they would push policy on city people that country people want, even if the city people find it odious. Country people fear the same. Both sides THINK that they are "live and let live" but to some extent, neither one actually is.
Nice try. Some good points and observations, but not so fast. You're absolutely correct about the "GOP getting boned," though, if the Electoral College goes away. Translation: Dems will win every presidential election for decades! Because the 40,000,000 votes in California, added to the millions of Democrat votes in only about 5 other states would negate the votes of the remaining 44 states! It was pretty slick how you slipped that in! Just so you know, Americans aren't stupid!
In 2016, Trump actually beat the crap out of Clinton popular vote wise, if not for those 5or 6 states!
You are bringing it. Tyranny of the majority of a very few - two? - states if the electoral college is eliminated.
Further; "Liberals criticize the anti-majoritarian framework of the Constitution—and it is unquestionably the case that the Constitution places impediments in the way of simple majority rule." This article from which the preceding quote is taken says it much eloquently than can I.
Quote:
This is a familiar story: each state has two senators, regardless of the state’s population; the Electoral College means that a popular vote majority is sometimes not enough to elect a president, especially if the majority is concentrated in fewer states; the Supreme Court can overturn popular legislation in the Congress and in the state legislatures. The Constitution creates a federal republic, where the national government is limited to a specific set of responsibilities, leaving the states free to adopt an array of policies on matters of public concern. This last quality sounds democratic, and one would think, therefore, that liberals would endorse it. But liberals have always had a “tactical” appreciation of federalism: they like it when states adopt liberal policies (California banned the sale of fur products), but not when states adopt policies that liberals oppose, especially if those policies are at odds with national public opinion (Alabama’s strict anti-abortion law).
We are a federal, (varioulsy referred to as a constitutional or democratic) republic for good reason. It is not easy to make changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by columbusboy8
Nice try. Some good points and observations, but not so fast. You're absolutely correct about the "GOP getting boned," though, if the Electoral College goes away. Translation: Dems will win every presidential election for decades! Because the 40,000,000 votes in California, added to the millions of Democrat votes in only about 5 other states would negate the votes of the remaining 44 states! It was pretty slick how you slipped that in! Just so you know, Americans aren't stupid!
In 2016, Trump actually beat the crap out of Clinton popular vote wise, if not for those 5or 6 states!
Why do Democrats win major towns even in deep red states? Why can't Republicans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam
Combing through the detailed election results it looks like there always specks of blue in deep-red states. Take West Virginia for example, which one of the most deep-red states in the country. The top three towns, in population, Charleston, Huntington, and Morgantown, all had their city areas go to Hillary Clinton. Note, they are all tiny cities with Charleston being largest of them with only about 50,000.
You see the same pattern in other deep-red states like South Carolina. Where again its largest city (Columbia) has only 120,000 people but votes very democratic.
None of these cities really are urban-like you expect of a large metro packed with people. I would expect perfect kind of small cities republicans can speak to but somehow they don't manage to?
For the past few decades, young people have left rural areas and moved to cities to find opportunities that just don't exist "back home." And, to be honest, the GOP has almost no policies that appeal to the upcoming generation.
Science denial, theocratic right wing religious influence, NRA worshiping and trickle-down economics just won't sell to the Millennials. They're on the verge of becoming the decisive voting block.
The old timers who remain in the boonies spending their days listening to hate radio and watching right wing TV just don't get it.
It makes complete sense, ideologically.
One of the strongest arguments I ever heard in favor of the right to bear arms, had to do with actual bears.
This proves you have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is about. It was put in place to keep people from being oppressed by their government. It was an amendment, like the others, put in to control the ability of the government to turn tyrannical and oppressive. The 2nd Amendment has zero to do with hunting, target shooting or any other recreational use of arms.
I notice people who don't value the 2nd Amendment love the 4th through 8th, which protect accused criminal's rights. They also love the 1st Amendment, which they misconstrue to suit their own purposes often. But, they seem to want to gloss over the 2nd, which I find very odd.
I find honest clean living keeps you from needing the 4th-8th, as you rarely become suspected of a crime unless you have a past that indicates you have that predisposition. But, I don't want those protections removed or altered just because I don't think I need them. Yet, people who don't want to own a gun, always seem to want to stop others from it.
If gun haters really hated crime, they would dump the idiotic idea of criminal reform, and make the punishments so severe, criminals would not take the risk. Murderers and rapist would be executed quickly, thieves would be sentenced to long sentences. Drug dealers selling methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin would be executed. Crime could be greatly reduced through severe punishment. But, many have no guts, and many others profit either financially or through accumulation of power when crime flourishes. That's the reason so many advocate for criminals. Crime is profitable.
You leave my guns alone. If you don't want one, no problem. Not only will I never force you to own one; if you put a sign on your door stating you do not believe in the right to bear arms, I promise I will never use my gun to defend you or your family.
This is a very interesting comment. It is indicative of the fact that many republican conservatives don't understand that there are reasons for voting that go beyond simple self-interest. Some of us actually just want a better country and we perceive democrat policies as the way to get there.
Let me give some examples:
1. Democrats support doing something about climate change because of us believe the future is bleaker for succeeding generations if we fail to do so. We will get little out of it, but its still the right thing to do.
2. Democrats support rights for LGBTQ people even though most us are not LGBTQ ourselves. We simply believe all people are entitled to equal rights under the law and moving toward that goal is the right thing to do.
3. Democrats support some type of universal health care or insurance not so much because we personally lack health care, but because we believe any prosperous nation should provide health care to its citizens because it is the right thing to do.
I actually sort of feel sorry for someone who never gets beyond "what's good for #1" when they vote.
Agree 100%. Also, I support free, or low-cost (capped tuition) higher education because even if I already have that education myself, I understand that a smarter, more educated society benefits all of us. Education is the #1 way to achieve upward mobility from poverty. Fewer people in poverty = better society for all. Likewise, a society where citizens can afford to regularly visit the doctor for preventative care and don't constantly fear that they will go bankrupt if they happen to develop a chronic health condition benefits everyone. Instead of continuing to funnel discretionary income into the student loan and private insurance industries, money is more than likely going into personal savings and investments or back into the economy via consumer purchases. Big picture thinking.
As for why cities swing liberal, it could be a number of things but largely there is a greater emphasis placed on funding public services in mid to large sized cities. Again, this comes down to personal ideology, but I'm willing to pay higher taxes to guarantee a higher quality of environment and access to better infrastructure and public services, all of which costs more public money (taxes) to run. For the most part, cities consist of people who voluntarily live there because they share a similar sentiment and those amenities usually align with a left-leaning political platform which is willing to divert taxpayer money to fund them.
Those who strongly do not believe taxes should be spent to fund public services will tend to filter out to smaller towns, suburbs and rural areas where taxes and COL are lower.
Nice try. Some good points and observations, but not so fast. You're absolutely correct about the "GOP getting boned," though, if the Electoral College goes away. Translation: Dems will win every presidential election for decades! Because the 40,000,000 votes in California, added to the millions of Democrat votes in only about 5 other states would negate the votes of the remaining 44 states! It was pretty slick how you slipped that in! Just so you know, Americans aren't stupid!
In 2016, Trump actually beat the crap out of Clinton popular vote wise, if not for those 5or 6 states!
How much time have you ever spent in California? I admit I haven't spent much time there, myself, but I know a lot of residents. Thing about California is, it illustrates the title of this thread completely. The rural parts of the state are often very conservative. The reason that California is seen (usually by people with very little actual experience of it, who listen to conservative talk radio and pundits make jokes about fruits, nuts, "left coast" and so on) as being so very liberal, is because they have several large cities, and not only that, but there is a lot of wealth and lobbying power concentrated there, in some respects. So the cities are more liberal, and the liberals who can afford to make a big noise, because of their entertainment industry money or their big tech money...also in California. But the rural folks there, and there are a lot of them, it's a big state...they're conservative, and they complain about the city people making rules that affect them, with little understanding of what rural life is actually like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miquel_westano
This proves you have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is about. It was put in place to keep people from being oppressed by their government. It was an amendment, like the others, put in to control the ability of the government to turn tyrannical and oppressive. The 2nd Amendment has zero to do with hunting, target shooting or any other recreational use of arms.
I notice people who don't value the 2nd Amendment love the 4th through 8th, which protect accused criminal's rights. They also love the 1st Amendment, which they misconstrue to suit their own purposes often. But, they seem to want to gloss over the 2nd, which I find very odd.
I find honest clean living keeps you from needing the 4th-8th, as you rarely become suspected of a crime unless you have a past that indicates you have that predisposition. But, I don't want those protections removed or altered just because I don't think I need them. Yet, people who don't want to own a gun, always seem to want to stop others from it.
If gun haters really hated crime, they would dump the idiotic idea of criminal reform, and make the punishments so severe, criminals would not take the risk. Murderers and rapist would be executed quickly, thieves would be sentenced to long sentences. Drug dealers selling methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin would be executed. Crime could be greatly reduced through severe punishment. But, many have no guts, and many others profit either financially or through accumulation of power when crime flourishes. That's the reason so many advocate for criminals. Crime is profitable.
You leave my guns alone. If you don't want one, no problem. Not only will I never force you to own one; if you put a sign on your door stating you do not believe in the right to bear arms, I promise I will never use my gun to defend you or your family.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. You are not following my point, but I totally acknowledge, it's my own fault.
I understand why the right to bear arms was originally enshrined in our nations origins and Constitution. I know it has nothing to do with hunting, sport, or recreation. But arguments based on that, it has been argued, sometimes by me, have little to do with the present day and age. Here's why... You, Mister Private Gun Owner, are not going to defend yourself or your community against tyranny by the US Government. It might make you feel well endowed to strut about saying that you are upholding those principles with your personal arsenal, but how well did that serve them in Waco? If the might of the US military is ever aimed at you, all you can do is die a martyr, no matter how many guns you've collected. And I am sure you're not dumb enough to think otherwise.
As for home defense? I've lived in homes twice now where another person in my household owned guns ostensibly for home defense. The first was my Mom. One time my teenage friends and I were goofing around (impersonating "The Great Cornholio and giggling loudly) and she came creeping up the steps and aimed her handgun at us because she thought the noises she heard were an intruder. A few months later, a guy she rented a room to stole her handgun. We never saw it again. Defense against intruder incidents? Zero.
The other time, my Ex (who is an expert marksman, and worked in charge of the arms room for a time in the Army, among other roles) insisted he needed and wanted to own guns. I had my trepidations, but did not speak against it. When the military put him out, he proceeded to completely lose his freaking mind, and was patrolling around the house with a loaded AK, which he also slept with once I started sleeping in another room, he threatened me with a handgun, and he generally used his weapons to terrorize his family. Defense against intruder incidents? Zero.
So you'll pardon me if I have personal discomforts around guns, and have found it more effective to simply apply preventative degrees of situational awareness and non-ostentatious living habits, to not tempt break-ins or muggings. My application of common sense life habits has done a better job of keeping me safe thus far, than having guns around has.
But I'm not actually out to take people's guns. I'm not a gun control activist. Not only do I recognize that it is a sacred part of American national identity and culture, going back to the founding of our country, just as a point of principle...but I recognize too that while guns can have sometimes questionable utility in defending oneself against tyranny and the such, if you live in the country you damn well might have to defend yourself from troublesome and dangerous wildlife. The fact that they were there first hardly matters when it's you or your kid in the crosshairs of a bear, mountain lion, or angry moose. I've heard sensible (if not 100% applicable or definitive) arguments to counter every other point in favor of gun ownership, just speaking to a place of logic and debate. But THAT one, I have even used to shut down rabidly anti-gun liberals.
All in all, I am personally about the idea of individuals having the liberty to go about their own lives as they see fit.
But when I defend that ideology, that gets me into conflict with conservatives, because they only want ~themselves and others just like them~ to have that freedom. They think that liberals want to take that from them...a lot of liberals don't. But I think that despite the workings of the internet and its social media algorithms trying to forcibly push us into extreme and defensive positions against perceived opposition, most American people are actually more tolerant and moderate than one would expect. We all just want to be free to live our lives by our own values and most of us are not actually on a mission to demand that everybody else conform to our lifestyles and ideologies...but it's the boogeyman we're all told we've got to fight against. So we get this bullcrap "Team Sports" mindset about it all, rather than acting like rational and decent people to one another.
For the past few decades, young people have left rural areas and moved to cities to find opportunities that just don't exist "back home." And, to be honest, the GOP has almost no policies that appeal to the upcoming generation.
Science denial, theocratic right wing religious influence, NRA worshiping and trickle-down economics just won't sell to the Millennials. They're on the verge of becoming the decisive voting block.
The old timers who remain in the boonies spending their days listening to hate radio and watching right wing TV just don't get it.
It's mostly liberal boomers who hate the NRA, younger liberals tend to be indifferent about guns or even flat out in favor of gun rights.
You are bringing it. Tyranny of the majority of a very few - two? - states if the electoral college is eliminated.
Further; "Liberals criticize the anti-majoritarian framework of the Constitution—and it is unquestionably the case that the Constitution places impediments in the way of simple majority rule." This article from which the preceding quote is taken says it much eloquently than can I.
We are a federal, (varioulsy referred to as a constitutional or democratic) republic for good reason. It is not easy to make changes.
I question how federalist our country actually is. A lot of things are delegated to the states, but there are a million federal laws pertaining to things that are not constitutional matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do Democrats win major towns even in deep red states? Why can't Republicans?
