Fight on Guns is Being Taken to State Ballots

[LiberalElite]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — The gun control movement, blocked in Congress and facing mounting losses in federal elections, is tweaking its name, refining its goals and using the same-sex marriage movement as a model to take the fight to voters on the state level.

After a victory in November on a Washington State ballot measure that will require broader background checks on gun buyers, groups that promote gun regulations have turned away from Washington and the political races that have been largely futile. Instead, they are turning their attention — and their growing wallets — to other states that allow ballot measures.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/us/gun-control-groups-blocked-in-washington-turn-attention-to-states.html

[onehandle]

1. Red states will vote dumb. Blue states will vote smart.

But our Nader extended corporate SCOTUS will bail out gun corporations, so gun fetishists need not worry as they rock back and forth in their basements stroking their long cold steel.

[cheapdate]

2. No "gun rights" legislation is too ridiculous for the Tennessee General Assembly to support.

[Duckhunter935]

3. a post like yours

is why GD gun posts are not allowed. An interesting take on the control movement taking it to the states and you have to bring the sexual references in. "Red states will vote dumb. Blue states will vote smart." interesting take but OK since a lot of democrats also have guns but support non-controversial items like UBC. Do not know how the gun corporations are being bailed out except for the law that bans frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt them. They can still be sued for defective products like all other things.

But you just could not forget the juvenile sexual penis reference, that just killed any credibility your argument had.

[BrotherIvan]

4. Would those "frivolous lawsuits" be dead kids?

Coz I'm thinking it's dead kids.

[Duckhunter935]

5. no

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

[davidpdx]

6. That is not always the case

Look back when all the anti-gay marriage ballot measures were passed in the early 2000's. Several progressive states passed them. Granted many of them passed in 2004 which was a tough year for liberals and conservatives turned out in masses, but they did pass.

I would not underestimate for a minute the ability of conservatives to pull off passing something in one of the more liberal states.