Minnesota's Proposed "Assault Weapon" Bans (2024)

Many large polls avaliable so I'll just pull the first and easiest: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
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.
 
You're correct, land doesn't vote, but is MN as a whole well represented by a few big cities? I would say no.
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.
 
How exactly would have a (pointless) tampon dispenser in a school bathroom cause you to lose your child?
That policy is downstream from this one.

Acknowledge delusion, embrace delusion, followed by enforce delusion. California started this stuff not long ago and it came to this point.

 
That policy is downstream from this one.

Acknowledge delusion, embrace delusion, followed by enforce delusion. California started this stuff not long ago and it came to this point.

Not all that happens in Cali happens in the same extreme in MN.
 
Not all that happens in Cali happens in the same extreme in MN.
Regardless of what some people here want!

I think there's more than enough people here who would love to see MN turn in to a mini CA...

Can we draw a bubble around the twin cities and then they can just become their own state?
 
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'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.

I'll take what I can get is the moral of the story I suppose
 
How long ago would an "assault weapons ban" be really unlikely in Minnesota? How about colorado?
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.
 
Regardless of what some people here want!

I think there's more than enough people here who would love to see MN turn in to a mini CA...

Can we draw a bubble around the twin cities and then they can just become their own state?
How would outstate pay the bills - a huge flood of funding flows from cities to rural.
 
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?

I can't imagine there isn't enough money being paid in by rural MN to support rural MN. We're in the top 10 highest taxed states... I'd love to see some numbers or illustrations showing how the money is collected vs how it's spent.
 
I think a lot of that comes from rural areas trying to draw people from the cities?

I can't imagine there isn't enough money being paid in by rural MN to support rural MN. We're in the top 10 highest taxed states... I'd love to see some numbers or illustrations showing how the money is collected vs how it's spent.
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.
 
I don't know if this proposed legislation (see linked article) has any real chance of becoming new law/restriction, but it is being pursued by some of the DFL players. Still, the DFL holds majorities in both Houses and holds the Governorship, so if it is going to happen, they have the numbers, etc.

In any event, efforts to ban/restrict ARs (actually, many/all semi-autos) are likely going to be reviewed at SCOTUS as a result of other cases that are further along in the Judicial process. Writ for certiorari (appeals) are already filed for a number of cases in the Ninth, Seventh and Fourth Circuit currently. They are likely to be resolved in the '24-'25 court session, i.e., May/June '25.

If MN Dems Have 'Modest' Anti-Gun Agenda, We'd Hate To See Aggressive
Tom Knighton | February 21, 2024, 5:29 PM

Some progressive DFL lawmakers are aiming for laws restricting the sale and possession of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, but slim majorities in both chambers and skittish caucus moderates will make passage difficult — especially in an election year when all 134 House seats are on the ballot and the issue could create political headaches for swing-district Democrats.

“It’s still disappointing to me how the public is ahead of the politicians on this one,” said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville. Marty, a longtime gun control advocate, said he hasn’t heard whether his assault weapon bill will even receive a hearing this session, but he’s not optimistic. Many of his Democratic colleagues, he said, are “scared.”

 
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.
Ah you are correct in that. Senators and reps voted accordingly (brady bill)
 
That policy is downstream from this one.

Acknowledge delusion, embrace delusion, followed by enforce delusion. California started this stuff not long ago and it came to this point.

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.
 
Last edited:
It is NOT a requirement for MN schools to have feminine products in boys bathrooms. That is false. I checked. Our high school does NOT have them.
 
I do agree that hate kills, and that ignorance and political hyperbole drive hate.
Audrey Hale comes to mind.
It is NOT a requirement for MN schools to have feminine products in boys bathrooms. That is false. I checked. Our high school does NOT have them.
Text of the law. Interpret accordingly.

Section 121A.212 - ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS
A school district or charter school must provide students with access to menstrual products at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.
 
Audrey Hale comes to mind.
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...



Oh and remind me how many straight males have been the one shooting kids in a school? Bet I could easily pick more than one just in 2024.... But ya let's blame trans kids
 
Audrey Hale comes to mind.

Text of the law. Interpret accordingly.

Section 121A.212 - ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS
A school district or charter school must provide students with access to menstrual products at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.
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.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,030
Messages
2,041,879
Members
36,438
Latest member
SGP
Back
Top