What Would Happen if the Dems Win?

Supposing the dems win, and win solidly, taking firm control of the government for a while into the future, what might happen?

Just a sample: 

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2355

"More importantly, it makes no exception for the use of a firearm for self-defense."

So I guess if some guy breaks into your home, it would be illegal to shoot him. 

>>1
Very likely truth, or near truth.  That's a liberal state. 

I think it's very likely the only reason we have the rights left that we do is because the republicans are there to vote down these gun control bills. 

>>1
You need only look at the liberal swampfest of Europe to see what will happen. Most places over there they have almost no right of self defense.  Criminals hold a huge amount of power over victims and the governments there just keep giving them more.

>>3
Such as the UK.  Also, California, and many other liberal states in the USA. 

Yeah, many states in the US (the more dem-leaning ones) actually have it illegal to defend yourself.  Some places, you can get sent to prison for engaging with your fists. 

>>4
I think it's funny to note that most areas in the USA that are pro gun control have the highest crime rates.  In comparison, all the lowest crime rates can be found in pro gun, pro 2nd amendment areas. 

If you could just remove a few of the anti-gun cities in the USA from our data that is figured in for crime rates comparable to other nations, the USA's crime rate is actually VERY good.  The only reason the USA's crime data looks bad at a glance (or not as good as some countries, rather) is because we have these anti-gun blemishes (such as detroit, LA, Chicago, NYC, etc.) on our record. 

>>5
I don't think those cities necessarily have high crime rates due to being anti-gun, rather they are anti-gun due to the high crime rate.  Well, the violent crime rate at least, as much of that is gangbangers killing other gangbangers.  Not a big loss really. 

>>6
Biggest problem is poverty and the fact that there's too much people in those cities. Just living in city is very unhealthy mentally.

>>6 That is actually something I should look for; an investigation regarding such a causation. I guess it is a vicious circle.
>>7 That sounds like rural paranoia to me.

>>8
I have lived in rural area all my life, so maybe you're right, but I find cities very uncomfortable places. Sure there's lot of shops and sights. Also ofcourse clubs and bars if you're into that sort of things. Other than that they tend to be crowded hellholes though.

>>5
Most of the lowest crime rate areas are also the lowest populated areas. 

>>8
I'm just saying the areas of the US that have the most stringent gun control (by state & county) are also, generally, the areas with highest crime.  The areas with low gun restriction have low crime (generally).  If we could just fucking saw off the east and west coasts (the areas full of brain dead liberal democrats), we would have an extremely low crime rate relative to other nations in the world. 

>>11 "I'm just saying the areas of the US that have the most stringent gun control (by state & county) are also, generally, the areas with highest crime.  The areas with low gun restriction have low crime (generally).  If we could just fucking saw off the east and west coasts (the areas full of brain dead liberal democrats), we would have an extremely low crime rate relative to other nations in the world" What a patriot you are. With people like you around I'm happy conditions like fibromyalgi exists

>>11
The point is that there really hasn't been any explicit links between being pro-gun and having a low crime rate or vice-versa.  I'm not questioning that guns can stop crimes in the act (believe me, I know they do).  What I question is the claim that guns stop crimes from occuring in the first place.  There are simply too many changed variables between the low population rural areas and the high population urban areas to just say "guns did it!"  Guns are efficient tools for protecting yourself and family, but too many people treat them like magical crime stopping elixirs.

>>13
There have been explicit links between gun control and crime rates... just take a look at D.C.

>>14
Point taken, but D.C. has a rather uniquely harsh stance on guns and self defense in general doesn't it?  Can that be applied to other urban cities?

Libertarians are as reponsible as the democracts, but are not part of a marxist plot to implement a totalitarianist communism with stupid policies like disarming anyone who obeys the law and paying healthy adults to sit around all day doing nothing.

There have been explicit links between gun control and crime rates...
Plz to be giving references to peer-reviewed articles that have proven said link, kthxbye.

>>17
www.google.com

You are an extremist who actively goes against logic by being apologetic and deciding not to look for facts when they are needed.

>>18 I actually think that the person who makes the point is the one who's supposed to provide some sentences that sum up his sources, and then give the link.

>>19
You clearly have no recognition of the importance of reality when determinning reality, heavily suggesting that you believe whatever you want to believe.

He's not your momma, look for the facts yourself. If you have to be a lazy bastard at least show some sort of desire to find the facts and say "I googled it but didn't find anything", which is astronomically better than what you've just said.

Also, no, you can't say "I googled it but didn't find anything" now, because it's obvious you prefer to live in your own fantasy world instead of finding out what the real world is like so you can make proper decisions in your life. Even more scarily you may be completely aware that you are wrong, but are so full of malice instead of using your awareness to find good solutions to the world's problems, using it to find ways of deceiving others for personal gain.

>>20 I was pointing out the futility of demanding counter-research to moot a point from someone who demands research on your point.
If you are just going to throw google at everyone why did you pipe up in the first place? Then we are just trading perceptions.

America won't give up it's guns.  There are enough people out there who realize that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is just stupid.  Also, not all democrats are anti-gun.  I'm probably more of a libertarian than a democrat, but I am very much pro-gun, personally. 

There might be some places with anti-gun laws that are this insane, but do you really think that the hardcore gun people are going to surrender their firearms?

If anything, the government will push the anti-gun stuff a little too far, then the public will lash out at them and force them to remove the restrictions.

>>22
"America won't give up it's guns.  There are enough people out there who realize that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is just stupid." 

Unfortunately, it seems like 90% of the democratic political party disagrees with you. 

"Also, not all democrats are anti-gun."

Very true, but most of them are.  Take a look at this: 

http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm

The republicans almost always support guns and gun rights, and the democrats almost always oppose them. 

"There might be some places with anti-gun laws that are this insane, but do you really think that the hardcore gun people are going to surrender their firearms?"

You might be right.  That likely has a lot to do with the massive retribution that we witnessed in 2000, and 2004 with the landslide republican victories following the Clinton administration. 

"If anything, the government will push the anti-gun stuff a little too far, then the public will lash out at them and force them to remove the restrictions."

I suppose it's somewhat arguable that this has happened, but if you ask me, the anti-gun stuff has already been pushed too far, and I don't see any of the more lame of the gun control laws being repealed.  It really seems like once you lose the right to own a certain kind of gun, it doesn't typically come back. 

The 2nd amendment to the constitution protects weapon ownership by the citizenry.  What part of "infringed" don't the democraps understand?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment.

...and Mr. Dean goes: BYAAAAAAAAA!....

>>25
Dean doesn't seem as bad as the other dems.  At least he doesn't view guns as evil people killing devil creations that must be banned or society as we know it will collapse in a heap of bloodshed.

>>26
Republicans are still usually better.

>>27 If stupid was semen, you would be bukkake.

Worrying about gun ownership is like staring at a mouse while a tiger is slinking up behind you. There are far bigger problems at the moment.

If you vote with this as your main concern, you're a fucking retard. Sorry if that hurts some morons' feelings.

>>29 But let's not forget that the abilities of the people to defend their liberties depend on the 2nd amendment. Where would abortionists be without the capability to shoot the face of whatever waste of elements that fucks with him/her? I don't have any respect for those that secede the spirit of their country by voting republican, just for the sake of guns, but almost all criticizm aimed at gun ownership is either weak or of a knee-jerk nature.

I don't have any respect for those that secede the spirit of their country by voting republican
I'm glad to hear it, and I'm not referring to any party in particular. There are too many people who are tied up with the utterly irrelevant while a few in power are happily destroying what's important to everyone except themselves.

Of course, if you believe in social darwinism, this is the natural order of things, and is good.

almost all criticizm aimed at gun ownership is either weak or of a knee-jerk nature
Maybe. You seem like a reasonable fellow, so I'm sure you'll draw your own conclusions from something more substantial: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=international+correlation+gun+ownership

Correlation may not be causation, but that doesn't look promising; women and the suicidal in particular need take note.

>>30
What if the fetus is sentient?

>>30
"I don't have any respect for those that secede the spirit of their country by voting republican, just for the sake of guns"

But not only do you yourself say you would support the left, who would possibly do more damage to the spirit of our country, you yourself would likely respect others who would do as much as well. 

"But let's not forget that the abilities of the people to defend their liberties depend on the 2nd amendment."

Precisely why it is so important.  Not only that, if the founders and those who revolted against the British didn't have their guns, it is arguable we wouldn't have ever became this great country to begin with.  We'd be bending over and kissing that kings' ass, and saying thank you for his obnoxious taxes to boot. 

>>31
Who cares about suicides? I for one honestly don't give a fuck.  If people want to kill themselves, there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be able to. 

Suicide is fine.  Does the person own their own body, and their own life, or does the government? If the person owns it, it is obviously within their rights to destroy both.  If the government owns them, it is not. 

Laws against suicide are like nationalizing human bodies - making them the property of the state. 

Suicide is a right, and the minute you restrict it, you abandon the base of individual rights our country was founded upon, and depart down the road to Socialism. 

I live here in Chicago, and yes, it's a cool place. A lot of the crime that occurs here is mostly gang violence with some armed robbery and breaking and entering sprinkled over it.

Just like any other major city, when you have this many people bunched up together, the crime rate is bound to shoot threw the roof. Like I said, that's true for any other city.

Chicago is a pretty cool place to live in, but yeah, there are some neighborhoods that more dangerous than others. I'm sure it's the same in New York, LA, Miami, St.Louis, Seattle, etc.

I happen to live in an area a lot of people consider "dangerous". But eh, it feels to me as safe as if I lived in the suburbs.

>>34
Who cares? Family members etc. I think the idea is that suicidal people who are able to kill themselves are almost always not thinking rationally. It's not like you can charge people for killing themselves; they're already dead. Are discouragement and enforcement such liberty-breaking ideas?   

>>36
Whose body is it? The families' body, or the individual's? If it is the individual's body, it is within his right to destroy it if he pleases. 

Discouragement? There's nothing wrong with trying to stop suicides by having friends help the guy out of it, or his problems, whatever.  There IS something wrong with government agents trying to stop him from doing it. 

>>31
social darwinism: inferior ideologies dying out? NO WAI!

Nothing would change because despite public perception they are really just the exact same party.