2nd Amendment Santuary

[JohnStOnge]

It's not there now. But things are moving in that direction. Just like Texas is moving towards becoming another California in the Electoral College. It's the king of thing that's like a dam breaking. For years and years there are not enough States. Then all of a sudden there are.

Not in our lifetimes.

Tell me 38 states that could realistically be there - say, in the next 30 years

when we’re gone the next generations can fvck up as they see fit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could go through a bunch of efforts to try to predict which 38 states might do it but there is no need. When things like that happen it's a critical mass sort of thing. Public opinion everywhere is moving towards more of a gun control mentality.

It could be that it happens in some other way. All I'm saying is that I would not rule Constitutional Amendment out.

Like I think if you'd have asked about whether people in Florida would support such an amendment 10 years ago it was a "no way." Now it's still probably not there but I think it's close. Five years from now it may have flipped.

[CID1990]

Not in our lifetimes.

Tell me 38 states that could realistically be there - say, in the next 30 years

when we’re gone the next generations can fvck up as they see fit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could go through a bunch of efforts to try to predict which 38 states might do it but there is no need. When things like that happen it's a critical mass sort of thing. Public opinion everywhere is moving towards more of a gun control mentality.

It could be that it happens in some other way. All I'm saying is that I would not rule Constitutional Amendment out.

Like I think if you'd have asked about whether people in Florida would support such an amendment 10 years ago it was a "no way." Now it's still probably not there but I think it's close. Five years from now it may have flipped.

Well duh

OF COURSE one day there could be more gun controls if the timeline is open ended - or there may be less -

Hell, I am pretty sure that in 500 years (probably less) the US won't even exist anymore. China is going to need Liebensraum eventually

But we're talking about a realistic timeline here, so I'll put one out there - -- there will be no Constitutional Amendment doing away with the right to bear arms in our lifetimes, and the events that could lead to it would likely also contribute to a shift from democracy to totalitarianism anyway - so the point is moot.

The US will no longer be a democracy before the most fundamental rights in the Constitution are amended

[BDKJMU]

Trump beat Clinton by almost 900,000 votes in 2016. It’s a looooong ways from becoming another KKKalifornia.

Reagan won California by 1.5 million votes in 1984. Then George H. W. Bush won the State by 350,000 votes in 1988. No Republican candidate has won it since and I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening in the foreseeable future.

BTW, Romney won Texas by 1.3 million votes in 2012. The Demographic trend is unmistakeable. Texas is heading for the blue column in the Electoral College. And once it gets there it ain't coming back.

Oh baloney. I went back all the way to 1900. Democrats won Texas in 1900-1916, 1932-1952; 1960-1968, 1976
Republicans won it in 1920-1928, 1956, 1972, 1980-2016.

Lst 30 elections its 15 for the donks, 15 for the conks. It has gone back and forth over the last hundred+ years, and likely will over the next 100+ years. To say when the donks win again it TX the conks will never win again is stupid, when you have no idea what will be going on in TX in 2050, 2100 or 2150..

[Ivytalk]

Reagan won California by 1.5 million votes in 1984. Then George H. W. Bush won the State by 350,000 votes in 1988. No Republican candidate has won it since and I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening in the foreseeable future.

BTW, Romney won Texas by 1.3 million votes in 2012. The Demographic trend is unmistakeable. Texas is heading for the blue column in the Electoral College. And once it gets there it ain't coming back.

Oh baloney. I went back all the way to 1900. Democrats won Texas in 1900-1916, 1932-1952; 1960-1968, 1976
Republicans won it in 1920-1928, 1956, 1972, 1980-2016.

Lst 30 elections its 15 for the donks, 15 for the conks. It has gone back and forth over the last hundred+ years, and likely will over the next 100+ years. To say when the donks win again it TX the conks will never win again is stupid, when you have no idea what will be going on in TX in 2050, 2100 or 2150..

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find...

[houndawg]

What's "santuary"

a sandwich in a safe place..

[Gil Dobie]

No. Just keep you from killing helpless babies. That’s all.

The helpless babies are the ones that your party ignores after they plop out of the womb.

I see a new law in the Donk future, kill unwanted babies. After term abortions.

[Ibanez]

Not in our lifetimes.

Tell me 38 states that could realistically be there - say, in the next 30 years

when we’re gone the next generations can fvck up as they see fit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could go through a bunch of efforts to try to predict which 38 states might do it but there is no need. When things like that happen it's a critical mass sort of thing. Public opinion everywhere is moving towards more of a gun control mentality.

It could be that it happens in some other way. All I'm saying is that I would not rule Constitutional Amendment out.

Like I think if you'd have asked about whether people in Florida would support such an amendment 10 years ago it was a "no way." Now it's still probably not there but I think it's close. Five years from now it may have flipped.

52% of State legislators are Republican
61% of State legislatures are Republican controlled
22 States are controlled by Republicans, 14 by the Dems and 13 are split.


Not any time soon, that's for damn sure.

[Ibanez]

Reagan won California by 1.5 million votes in 1984. Then George H. W. Bush won the State by 350,000 votes in 1988. No Republican candidate has won it since and I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening in the foreseeable future.

BTW, Romney won Texas by 1.3 million votes in 2012. The Demographic trend is unmistakeable. Texas is heading for the blue column in the Electoral College. And once it gets there it ain't coming back.

Oh baloney. I went back all the way to 1900. Democrats won Texas in 1900-1916, 1932-1952; 1960-1968, 1976
Republicans won it in 1920-1928, 1956, 1972, 1980-2016.

Lst 30 elections its 15 for the donks, 15 for the conks. It has gone back and forth over the last hundred+ years, and likely will over the next 100+ years. To say when the donks win again it TX the conks will never win again is stupid, when you have no idea what will be going on in TX in 2050, 2100 or 2150..

You have to be careful with that. Those Democrats are modern day Republicans. Same goes with the early 20th Century Republicans. I get your sentiment but let's be honest when reaching that far back...

[AZGrizFan]

Oh baloney. I went back all the way to 1900. Democrats won Texas in 1900-1916, 1932-1952; 1960-1968, 1976
Republicans won it in 1920-1928, 1956, 1972, 1980-2016.

Lst 30 elections its 15 for the donks, 15 for the conks. It has gone back and forth over the last hundred+ years, and likely will over the next 100+ years. To say when the donks win again it TX the conks will never win again is stupid, when you have no idea what will be going on in TX in 2050, 2100 or 2150..

You have to be careful with that. Those Democrats are modern day Republicans. Same goes with the early 20th Century Republicans. I get your sentiment but let's be honest when reaching that far back...

The more important part of BDK's post is the fact that a Republican has won it for 36 straight years.

[CID1990]

I could go through a bunch of efforts to try to predict which 38 states might do it but there is no need. When things like that happen it's a critical mass sort of thing. Public opinion everywhere is moving towards more of a gun control mentality.

It could be that it happens in some other way. All I'm saying is that I would not rule Constitutional Amendment out.

Like I think if you'd have asked about whether people in Florida would support such an amendment 10 years ago it was a "no way." Now it's still probably not there but I think it's close. Five years from now it may have flipped.

52% of State legislators are Republican
61% of State legislatures are Republican controlled
22 States are controlled by Republicans, 14 by the Dems and 13 are split.


Not any time soon, that's for damn sure.

Let’s also not forget that each state has its own rules for ratification - and in the convention method of ratification, the actual convention is a nominated body - not the legislatures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Reagan won California by 1.5 million votes in 1984. Then George H. W. Bush won the State by 350,000 votes in 1988. No Republican candidate has won it since and I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening in the foreseeable future.

BTW, Romney won Texas by 1.3 million votes in 2012. The Demographic trend is unmistakeable. Texas is heading for the blue column in the Electoral College. And once it gets there it ain't coming back.

Oh baloney. I went back all the way to 1900. Democrats won Texas in 1900-1916, 1932-1952; 1960-1968, 1976
Republicans won it in 1920-1928, 1956, 1972, 1980-2016.

Lst 30 elections its 15 for the donks, 15 for the conks. It has gone back and forth over the last hundred+ years, and likely will over the next 100+ years. To say when the donks win again it TX the conks will never win again is stupid, when you have no idea what will be going on in TX in 2050, 2100 or 2150..

No, because there is a phenomenon going on right now. We've talked about it before. The phenomenon is that the percentage of non Hispanic Whites in the population is decreasing in the nation in general and in Texas in particular and there is absolutely no evidence that the basic voting patters of non Whites have changed since the onset of exit polling in the 1970s.

I'm sure California went back and forth over time too. But California is now firmly in the Democrat column and there is absolutely no indication that it's going to leave that column in the foreseeable future.

In 2016 57% of those who voted in Texas were White (by exit polling) and Trump won the State by 9 percentage points. What do you think it's going to be like when 57% of those who vote are non White? And that's going to happen.

[AZGrizFan]

# of White births in 2016: 385,000
# of Hispanic births in 2016: 180,000

The harder they try, the behinder they get.

[BDKJMU]

Oh baloney. I went back all the way to 1900. Democrats won Texas in 1900-1916, 1932-1952; 1960-1968, 1976
Republicans won it in 1920-1928, 1956, 1972, 1980-2016.

Lst 30 elections its 15 for the donks, 15 for the conks. It has gone back and forth over the last hundred+ years, and likely will over the next 100+ years. To say when the donks win again it TX the conks will never win again is stupid, when you have no idea what will be going on in TX in 2050, 2100 or 2150..

No, because there is a phenomenon going on right now. We've talked about it before. The phenomenon is that the percentage of non Hispanic Whites in the population is decreasing in the nation in general and in Texas in particular and there is absolutely no evidence that the basic voting patters of non Whites have changed since the onset of exit polling in the 1970s.

I'm sure California went back and forth over time too. But California is now firmly in the Democrat column and there is absolutely no indication that it's going to leave that column in the foreseeable future.

In 2016 57% of those who voted in Texas were White (by exit polling) and Trump won the State by 9 percentage points. What do you think it's going to be like when 57% of those who vote are non White? And that's going to happen.

Wrong. Newsflash- Hispanic people are white. Hispanic isn't a race. Now it might have been 57% non Hispanic white, but 2016 Texas vote was over 80% white.

And state being more non Hispanic white doesn't mean it votes more conk, and a state being less non Hispanic white doesn't mean it votes more donk. Look at some of the non Hispanic whitest states (like Vermont & Minnesota). Snow white, yet they are solid blue. And snow white Maine and NH are purplish/blue. Then look at the deep south states- all lower % non Hispanic white & mostly solid red.

Heck, the Republican party now is doing a lot better local, statewide, and nationally than it was in the 60s, 70s,& 80's when the country had a lower percentage of minorities, & a higher percentage of non Hispanic whites.

[Ibanez]

52% of State legislators are Republican
61% of State legislatures are Republican controlled
22 States are controlled by Republicans, 14 by the Dems and 13 are split.


Not any time soon, that's for damn sure.

Let’s also not forget that each state has its own rules for ratification - and in the convention method of ratification, the actual convention is a nominated body - not the legislatures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point. I forgot about that

[Ibanez]

No, because there is a phenomenon going on right now. We've talked about it before. The phenomenon is that the percentage of non Hispanic Whites in the population is decreasing in the nation in general and in Texas in particular and there is absolutely no evidence that the basic voting patters of non Whites have changed since the onset of exit polling in the 1970s.

I'm sure California went back and forth over time too. But California is now firmly in the Democrat column and there is absolutely no indication that it's going to leave that column in the foreseeable future.

In 2016 57% of those who voted in Texas were White (by exit polling) and Trump won the State by 9 percentage points. What do you think it's going to be like when 57% of those who vote are non White? And that's going to happen.

Wrong. Newsflash- Hispanic people are white. Hispanic isn't a race. Now it might have been 57% non Hispanic white, but 2016 Texas vote was over 80% white.

And state being more non Hispanic white doesn't mean it votes more conk, and a state being less non Hispanic white doesn't mean it votes more donk. Look at some of the non Hispanic whitest states (like Vermont & Minnesota). Snow white, yet they are solid blue. And snow white Maine and NH are purplish/blue. Then look at the deep south states- all lower % non Hispanic white & mostly solid red.

Heck, the Republican party now is doing a lot better local, statewide, and nationally than it was in the 60s, 70s,& 80's when the country had a lower percentage of minorities, & a higher percentage of non Hispanic whites.

Hispanics can be any race.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong. Newsflash- Hispanic people are white. Hispanic isn't a race. Now it might have been 57% non Hispanic white, but 2016 Texas vote was over 80% white.

And state being more non Hispanic white doesn't mean it votes more conk, and a state being less non Hispanic white doesn't mean it votes more donk. Look at some of the non Hispanic whitest states (like Vermont & Minnesota). Snow white, yet they are solid blue. And snow white Maine and NH are purplish/blue. Then look at the deep south states- all lower % non Hispanic white & mostly solid red.

Heck, the Republican party now is doing a lot better local, statewide, and nationally than it was in the 60s, 70s,& 80's when the country had a lower percentage of minorities, & a higher percentage of non Hispanic whites.

Hispanics can be any race.

Point is if you have an exit poll, like the CNN one JSO is referring to, that lists under 'Race': 'White', 'Black', 'Latino', 'Asian', and 'Other', that is fake news, because Latino (or Hispanic) isn't a race.
And that lists under 'Race': 'White' and 'Non White', lumping all Latinos with non white, again, that is fake news, because the majority of Latinos fall under White. Just go look at the census data.

[Ibanez]

Hispanics can be any race.

Point is if you have an exit poll, like the CNN one JSO is referring to, that lists under 'Race': 'White', 'Black', 'Latino', 'Asian', and 'Other', that is fake news, because Latino (or Hispanic) isn't a race.
And that lists under 'Race': 'White' and 'Non White', lumping all Latinos with non white, again, that is fake news, because the majority of Latinos fall under White. Just go look at the census data.

You've been #BDKd!

Point is you're wrong.

[BDKJMU]

Point is if you have an exit poll, like the CNN one JSO is referring to, that lists under 'Race': 'White', 'Black', 'Latino', 'Asian', and 'Other', that is fake news, because Latino (or Hispanic) isn't a race.
And that lists under 'Race': 'White' and 'Non White', lumping all Latinos with non white, again, that is fake news, because the majority of Latinos fall under White. Just go look at the census data.

You've been #BDKd!

Point is you're wrong.

Wrong. I am correct about the incorrectness of the exit polls- Latino isn't a race.

[Ibanez]

You've been #BDKd!

Point is you're wrong.

Wrong. I am correct about the incorrectness of the exit polls- Latino isn't a race.

Go back and read what you wrote. You said Hispanics were white. That's wrong.
Hispanics can be white.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong. I am correct about the incorrectness of the exit polls- Latino isn't a race.

Go back and read what you wrote. You said Hispanics were white. That's wrong.
Hispanics can be white.

Ok, I was incorrect in that I should have inserted "majority".
But the exit polling is wrong in listing Latino under race, and listing 100% of them as non white.

[JohnStOnge]

Go back and read what you wrote. You said Hispanics were white. That's wrong.
Hispanics can be white.

Ok, I was incorrect in that I should have inserted "majority".
But the exit polling is wrong in listing Latino under race, and listing 100% of them as non white.

Fine, but whatever they are they tend to vote Democrat and it's been like that since the beginning of exit polling. And the trend in Texas is clear. I couldn't find any 2012 exit polling data for Texas. But for other years:

The 2004 Texas exit poll report has 66% of those who voted in the State as White and 35% as non White (rounding resulted in a 101% total). The non Whites voted for Kerry over Bush by 62% to 38%. Bush actually did very well among the "Latino" component of non Whites. Pretty much a dead heat at 49% to 50%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

The 2008 exit poll report has 63% of Texas voters as White and 37% as non White. The non Whites voted for Obama over McCain by 78% to 22%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#TXP00p1

The 2016 exit poll report has 57% of Texas voters as White and 43% as non White. The non Whites voted for Clinton over Trump by 69% to 27%. https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/resul ... /president

I suppose Republicans can take comfort in Trump doing better than Romney did among non Whites in the State. But Romney was running against the charismatic non White guy. But the important trend is that the percent of Texas voters who are White has been declining at a rate of 3 percentage points per election and if that continues Whites will drop below 50% three Presidential elections. At that rate, within the next four Presidential elections, the situation will be essentially reversed with non Whites being 55% of the vote and Whites being 45%. At that point, unless something changes very dramatically with how non Whites generally vote, Texas is lost to the Republicans.

And that's not even considering what's going on with age. As I've written before, I think the perception that people change dramatically as they get older is exaggerated. And Clinton almost certainly won in 2016 among Texas voters that were 44 years old and younger. The exit polling estimate is 49% to 43%. It's another indication that, in Texas as well as throughout the country, the Republican Party is the Party of old, White voters. The handwriting continues to be on the wall.

[BDKJMU]

The 2004 Texas exit poll report has 66% of those who voted in the State as White and 35% as non White (rounding resulted in a 101% total). The non Whites voted for Kerry over Bush by 62% to 38%. Bush actually did very well among the "Latino" component of non Whites. Pretty much a dead heat at 49% to 50%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race.

The 2008 exit poll report has 63% of Texas voters as White and 37% as non White. The non Whites voted for Obama over McCain by 78% to 22%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#TXP00p1

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race.

The 2016 exit poll report has 57% of Texas voters as White and 43% as non White. The non Whites voted for Clinton over Trump by 69% to 27%. https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/resul ... /president

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race. Also under 'Race' its lumps all Latinos with non white, again, wrong, because the majority of Latinos fall under white.

If you have any links that list 'Latino and/or Hispanic' under 'Race', its garbage.

[JohnStOnge]

The 2004 Texas exit poll report has 66% of those who voted in the State as White and 35% as non White (rounding resulted in a 101% total). The non Whites voted for Kerry over Bush by 62% to 38%. Bush actually did very well among the "Latino" component of non Whites. Pretty much a dead heat at 49% to 50%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race.

The 2008 exit poll report has 63% of Texas voters as White and 37% as non White. The non Whites voted for Obama over McCain by 78% to 22%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#TXP00p1

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race.

The 2016 exit poll report has 57% of Texas voters as White and 43% as non White. The non Whites voted for Clinton over Trump by 69% to 27%. https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/resul ... /president

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race. Also under 'Race' its lumps all Latinos with non white, again, wrong, because the majority of Latinos fall under white.

If you have any links that list 'Latino and/or Hispanic' under 'Race', its garbage.

It doesn't matter whether categorizing "Latino" or "Hispanic" as a race is correct. The point is that, whatever they are categorizing in that way, the group has consistently voted by about 2:1 for Democrats going back as far as exit polling results are available. The only exception was George H. W. Bush in 2004.

Perhaps the correct way to state it would be to refer to non Hispanic or non Latino White as opposed to everybody else. But the bottom line is that the "everybody else" tends to vote overwhelmingly Democrat and it's been that way for a long time.

[BDKJMU]

Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race.


Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race.


Again, CNN is including under 'Race' 'Latino'. Latino isn't a race. Also under 'Race' its lumps all Latinos with non white, again, wrong, because the majority of Latinos fall under white.

If you have any links that list 'Latino and/or Hispanic' under 'Race', its garbage.

It doesn't matter whether categorizing "Latino" or "Hispanic" as a race is correct. The point is that, whatever they are categorizing in that way, the group has consistently voted by about 2:1 for Democrats going back as far as exit polling results are available. The only exception was George H. W. Bush in 2004.

Perhaps the correct way to state it would be to refer to non Hispanic or non Latino White as opposed to everybody else. But the bottom line is that the "everybody else" tends to vote overwhelmingly Democrat and it's been that way for a long time.

It does matter. If professional pollsters are going to show that level of ignorance, there’s a good chance their poll is garbage..

[Ivytalk]

As I've written before, I think the perception that people change dramatically as they get older is exaggerated.

You sure haven’t!