General Discussion

hack89

(39,171 posts) Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:34 AM Feb 2013

Even In Blue Minnesota, Gun Control Seems A Tough Sell

The thing I find interesting about this article is how it highlights the urban/rural divide on gun control.

Minnesota has a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, and Democrats control both houses of its Legislature. So it may have come as no surprise when President Obama went there earlier this week to rally support for his proposals to reduce gun violence.

But even in the politically blue state, there's considerable resistance to placing further restrictions on gun ownership.

It's unclear how all this will end. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, who faces re-election next year, has said he won't sign any gun law package unless it's supported by the state's rural lawmakers.

http://www.kvnf.org/post/even-blue-minnesota-gun-control-seems-tough-sell

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Even In Blue Minnesota, Gun Control Seems A Tough Sell (Original Post) hack89 Feb 2013 OP

Thats not surprising. HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #1

Minnesota is a state full of active hunters. MineralMan Feb 2013 #2

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)

1. Thats not surprising.

Reply to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:58 AM

Feb 2013

The blue states that have large rural areas have a lot of hunters. Minn, Mich, Vt, Penn, etc. while I think they would support tightening background checks, there would be strong opposition to gun bans, repealing 2A and similar ideas.

MineralMan

(146,308 posts)

2. Minnesota is a state full of active hunters.

Reply to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:05 PM

Feb 2013

They are members of both political parties. While it's irrational to think that the government is coming for their hunting firearms, there's not a lot that is rational about people's attitudes regarding firearms control. And Minnesota's gun owners don't just live in rural areas, either. They're everywhere.

On the other side, that same group of firearms owners are also anglers, for the most part, and both Republicans and Democrats supported a constitutional amendment that set up a landmark tax set-aside dedicated to environmental issues that protect habitat. It's an odd combination here.

Reply to this discussion