Crazy Cat Lady in Training

Members
  • Content count

    1,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Crazy Cat Lady in Training

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 06/14/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Western PA
  • Interests
    Reading, gardening and the Great Outdoors

Recent Profile Visitors

1,484 profile views
  1. For STATE legislature seats. If you look at the boundaries for the congressional districts I mentioned upthread, you'll find that they do not respect municipal, town, borough or even street boundaries. I could be in one district and my neighbor in another. It's totally ridiculous. And as for the state districting being fair, I refer you to PA Senate Bill 1200. See Wiki for details. The formatting here is a mess and I'm tired of trying to fix it. The upshot of it is that it was challenged and SCOTUS couldn't agree on any standards to which gerrymandering is judged to violate the Constitution.As a result, the Republicans took control of both houses and pitted incumbent Democrats against each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_in_Pennsylvania I doubt that Wolf will be re-elected. The Republicans in the General Assembly have made sure he takes the blame for their childishness and ridiculousness. And because of most of this state is just Northern Redneck, they buy into it hook, line and sinker. The new budget (overdue, as usual) raises taxes and all kinds of fees, including new taxes on utilities. And yet Wolf takes the blame. Two years ago, the budget was 9 months overdue and he refused to sign it when they finally did come up with one because it was so bad, so it lapsed into law. The intent was to let the Republicans in the Assembly reap what they sowed, but it didn't work out that way. School districts were this close to shutting down and had to borrow heavily to keep their doors open, and the state's credit rating took a huge hit. The General Assembly is in no way being held accountable for any of this. Thanks Republicans. And there's more. Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) is on the record in 2012 as saying: http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/ I don't mean to rant, but to say that gerrymandering is any way fair is being disingenuous at best. And yes, Democrats do it too. Maryland is the perfect example. Sorry for the mess. I tried to clean it up but I can't delete the quote boxes.
  2. Yes, and local governments are starting to rebel now that they're realizing that the state governments want their sticky little fingers in local pies and overreaching on their attempt at controlling those cities. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/01/25/expect-more-conflict-between-cities-and-states
  3. Heh. That's even worse. Our state government is run by Republicans (although the governor is a Democrat). And it's the state government that draws the map. From Wiki: Keep in mind that there are nearly a million more registered Democrats than Republicans statewide. I really don't know what other states experience, but it seems to me that the only fair way to do it, so that all people are represented, is to have a computer draw the lines.
  4. I live in PA and I can tell you right now that there is NO WAY the Democrats will take Tim Murphy's seat even if every Democrat in western PA turned out to vote. They packed as many Democrats as they could into the 12th and 14th districts (which covers the city of Pittsburgh). In District 18 (which is Murphy's district and mine), there are 70,000+ more Democrats than Republicans. 70,000. Statewide there are 900,000 more Democrats than Republicans, but Democrats simply can't win. Democrats in PA 18 know their votes don't count for anything. It's even worse in districts like PA 7.
  5. Well, Democrats at the local level know that their districts are gerrymandered to death and they know their votes won't count. No matter how many Democrats turn out to vote, they will not win. It's not that they're not engaged but that they feel the futility of showing up except in presidential elections.
  6. I think PA was somewhere around 345,000.
  7. I personally don't own one anymore. I used to own a .38 Special but for a couple of reasons got rid of it: My ex husband was mentally unstable, and I had young children in the house. I flatly refused to have them in the house and took everything to my in law's where they were locked up. My father in law took safety very seriously. Having guns in my family is as natural as breathing. We come from a rural background where hunting for food was and still is perfectly normal. In fact, my grandmother's sister was killed in a hunting accident in the 50s. Keeping that in mind, I'm not in favor of a total ban, but there have to be restrictions on the types and number of weapons and ammo allowed, and a way to track and evaluate who has them.
  8. Seconded.
  9. Yep. They just voted for the 20 week abortion ban. They have no problem regulating our uteruses and restricting our constitutional right to a safe abortion, but talk about regulating guns even a little bit and they lose their damned minds. At least my congressman was forced to resign over his hypocrisy. Good riddance.
  10. Wait. We do it for health care, which is also a right, and we do it for cars and homes...but not for guns? That makes no sense. Waive the insurance requirement if someone has a legitimate need to hunt for food. Because the insurance would be so high, a lot of people would not be able to afford it. For the ones who could afford it, because of the risk gun ownership entails it serves to cover the medical expenses of anyone injured or killed with your weapon, and would prompt more people to report guns as lost or stolen so we can actually track these things. There would be a lot less "I lent him my gun" or "I let him borrow it". Medical expenses nationwide due to gunshots and gun injuries are astronomical. We pay for that through higher premiums, and it's high time the gun owners themselves shouldered some of that burden. Maybe they'll think twice before they shoot someone.
  11. Up to and including nuclear weapons, most likely.
  12. You're the one who used cars as an analogy, so...
  13. How many can you shoot at one time? There is simply NO reason for anyone to own an entire arsenal of weapons. None, zero, zip. Oh, we can add practical gun licensing tests to the list. Make them go to the firing range and demonstrate that they can handle a gun, know how to clean and store it properly, and can actually hit what they're shooting at.
  14. What reason could there possibly be for a majority of nonviolent gun owners to own 50 guns? If they gravitate towards that "hobby", there's an unhealthy fascination with death and violence. No one needs that many weapons, especially civilians. So, you want to know what reasonable regulation entails? Start there. Limit the number and type of weapons someone can own. Make them register and pay insurance on them. Close the online sales loopholes, and for Christ's sakes, make them pass a psych eval. Every pharmacy in the country has a digital record of what prescriptions are given out. If you've ever taken so much as a Xanax, you don't get a gun, period. People in this thread have given several examples of what reasonable people would do to reasonably regulate guns. You just don't want to hear it. You have no counterargument, either.
  15. Oh, absolutely. Since most deadly crashes involve young drivers ages 16-20, there's also a push to raise the driving age. Cars themselves are safer than ever, and we have research and regulations to thank for that.