# What can we expect in the two years following the midterms? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457 "2014-08-25T14:46:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/61 "2014-08-25T18:40:12Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > No it’s not. > > There are 30,000 gun laws in this country. That’s too many. OK, what is your source? [Fact Check](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-nras-fuzzy-decades-old-claim-of-20000-gun-laws/2013/02/04/4a7892c0-6f23-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html) tried to debunk or verify the 20,000 law claim of last year or a 9,000 federal gun law claim but came up empty. So who says there are 30,000 gun laws and what is their source? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/62 "2014-08-25T18:40:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So you’d \*rather \*have it work badly than efficiently, and will work hard to make that happen, solely out of some nihilistic instinct that denies the validity of any concept of society and mutual obligations. Bad governments can be quite efficient. I’d rather a government that is bad wasn’t efficient as well. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/63 "2014-08-25T18:41:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 No, it isn’t. Yes. It is. How is that statement even remotely controversial? You can have a large government in terms of size of it’s spending. You can also have a large government in terms of how much it regulates it’s citizens. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/64 "2014-08-25T18:41:17Z")
Look, once again, “laws” are impossible to quantify. You can count the number of sections in a given code of statutes, but a given section might include several “laws,” or might not really amount to one, by itself, unless read together with another section. And many “laws” are non-statutory common-law rules, which are constantly evolving and, again, impossible to quantify. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/65 "2014-08-25T18:41:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The government constantly growing, both in size and complexity is what’s convoluted. We will not doubt grow from a country that has 30,000 gun laws to one that has 40,000. Then 50,000. That’s "freakin’ convoluted. Reducing the laws doesn’t need to be, despite your handwaving insistence to the contrary. I didn’t handwave-I asked a question that you didn’t answer. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/66 "2014-08-25T18:41:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 No, it isn’t. Yes, it is. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/67 "2014-08-25T18:44:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes. It is. How is that statement even remotely controversial? > > You can have a large government in terms of size of it’s spending. You can also have a large government in terms of how much it regulates it’s citizens. Regulatory != large. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/68 "2014-08-25T18:45:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I didn’t handwave-I asked a question that you didn’t answer. Your question of “who picks” is so silly it doesn’t deserve an answer. Reducing or eliminating regulations and laws is certainly something that is possible and not so complicated that it couldn’t be done as you seem to be saying. Who picks? I don’t care. The person proposing the new law could pick old ones to sunset as part of the proposal and that is voted on along with the law. That would work and would be simple. There’s a dozen other ways you could do it as well. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/69 "2014-08-25T18:46:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Regulatory != large. You can go ahead and keep thinking that. But just know that most people don’t agree and will continue to use the term “large” to refer to other things other than just government spending levels. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/70 "2014-08-25T18:49:37Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > just know that most people don’t agree Cite that you speak for ‘most people’? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/71 "2014-08-25T18:51:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Regulatory != large. This is semantics. I think the overall idea is wanting a low cost, low service government. That means lower taxes, less regulation, less everything. I’m not sure how productive it is to try and count laws, bills, pages of legislation, or otherwise, but all of these things are efforts to illustrate that the federal government is too intrusive. Seriously, if my local congress person in their campaign simply said they were going to go to Washington and try to prevent any new law from passing they’d have my vote. If any presedential candidate promised they’d veto every new law, they’d have my vote. I want gridlock in DC. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/72 "2014-08-25T18:51:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > OK, what is your source? [Fact Check](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-nras-fuzzy-decades-old-claim-of-20000-gun-laws/2013/02/04/4a7892c0-6f23-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html) tried to debunk or verify the 20,000 law claim of last year or a 9,000 federal gun law claim but came up empty. So who says there are 30,000 gun laws and what is their source? Sorry, I meant to say 20,000. That’s the number the NRA uses. From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-nras-fuzzy-decades-old-claim-of-20000-gun-laws/2013/02/04/4a7892c0-6f23-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html): > [@](#): > > This 20,000 figure appears to be an ancient guesstimate that has hardened over the decades into a constantly repeated, never-questioned talking point. It could be lower, or higher, depending on who’s counting what. It really doesn’t matter what the actual number is too much. It’s too high. 10,000 would be too high. 5,000 would be too high. It’s a good example of over-regulation, because as a gun owner I have personal experience going to the police station and talking to the “gun expert” cops that every department has to have now. They can’t answer simple straightforward questions because the laws are so complex that even thought it’s a big part of their job they can’t keep up with all of them. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/73 "2014-08-25T18:52:15Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Bad governments can be quite efficient. I’d rather a government that is bad wasn’t efficient as well. You haven’t drawn a distinction; you’ve only grunted Government=Bad. Well, why do you want to make a \*good \*government (if you’re now prepared to admit there can be such a thing; are you?) work badly? Why do you want to get rid of good government, too? Serious question, that’s been the Republican operating philosophy for some time now, even involving coercion into signing Norquist’s silly pledge. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/74 "2014-08-25T18:53:09Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Cite that you speak for ‘most people’? [I hate having to do this.](https://www.google.com/search?q=large&oq=large&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.703j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/75 "2014-08-25T18:53:55Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes. Of course pro-gun people are unlikely to complain about a pro-gun law. > > But most of the 30,000 gun laws in this country are not pro-gun. Maybe. But take a look at the Wikipedia summary of Oklahoma’s gun laws. Clearly there are a lot of them, but you can hardly characterize them in their totality as “not pro-gun.” Even things like open carry laws are still, um, _laws_. > [@](#): > > Yes, I understand that. So what? Such a semantic nitpick doesn’t matter. It’s clear what someone means when they say they want “less laws, less regulations and less government”. You could be talking about a hundred smallish laws passed in separate bills or one giant bill with many provisions. The point still stands. No, it doesn’t. You’re saying the number of laws matters, and then you’re saying that pointing out the problems with that approach is semantic nitpickery. You introduced the metric, now you’re dissing it. Which is it? It’s gotta be one or the other. > [@](#): > > Also, I’ve been very clear that I’m obviously fine with new legislation if it’s purpose is to reduce laws, reduce complexity of the tax code or reduce regulations. It’s not complicated. Except that, as already noted, it’s impossible for new legislation to reduce the number of laws. It can only increase it. I can’t help it if the metric you chose to advocate here isn’t particularly defensible. But I’m sure gonna point it out. > [@](#): > > But while this is a concern, it’s certainly no reason to favor more legislation and more regulation from the Congress. Oh, _from the Congress_. I see. And laws in each locality…good or not so good, depending. But that still leaves 50 states and D.C. And it looks to me as if even gun-friendly Oklahoma has dozens and dozens of state gun laws, which is gonna get you several thousand, once you multiply by 51. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/76 "2014-08-25T18:58:37Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > [I hate having to do this.](https://www.google.com/search?q=large&oq=large&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.703j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8) Do what, embarrass yourself :rolleyes: Do you think that definition supports your claim that most people agree with you on this topic? Try again, this time maybe think things through a bit before you try to show someone up and only end up falling on your own face. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/77 "2014-08-25T18:59:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You’re saying the number of laws matters, and then you’re saying that pointing out the problems with that approach is semantic nitpickery. I’ve never said this. In fact, I’ve said the opposite and said that legislation can be good in my view, if they serve to reduce the number of laws and the amount of legislation currently on the books. > [@](#): > > Oh, _from the Congress_. I see. > > And laws in each locality…good or not so good, depending. Yes. From the Congress. Because that’s what this thread is about. Read the OP. > [@](#): > > But that still leaves 50 states and D.C. And it looks to me as if even gun-friendly Oklahoma has dozens and dozens of state gun laws, which is gonna get you several thousand, once you multiply by 51. Exactly right. This is a problem, and one that’s not as easy to make blanket statements about as with discussing the laws passed by Congress. It’s probably better suited to another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/78 "2014-08-25T18:59:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Regulatory != large. That’s ridiculous. One can say that the government is a “big government” because it is overly expensive. One can also say that the government is a “big government” because it is overly intrusive. One can also say that it is “big government” for both reasons. Regulatory = intrusive. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/79 "2014-08-25T19:01:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You haven’t drawn a distinction; you’ve only grunted Government=Bad. Well, why do you want to make a \*good \*government (if you’re now prepared to admit there can be such a thing; are you?) work badly? Cite where I said I do? In fact, cite where I said the current government is a “good” government? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457/80 "2014-08-25T19:02:12Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Do you think that definition supports your claim that most people agree with you on this topic? Assuming that most people share the same definition of the word “large” that the dictionary does: Yes. It does support my claim. If **BrainGlutton** has some different definition of the word, he’s welcome to it. I just point out that it will cause confusion for him going forward because most people probably understand what the word means. It’s silly to think that “large” can’t refer to the size of regulations when speaking of government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-expect-in-the-two-years-following-the-midterms/696457.md?page=5)