It’s more difficult to legislate against because it would amount to a change in the constitution.
Yes he is saying the right thing, but what else could Americans have done? I would think there are overwhelming number of Americans who have been pushing for change, like what Steve Kerr said that there are bills sitting for 2 years not even given a vote in front of 50 senators even when 90% of Americans want it (though I have not checked where the number came from)
Does it need a 2/3rds majority for a constitutional amendment or is the threshold even higher?
The problem is we need to distinguish things in which there is broad agreement in the population vs within congress. These are areas where there is majority support in the population, but not within congress (GOP) to do anything abut it. Nor, importantly, at the state level. As I just documented in the breaking news thread at the state level this is actually going in the other direction. Until we get a political system that is actually responsive to public opinion then we’re kind of fucked.
For example, during the Obama administration, in the absence of congress putting any bills on his desk, he worked with federal regulators to block legal gun purchases by people with certain mental health issues. The GOP fought aggressively against it, made it a rallying cry and ultimately Trump rescinded it. To be clear, it was not a good solution, but Obama acknowledged as much. He said he wanted legislation and that legislators should take their legitimate criticisms of his regulation and address them with legislation and he will sign it. The GOP blocked any movement on this and simply criticized with no productive contribution to the debate. At the time Trump rescinded the rule they were actively engaged in debate over how the mass shooting that had just occurred was not an issue of guns, but of mental health.
Contrarians will point to the existence of so called 2nd amendment Dems to argue this isnt really a partisan issue, but that is a terrible framing. With almost no exceptions, 2A Dems are what you might call Scalia aligned…support the amendment in principle but agree that strict regulation (which operates within the limits dictated by the laws they pass) is perfectly consistent with the amendment. They are not the problem in passing legislation aligned with where the general population are on what is often called common sense gun laws.
2 Likes
I just do not understand why you need to take a test and own a license to drive a registered car, but those regulations are too strict for owning a gun.
Why is this argument never made? It’s so simple.
Current rules in the senate mean you effectively need 60 votes to get through the process of passing a bill (really only need 50 to pass it, but need 60 to get it to a vote) in the senate. A single party having such control of that chamber is very rare. The Dems had it in Obama’s first team, but literally only for a couple of weeks (due to a couple of really odd circumstances
It is. And the counter is “the constitution”.
It doesn’t take away the right to bear arms any more than current laws prohibit driving.
It doesnt, but a relatively recent ruling in the Supreme Court has changed the interpretation of what the constitution allows for which has drastically shifted the entire landscape towards loosening of ownership laws and regulations. It is largely rubbished as an opinion, but that’s the supreme court we have
@peterroberts @aussielad perhaps EU can sanction them. These lunatics shouldn’t be running around freely.
I agree that regulation and legal restrictions do not contradict the constitution, so that common counter you receive when your example is raised is dumb. But the comparison itself is not a good one because the right to drive is not a constitutional protection so you cannot use restrictions around one’s ability to do that to say anything about restrictions to a constitutional protection.
It needs to be ratified by 38 out of 50 states. Trump won in 25 states at the last election, so it’s not likely tk ever get close to 38.
This is also why they cannot change from the electoral college system as the Republicans knows they’re unlikely ro ever win an election again under a popular vote system.
1 Like
The obsession with preserving the constitution largely in its 18th Century form - when in reality the authors were implementing what they thought was best for the time - is going to look fucking stupid 200-300 years in the future when still nothing has changed to move with the times and the problems have been exacerbated ten fold.
2 Likes
The framers of the constitution were significantly dissatisfied with the original document, but accepted that it was the best they could do in the time they had with the level of disagreement that existed among the decision makers. They were feeling pressure to commit something to the paper as they feared in the absence of a doing that and giving their democracy experiment some guidelines they risked monarchists taking advantage and filling the void by advancing their own form of rule.
Shit, within 3 years of ratifying the original version, they approved the bill of rights, a group of 10 amendments to their own fucking constitution.
It’s largely underappreciated now, but there was real concerns of a constitutional crisis as early as Washington’s tenure as president. There was real uncertainty over what would happen should he decide he was not stepping down, and significant support for him to not do so. The fact he chose to step down and made way for new candidates to be voted on is considered by lots of historians as the real birth of US democracy, and why he is portrayed (by those who know the classics and antiquity) as a modern day Cincinatus. This is the historical context the framers of the constitution were operating in with their willingness to find constitutional compromises, even ones they hated (see slavery issues)
1 Like
I don’t think you can understand the political inaction through the lens of political contributions. Yes, the NRA are a primary driver of this inaction, but it’s long since passed being about their direct contributions. The challenge is guns have become the ultimate field of battle for the culture war that has driven American politics since Obama’s election. It is no longer about the guns per se, but protecting the abstract concept of “freedom”. An elected Republican cannot in isolation support anything that is deemed to restrict gun ownership without being painted as supporting the liberals’ attacks on our freedom, deep state etc. It is simply not possible to be elected as a Republican and vote this way, regardless of what happens to their direct contributions from the NRA.
4 Likes
And equally, Dems in swing states feel that they have to prove that they’re not big government liberals by opposing meaningful gun controls too.
I do’nt agree with the “equally” phrasing at all. 2nd amendment Dems provide a limitation on how far the Dem can go as a causus, but it is not what is stopping popular, effective legislation being passed. You have one party whose official platform includes “common sense” regulation consistent with even the current Heller interpretation of the second amendment, and you have another party who do not have a single elected member willing to do anything about any of it.
I know the term ‘failed state’ has been bandied about…I am actually fascinated by this as a concept.
If a state at the US’ level of development cannot ‘guarantee’ (for want of a better word) its children are safe at school, if it cannot provide all of its citizens access to healthcare, if it cannot even give its women meaningful maternity leave or its workers meaningful paid holidays…has that state failed?
4 Likes
But that’s what we have come expect from the Republican party. The Democrats have public opinion behind them on a number of major issues but are unable to unite and provide a coherent and cohesive alternative.