Why sensible gun legislation and everything else popular with the American people fails to pass:

[ivwshane]

Your options have zero chances. Neither of our option's has a chance - the problem is I at least I acknowledge how fucked the system is.

Really? You don’t think it’s possible to either win two more senate seats or flip two democrat seats to Dems who will vote to get rid of the filibuster? Sorry that’s bs.

 

[MrSquished]

Really? You don’t think it’s possible to either win two more senate seats? Sorry that’s bs.

The house will be gone. Would be a Pyrrhic victory.

Also, just 34 Senators, representing approximately 8% of the US Population, could block an amendment - the same exact Senate you insist is not broken.

 

[ivwshane]

The house will be gone. Would be a Pyrrhic victory.

Also, just 34 Senators, representing approximately 8% of the US Population, could block an amendment - the same exact Senate you insist is not broken.

What amendment?

 

[IronWing]

That’s what the house is for or did you not learn that civics lesson. Why have the senate if you are just going to have more representatives anyway? So what you are really for is abolishing the senate, good luck with that.

I’m good with abolishing the Senate. It serves no goodly purpose.

 

[ivwshane]

I’m good with abolishing the Senate. It serves no goodly purpose.

Then you better get started on that constitutional amendment

 

[Moonbeam]

The issue with ending the filibuster is that sooner or later the other team gains the majority. So you get what you want today, then lose it all in a few years.
I agree something needs to change, but making it easy for the majority party to do whatever they want isn't a solution, it's another layer of problems.

No. Democracy is already losing you are in this fight for dear life. This must pan out and when its done the other side you are talking about is “Manchin level democrats” vs the Bernie side. As it should fucking be.
Your alternative is a Vlad like Russia. Good luck with that.
Ps. I know your brain is fried and you dont get any of this so lulz.

This is an outstanding example of the fundamental issue. Because we disagree politically, there must be something wrong with me, so that justifies establishing rules that negate my wishes while calling it democracy.

Personally, I understand and sympathize with Greenman's first post, no problem at all. Tyranny of the majority was, in my opinion, something our forefathers were terrified of. But as cytg111 says, because of the filibuster the minority blocks things that really are good for and supported by most people. I have a question I wish I could answer. Why didn't the founders not put in the filibuster in the first place. I think they did, it was supposed to be the will of the people that could survive a majority vote in the senate.

There is an issues that hang over everything. The will of the people is good when what the majority wants is good and dangerous when it isn't. Things can easily go to shit when you allow people who have been taught to hate themselves are given the power of the vote. The primary motive of people who have that bad is the will to get even rather than do something good. They can be led around by the nose. Frightened, riled up and manipulated. A democracy is only as good as its citizens. What the country has slowly become, then, is service to the will of those people who know how and have the money to buy votes that accord with their special interests. The right to petition the government has become the power to buy it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's supposed to be a living Document, Amended as needed, yet a minority will not let it be Amended.

It can be Amended as needed. You just need to convice more people that what you want is better than what we have........... and you can't.

 

[soulcougher73]

Leaving the filibuster alone right now would be the thing to do, Democrats are about to lose the house and senate for a generation. You do not want the Republicans running around doing whatever they want at their sole discretion.

what’s to say the republicans wouldn’t abandon the filibuster when given a chance?

 

[ivwshane]

what’s to say the republicans wouldn’t abandon the filibuster when given a chance?

Honestly the only thing stopping republicans from removing the filibuster is the fact that they don’t actually have any legislation they want to pass. It’s much easier and better politically for them to say they can’t do anything because of democrats. Democrats don’t have that luxury because their voters will actually turn on them for inaction which is why republicans block everything.

 

[cytg111]

It can be Amended as needed. You just need to convice more people that what you want is better than what we have........... and you can't.

90% of your people wants universal background checks but NRA money bought senators says NOT ON MY WATCH.
Taj. Your country, your democracy, is straight up fucked - largely because of peeps like you. Congratulations. You fucked it up. Undone the experiment. Be proud.

 

[HomerJS]

The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control

The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.

www.theatlantic.com

How about we liberals stop falling for the delusion that guns themselves are the problem and go after why nothing sensible ever can get done. In my opinion it is time to go after the filibuster and any and all who try to preserve it and explain to the American people who it is who is killing their hopes and their dreams.

Should we thank God for the small mercies two Democratic senators will give us when they are responsible for the destruction of Democracy? I think it is time that the Democrats stare telling the American people who is destroying their dreams. I think the party should kick them out as the reason why nothing gets done on anything. Put the blame and accountability at the feet of the real problem and then maybe something good and rational will happen on gun legislation.

Agree or no?

If a 5 year old hit his brother with a hammer I wouldn't blame the hammer but I would still take it from him.

Manchinema are complicated. While I do blame them for standing in the way of ending the filibuster for things like voting rights equally to blame are the voting for politicians who are against their interests.

Maybe some of that will finally backfire because of Uvalde.

 

[K1052]

It can be Amended as needed. You just need to convice more people that what you want is better than what we have........... and you can't.

The margin for basically any amendment on any topic is no longer achievable in the US due to excessive polarization (and no this is not a both sides issue). We couldn't pass an amendment saying drinking week old piss is bad. That's not an illustration of a well functioning government.

The current system is not well suited to our modern needs and once the Republicans finally succeed at turning over the table like minded states should design a better one.

 

[nOOky]

Sensible gun legislation isn't going to work for god damn near 50% of the country, and maybe more...in more ways than most people are willing to honestly discuss. So, getting to that minute detail is way more complicated than any conversation that can be had on a free-for-all forum. That said a meta reason for the inability for this country to have sensible policies on HUNDREDS of issues is due to how the very government is set up.

The US Constitution was a wonderful document for 18th century elites, and is literally anachronistic for the 21st century. Almost every single political problem we have is structurally related to the Constitution itself.

Now, before anyone starts up their performative patriotism, I am not saying that the US Constitution should be scrapped, because ultimately the right-wing authoritarians who control more states would be able to fashion up something even fucking worse. So, put your bullhorn down and let your pulse drop a few dozen points before continuing on.

First. The Senate is fucking trash.
1. Best option would be to trashbin that piece of shit and increase the House from the hilariously terrible 435 members to around 2000 members. Right now, 435 members "represent" 758,000 people each. That's laugh out loud fucking funny, because no it fucking doesn't represent actual discernible people/groups. If the House was made up of around 2,000, at least each member would 'represent" 165,000 people, which is still pretty laughable, but is definitively less terrible.
a. You know how Gerrymandering is just terrible? Well, with 2000 members instead of 435, that problem will be mitigated by, well, a fucking lot.
b. By having 2,000 members, "more parties" are possible, and the whole "first past the post" garbage might even allow more parties than the "duopoly" that BothSidesDoIt™ liars like to bring up.
c. By 2040 or so, it's been estimated that 30% of the population will control 70% of the Senate, because of stupid arbitrary lines and the inherent dogshitedness of the Senate. You think it's "bad" now if you aren't a fascism supporter, wait until 2040.

2. If we can't trashbin the Senate because of reasons, we could at least vastly expand the Senate. Each state gets a standard 2 Senators. And then additional Senators are apportioned by population. No longer will Wyoming have equal say as California, as California will have 2 Senators like Wyoming, along with another 55 Senators based on population. Yeah, that's right, now the Senate will actually be a representative body and not just a post for rich fucks who want more power than they deserve.
a. In 2040 or whatever, we won't be literally subjugated by rural White Christian Nationalists who hate anything that their pastor and Fox News doesn't approve of.

Second. The Electoral College is fucking trash.
1. Best option, yet again, is trashbin that piece of shit. Just make it by popular vote. Entire city or state populations do not all vote with one ballot, so no, for fucks sake, the popular vote doesn't favor "urban" over rural, or certain states over other states. It fucking favors the god damn will of the people, end of story.

2. If we can't trashbin the Electoral College because of nonsense reasons, we could at least award the EC votes proportionally. And if we use the vastly expanded House and Senate numbers so that the Electoral College is not some hilariously low arbitrary number like 538, then even if we still cant just go with the popular vote for stupid nonsense reasons, it'll be less fucking dogshit stupid than it is now. At least the EC votes of states rewarded proportionally will actually be relatively decently proportional to the popular vote.

Third. The Supreme Court is absolutely political and always fucking has been.
1. Let's face it, it's an unelected political body and anyone who says they agree with it 100% probably disagreed with it 100% before their political team got selected to run the fucking thing.

And that's just the basics. There are plenty of built-in problems with the Constitution. Show me in the Constitution where women and men are equal, and the 19th Amendment ain't it. Look at the ERA for example, it's pretty fucking obvious why the ERA didn't pass "in time". Show me in the constitution where slavery is totally outlawed, because you're going to have a hell of a time explaining the entirety of the 13th Amendment. When 2040 is here and you're conveniently "a prisoner", it's going to be liberals and communist transsexuals' working in camps polishing artillery shells that are heading to the Canadian and Mexican front.

So, that's why the US Constitution is the structural problem underlying US politics being a flaming shitpile. It was great in 1803 for the elites who ran the country and didn't want to have to make hard decisions on slavery and what "freedom" actually entailed. And ever since then it has been failing to meet the demands of a modern country of 330,000,000 people.

And since it ain't going to get replaced with anything better, the last option is, as I've linked anywhere and everywhere remotely relevant...

Strong Federalism.

A soft "split". All Empires end up bifurcating or trifurcating or shattering into hundreds of pieces, eventually, and we have the opportunity to do it slowly and keep it relatively peaceful during the transition.

AND...it's basically allowed by the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments... if we just embrace Strong Federalism.

Democrats Should Weaponize Federalism

If Democrats truly believe in the power of their policies, they should be ready to weaponize federalism.

www.politicalorphans.com

There are threads on these very forums with lefties talking about how we should just split as a country. Let Texas/Republican States secede, etc. Well, I think that will end up a lot more violent than just embracing Strong Federalism, and letting Blue States do their thing, and Red States do their thing. Make the President's Powers Limited Again. Let California experiment with statewide UBI as Idaho abandons minimum wage. Laboratories of democracy and whatnot.

The harder you try to grip the handful of sand that is this country, the more slips out.

Let's use two hands instead.

There are too many problems with weaponizing federalism. Better still in the age of the internet is that we allow people on an individual level to only obtain the services they vote for. Register as a Democrat? No guns for you as it will flag you during the application process. However you can vote by mail. Want an abortion as a Republican voter? Nope, sorry and no government assistance either.

Of course this won't ever fly, but it's nice to dream. Unfortunately the only way to make others live with their poor choices is to move them to Florida

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ironically, the inability of the government to be able to keep it's citizens safe from each other is one of the reasons why gun ownership is so high. The perceived weakness from our supposed protectors results in citizens attempting to protect themselves. It works, somewhat, but it's less efficient than a collective protectorate, and results in a lot more isolated violence.

If the govt were able to amend the constitution, they probably wouldn't need to, at least not for this.

 

[Mai72]

Money, Power. Power and Money. Money and Power. Power and Money.

Repeat ad nausem...

Now, imagine if a school massacre actually took place in a very wealthy district in America. Would we notice any difference? Would there be at least some kind of gun legislation? The fatc is, the majority of gun violence happens to minorities. That in turn doesn't get that great of a reaction from the average Joe and Jane in America. The difference with the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas was it was commited on very young children, and teachers who educate and protect innocent children. That is the only difference, and why so many Americans are upset. But, Americans have short memories and this too like be forgotten about. Like all the other mass shootings. The enemy that is present is within America. Its not China or Russia. Its within, and why we are declining as a great nation. IMO, its only going to get worse as the divide between the haves and have nots increase.

Ray Dalio has a video on YouTube called "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order." He argues that America is in sharp decline, which is on par with other past great nations. He talks about China as the emerging super power that will in the near future challange America for world dominance. But, the other HUGE issue that we are seriously lacking in education. The system sucks, and is why Ray believes is another issue in regard to why America will falter. There are many others, like our currency failing, the huge divide between the rich and everyone else, etc...

 

[K1052]

Money, Power. Power and Money. Money and Power. Power and Money.

Repeat ad nausem...

Now, imagine if a school massacre actually took place in a very wealthy district in America. Would we notice any difference? Would there be at least some kind of gun legislation? The fatc is, the majority of gun violence happens to minorities. That in turn doesn't get that great of a reaction from the average Joe and Jane in America. The difference with the school shooting in Texas was it was commited on very young children, and teachers who look for and protect innocent children. That is the only difference, and why so many Americans are upset. But, Americans have short memories and this too like be forgotten about. Like all the other mass shootings.

Median income in Newtown is really high. Didn't matter.

 

[Mai72]

Median income in Newtown is really high. Didn't matter.

True. I was thinking about Newton when I put my comment together, but I wasn't that sure about their median average income.

Thanks.

 

[Captante]

Median income in Newtown is really high. Didn't matter.

My first thought... also most people in Connecticut are already in favor of sensible gun-control so there wasn't that much to "change".

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My first thought... also most people in Connecticut are already in favor of sensible gun-control so there wasn't that much to "change".

We need to say this fact more often.
The majority of gun owners feel there should be stronger gun laws particularly background checks and limits on open carry.

 

[hal2kilo]

The issue with ending the filibuster is that sooner or later the other team gains the majority. So you get what you want today, then lose it all in a few years.
I agree something needs to change, but making it easy for the majority party to do whatever they want isn't a solution, it's another layer of problems.

So apparently the minority should rule always then. Clueless.

 

[Greenman]

So apparently the minority should rule always then. Clueless.

So you would rather see sweeping political changes every few years? Turmoil isn't the answer. It also doesn't mean that the minority rules, it simply gives them veto power. At worst we end up changing nothing, that's a better solution than a constant stream of reversals. The short term goal of winning today doesn't equate to long term stability.
Your response actually displays why it's a bad idea, you decided my opinion was "clueless" and dismissed it out of hand because you want to see the changes you like passed into law. Short term thinking. What happens when the republican's take control and decide that abortion is murder? What happens if they decide to eliminate protections against lgbtq community? The filibuster limits the damage one party can do when they control congress. It's foolish beyond belief to give up the only power you'll have tomorrow for a win today.

 

[Aikouka]

Ironically, the inability of the government to be able to keep it's citizens safe from each other is one of the reasons why gun ownership is so high. The perceived weakness from our supposed protectors results in citizens attempting to protect themselves. It works, somewhat, but it's less efficient than a collective protectorate, and results in a lot more isolated violence.

If the govt were able to amend the constitution, they probably wouldn't need to, at least not for this.

In regard to that, the problem that I run across is rampant paranoia, and a complete disregard for actual probability. After living in the South for over 10 years now, I had plenty of things that would make me scratch my head when I saw them. A good example is how people always leave these obscene gaps at stop lights between cars, and when I say obscene, I've seen gaps where between 2-4 cars could have easily fit in that space. I asked a friend that grew up in the South about it, and he said, "What if you get hit from behind?" My response to that was, "How often do you get hit from behind?" They're looking to defend against something that isn't likely to happen, and as a result, are causing actual problems (e.g. unnecessarily long lines of traffic). I know people that concealed carry around here, and it's based on this paranoia of always thinking you need to be ready for the worst. They think someone is going to shoot up their church. (I've seen billboards for church defense classes.)

 

[thilanliyan]

So you would rather see sweeping political changes every few years? Turmoil isn't the answer. It also doesn't mean that the minority rules, it simply gives them veto power. At worst we end up changing nothing, that's a better solution than a constant stream of reversals. The short term goal of winning today doesn't equate to long term stability.
Your response actually displays why it's a bad idea, you decided my opinion was "clueless" and dismissed it out of hand because you want to see the changes you like passed into law. Short term thinking. What happens when the republican's take control and decide that abortion is murder? What happens if they decide to eliminate protections against lgbtq community? The filibuster limits the damage one party can do when they control congress. It's foolish beyond belief to give up the only power you'll have tomorrow for a win today.

Problem is that one party (ie. GOP) is not representative of the people when many of the actually popular stances on healthcare, drug prices, gun control/background checks, etc are not passed because that party is beholden to corporate interests (or maybe something else?) that want the status quo.

Can you explain why those policies cannot gain any traction within the Repub party (when the majority of GOP voters approve of them)?

Changing nothing is a road to where exactly?

 

[dank69]

So you would rather see sweeping political changes every few years? Turmoil isn't the answer. It also doesn't mean that the minority rules, it simply gives them veto power. At worst we end up changing nothing, that's a better solution than a constant stream of reversals. The short term goal of winning today doesn't equate to long term stability.
Your response actually displays why it's a bad idea, you decided my opinion was "clueless" and dismissed it out of hand because you want to see the changes you like passed into law. Short term thinking. What happens when the republican's take control and decide that abortion is murder? What happens if they decide to eliminate protections against lgbtq community? The filibuster limits the damage one party can do when they control congress. It's foolish beyond belief to give up the only power you'll have tomorrow for a win today.

Turmoil. Lol.

 

[ivwshane]

Turmoil. Lol.

To greenman a government that does nothing is preferable to a government that does what the majority of the people want even if that is a contradiction every few years.

He’s anti democratic to his core, how unamerican of him.