A bipartisan group of senators is currently negotiating a possible response to the Uvalde massacre that would include:
- A slight enhancement of the federal instant background check to include juvenile records.
- "A system of incentives, grants and federal standards for states that create their own red-flag laws."
Do you see why I'm so skeptical about addressing gun regulation in any serious way? The impact of these two things would be close to zero even if they passed, and the likelihood of them getting ten Republican votes to break a filibuster is probably also close to zero. In a nutshell, let's just say that I don't put any stock into Sen. Chris Murphy's optimism:
"I’ve never been part of conversations that are this serious and this thoughtful before, and I know all the Republicans and Democrats who are at the table are there with total sincerity to get an agreement."
Sure. I await with bated breath the alleged seriousness of Republican negotiators. Prove me wrong, Chris.
Perhaps Kevin is right, and nothing will come of the Senate discussions. Nevertheless it is crucial for the future of the Democratic Party that voters be convinced Republicans are reasonable fellows who will always try their best to reach bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems.
You may not understand this pressing necessity, but it is clear to Nancy Pelosi, Di Feinstein, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and other elders of the party determined to prevent the Baby Boomers seizing power until they have the experience to exercise it wisely.
THAT is some premium snark.
I hope that is snark.
Nah.
Ken Lovell is the assuredly rare (among the Revolution's cohort of Zoomer Trustfund Indluencers) Boomer Berner who is parroting the Cenkuygurian talkingpoint that Neoliberal Nancy Pelosi is Helen Chenoweth in City of Lights drag.
All the positivity from Murphy as the media reports on the exclusion from discussion the very points a public majority wants included.
Same shit, different day. Meh.
When everyone realizes that today "bipartisan" means the Republican way or the highway, maybe we can talk about the real problem. Republican intransigence.
You're starting to hear it around the edges, and we're getting very close to the point where the standard GOP line is something like:
"Well, yeah, it's a shame when some kids or old lady grocery shoppers get shot, but several thousand deaths every year is just the modest price we have to pay to ensure anybody who wants any sort of gun can carry one anywhere, any time, for any purpose. It's the God-Given Second Amendment!"
The only way to respond to the fact that there are too many people with guns is to arm yourself against them.
There is no "too many guns"! Only "not enough guns"!!
I feel safer already...
Universal open carry cannot fail. It can only be failed.
Obama Guns for all!
Democrats ought to propose that for every mass shooting a republican has to resign from Congress.
That of course does NOT mean a democrat take over it just means those GOP House and Senate seats will come up for special elections. After awhile (given the number of mass shootings) the national GOP will run out of money due to too many special elections.
There are way too many DEMs with guns which is why nothing gets done.
Plus, the shoppers were Black & the students Hispanic.
Why would the GQP do anymore to avert future nonwhite deaths if they did nothing when the Future Tedhaggardians at Columbine & Sons n' Daughters of Liebermann voters at Sandy Hook died?
And Pat Toomey is crying about how Biden is being sooo mean pushing for slightly more gun restrictions. Biden is no being helpful....
At this point, the bar is so low, as long as Republicans don't start insisting these were all staged, that is considered a win.
Kind of surprised Texas high school football legend Alex Jones hasn't shown up at Uvalde to pour cold ionized water on the alleged massacre at Robb Elementary.
We need the bereaved parents to agree that the photos of their chiildrens' shot-up bodies be published. Maybe blur the faces, maybe not. PSAs showing the results of a firearms rampage. Campaign ads: "This is your child on The Second Amendment" or something.
When will Democrats wake up and provide an Emmett Till moment?
An Emmit Till moment won't move the sociopaths who believe that only White Christian Males matter.
Probably not, but we should assume they're beyond hope, anyway, like those folks dying in the ER from COVID while denying it exists.
I mean, did you see what that hag Felicia Sonmez did to Dave Weigel?
Think of the real victims of America's kancelkulture of death, please.
On the other hand, the sane state of New York just passed stronger gun laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/nyregion/guns-abortion-laws-ny.html
Can someone please enlighten this Swede as to why Congress allows Representatives and Senators who receive financial contributions from the NRA to have a say on issues of gun control?
Although they masquerade as politicians, they are in fact paid, professional spokesmen for the gun lobby. It's hard to imagine a clearer conflict of interest.
Remember, the US of A is the only country where bribing politicians is protected by the Constitution
Can someone please enlighten this non-Swede why Swedish people even care about anything going on domestically in America? (I get that our foreign policy has impacts on everyone else because of the sheer size of our military.)
Are you just so bored with your apparently perfect existence in Sweden that you have to surf the internet looking for atrocities and injustices elsewhere to comment on? I would think if I lived in a paradise, I wouldn’t be bothered to read up (much less comment daily) on all the bad stuff happening elsewhere. I’d be too busy enjoying contentment and serenity.
FOAD, you nasty little ingrate.
No, Austin is right.
Sture is oddly fixated on politics 5000 miles from home... but it's better than him pimping Melanchon &/or Le Pen as the lesser of Macron's evil in the French election, I guess.
I guess the simple answer to your question is that you are American and I’m not.
One cannot judge single persons just out of nationality but the probability to find certain ways to behave enhances due to nationality but one has to be cautious since it’s easy to end up having prejudices.
Anyway, since I am a news freak and catching up on news from various places and especially from the US of A am I of the opinion that many (most?) Americans are moderately interested of what’s happening outside of your borders. Not saying that goes for you
Also, and that’s important but sad , are the quality of reporting on Europe in US mainstream media second rate (at best) and the understanding of how things are working outside of your borders limited. One brilliant example was reporting on the recent German election. Merkel had stepped down and the conservatives was voted out after 16 years and a totally new coalition started to negotiate, extremely interesting even for USA
US media?
They were focusing on AfD a party that never will be of any interest.
(… and let’s just forget about your toxic right wing media)
The interest of the outside world is much greater in Europe and subsequently are Europeans also , generally speaking, much better informed and reporting is more accurate) In my opinion are many Americans much more jingoistic than even this Swede.(but if you should care to read my comments am I rarely mentioning my Sweden I am usually just correcting fake news)
It’s not just your military that affects us , one other example is the fact that you are sharing the same biosphere as my grandchildren and a break down of your political system will be disastrous … and it’s a risk of that happening
I am (jokingly) calling myself a troll but I’m not . Trolls are spreading fake news and I’m not into that but my criticism can be harsh
You need me because comments on this site tends to be a little “provincial “
Have a nice day
TL;DR: Just/Austin is pretending he doesn't get why other countries are terrified that the U. S. seems to be developing a terminal case of rabies. I say 'pretends' because he is -- alas -- like so many others here these days, a performative troll.
"I would think if I lived in a paradise, I wouldn’t be bothered to read up (much less comment daily) on all the bad stuff happening elsewhere. I’d be too busy enjoying contentment and serenity."
Shorter "Austin": I'm intellectually lazy and don't understand why everyone doesn't make fatuous posts like me.
Smarter trolls, please.
Thrives on negative attention, this one does.
An excellent question that you'd think would provoke popular interest!
It's called "lobbying." Any citizen, interest group, corporation, whatever are entitled to petition their elected representatives. They can even give them "campaign contributions", which could, of course, be considered bribes. Back in the day, the size of these bribes was limited by law, though. No more.
It has very little to do with campaign contributions and everything to do with the large number of angry voters the gun lobby can sic on 2nd Amendment squishes in GOP primaries.
True. The Republican Party is a minority party which only manages to win as many seats as it does because Democratic voters are disproportionately found in a relatively few diverse, dynamic, moderately progressive states, to which the Republicans add gerrymandering and a coalition of low-information and various single-issue voters. Gun-huggers are one of those single-issue groups. The GOP can’t afford to lose any of them.
That's how the money is made.
US political campaigns are very long, and require a lot of money. The only way to get that money is to get donations from groups with agendas.
Why do we have long, expensive campaigns? In part because Americans are used to it and can't imagine an alternative, in part because people make a lot of money running campaigns, selling consulting services and advertising to campaigns, etc. The media also get a ton of relatively cheap content from covering campaigns. And, ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to entrench the system with Citizens United.
https://bityl.co/CYM2 -- A House proposal for a 1000% tax on AR-15 style rifles could get around the filibuster via reconciliation, though it likely wouldn't gain 50 votes on account that Manchin would likely vote against it.
Republicans are the party of crime.
They are significantly more likely to be convicted of felonies, they, and the people who vote for them, are significantly more likely to be psychopaths.
This is the entire problem with all things.
Passing any gun control laws is purely a temporary measure since we know, with a high degree of confidence, that this era's Supreme Court will overturn it.
I think the use of "any" is overdoing it. I believe it's more accurate to state: anything that would have a measurable impact would probably be overturned by this court.
They might allow a largely symbolic measure (such as that apparently being considered by Congress) to stand.
We’ll see. Gun Owners of America, Inc. vs Garland should give us our answer. The case involves bump fire stocks, which clearly exist as an attempt to get around the prohibition against machine guns. They are said to be very inaccurate, but that doesn’t really matter if you are shooting at large crowds of people from hotel room windows. If this Supreme Court finds for Gun Owners then we might as well just throw up our hands until they can be replaced.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/the-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks-and-the-requirements-of-appellate-service/
True, they are likely to continue the Heller ruling, save the last part.
“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,”
Sen. Murphy is probably correct that the Republicans in the group are serious - both of them. Toomey, who earlier worked with Sen. Manchin on gun control, is not running for re-election, and Cornyn won’t face the voters for another four years. They aren’t going to be able to bring another eight Republicans with them. The rest of the caucus is just hoping the negotiations drag on long enough that something else will dominate the headlines by voting time.
Even if they want to do something, which they don't, there's only 9 R's in the group, so it's sunk before it starts.
A very weak bill like the one Drum describes would be worse than nothing at this point. It would provide Murphy, Biden, Schumer, Pelosi a great moment to give a bear hug to those "reasonable" Republicans and claim a new era of bi-partisanship has dawned and likely diffuse this issue for November all the while still allowing teenagers to buy guns on credit and slaughter grade school kids.
There won’t be ten Republican votes for anything that comes out of this group, because it has already been associated with the words ‘gun control’.
Look, funding a study into school entrance doors might not be the dramatic confiscation of everyone's guns that Democrats want. But it will prove that bipartisanship isn't dead, which is after all the important thing.
Republicans will do what they always do, which is still and then vote no.
stall