US politicians seem UNWILLING to prevent gun violence

[NeverSure]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

Your side lost. There was a lot more money spent by the anti-gun extremists in the recent Colorado vote than was spent by those trying to recall the representatives, but the recall succeeded. Much of the money the extremists had was from out of state. New York Mayor Bloomberg was a big contributor himself.

I suppose if one disagrees with someone, he could call him an extremist, but the votes of the people would put the anti-gun crowd in the minority when given a chance to vote.

Your side keeps losing whether it be a local, state, or national vote and whether it be a vote of the people or a vote of a legislative body. But somehow you think you are among a vast majority.

Unbelievable.

[Publicus]

*Deleted Post edited out*

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for filibuster. So filibuster is not a sacred institution of government in the United States. The history of the use of the filibuster is atrocious, such as racial segregationists Senators from the South having tried to obstruct civil rights legislation.

Filibuster is a rule of the Senate, established by the Senate.

The House doesn't have it, never has had it.

The Senate can abolish any rule it has established for itself. The Senate should abolish the filibuster rule. The gridlock and paralysis of Washington must be seriously addressed lest the nation become unable to govern itself.

In the contemporary world, the filibuster contributes significantly to gridlock in Washington. Its time has passed, if it ever did have a time. Its purpose has never been good and in contemporary politics and government the filibuster is a powerful factor in government dysfunction.

.

Uhhh. It takes a 2/3rd majority of those Senators voting to change the rules on cloture. In other words, it could require more votes to change the rules on cloture than to actually pass a cloture motion.

I am very familiar with the fact.

So if only 80 of the 100 Senators are present and voting, then only 54 Senators voting in the affirmative would be required to change the cloture rule.

The cloture rule already had been changed in 1975. So changing the cloture rule is entirely possible and realistic.

Stopping a filibuster against changing the cloture rule also requires only two-thirds of Senators present and voting. In other words, again, 80 means only 54.

This is esoteric and pretty much obtuse stuff.

The fundamental point is that the filibuster and its associated cloture rule, which are not in the Constitution, have to be terminated as a Senate rule. They have existed only since 1919 and, as I've pointed out, the history of their use is atrocious.

The Senate filibuster and cloture rule are in fact harmful to the well being and to the national security of the United States. In respect of the former, their use to prevent tighter gun ownership laws is atrocious.

[Publicus]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

Your side lost. There was a lot more money spent by the anti-gun extremists in the recent Colorado vote than was spent by those trying to recall the representatives, but the recall succeeded. Much of the money the extremists had was from out of state. New York Mayor Bloomberg was a big contributor himself.

I suppose if one disagrees with someone, he could call him an extremist, but the votes of the people would put the anti-gun crowd in the minority when given a chance to vote.

Your side keeps losing whether it be a local, state, or national vote and whether it be a vote of the people or a vote of a legislative body. But somehow you think you are among a vast majority.

Unbelievable.

In the Senate last April 54 of 100 US Senators voted to increase and to extend required background checks of individuals who apply to purchase a gun, and the proposal lost.

The majority loses.

The minority rules.

That's a screwed up system.

Especially on such a matter as guns and both incidents of mass murder and of everyday murder.

The particular provision that got 54 votes in the Senate was supported by 87% of Americans.

Unbelievable what the NRA does against the people of the United States.

Unbelievable.

[LawrenceChee]

I disagree that the absence of firearms for self protection will increase crime.

When the laws are tough against crime, it would deter crime.

Have a look at Singapore tough laws applied consistently.

Average 24 years and 24 strokes of the cane for rapists, 10 years for molesters, 15-20 years for armed robbery ( including carrying a knife for the robbery)

The tough sentences are enough to make criminals think twice and everyone can walk around the streets without worrying about others mental health and if they are armed

It does not eliminate murders or accidents of hurts but it certainly reduces the percentage of the injured and the possibility of massacre by a huge huge margins

[NeverSure]

I disagree that the absence of firearms for self protection will increase crime.

When the laws are tough against crime, it would deter crime.

Have a look at Singapore tough laws applied consistently.

Average 24 years and 24 strokes of the cane for rapists, 10 years for molesters, 15-20 years for armed robbery ( including carrying a knife for the robbery)

The tough sentences are enough to make criminals think twice and everyone can walk around the streets without worrying about others mental health and if they are armed

It does not eliminate murders or accidents of hurts but it certainly reduces the percentage of the injured and the possibility of massacre by a huge huge margins

The places in the US with the toughest gun laws have the highest crime rates by far. That would be like Chicago, Washington DC, etc.

The places with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates.

Gun ownership beliefs can be highly emotionally charged. But the anti-gun people don't have the facts on their side.

In my state (Oregon) I and all with a concealed handgun license are allowed to carry a concealed handgun into any school from a kindergarten to a university. Yet the only school shooting I know of was done by a 15 year old kid in Springfield, Oregon. Link At 15 he wasn't allowed to buy a gun by any means, and no amount of background checks or other recently proposed laws would have helped. He is currently serving a 115 year sentence without the possibility of parole.

He had already been suspended from school for possession of a stolen handgun. Much of his behavior was bizarre. He slipped through the cracks. He should have been in jail for possession of the stolen handgun at the time of the shooting.

This was more than 15 years ago. He is now 31 years old. The guns he had were a 9mm pistol, a .22lr pistol, and a .22lr rifle. No "assault weapons" were involved.

Oregon has a population nearing 4 million. This shooter killed four people. Therefore in Oregon, .001% of all people have been killed in a "mass" shooting which was completely avoidable under the laws at the time.

[chuckd]

*Deleted Post edited out*

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for filibuster. So filibuster is not a sacred institution of government in the United States. The history of the use of the filibuster is atrocious, such as racial segregationists Senators from the South having tried to obstruct civil rights legislation.

Filibuster is a rule of the Senate, established by the Senate.

The House doesn't have it, never has had it.

The Senate can abolish any rule it has established for itself. The Senate should abolish the filibuster rule. The gridlock and paralysis of Washington must be seriously addressed lest the nation become unable to govern itself.

In the contemporary world, the filibuster contributes significantly to gridlock in Washington. Its time has passed, if it ever did have a time. Its purpose has never been good and in contemporary politics and government the filibuster is a powerful factor in government dysfunction.

.

Uhhh. It takes a 2/3rd majority of those Senators voting to change the rules on cloture. In other words, it could require more votes to change the rules on cloture than to actually pass a cloture motion.

I am very familiar with the fact.

So if only 80 of the 100 Senators are present and voting, then only 54 Senators voting in the affirmative would be required to change the cloture rule.

The cloture rule already had been changed in 1975. So changing the cloture rule is entirely possible and realistic.

Stopping a filibuster against changing the cloture rule also requires only two-thirds of Senators present and voting. In other words, again, 80 means only 54.

This is esoteric and pretty much obtuse stuff.

The fundamental point is that the filibuster and its associated cloture rule, which are not in the Constitution, have to be terminated as a Senate rule. They have existed only since 1919 and, as I've pointed out, the history of their use is atrocious.

The Senate filibuster and cloture rule are in fact harmful to the well being and to the national security of the United States. In respect of the former, their use to prevent tighter gun ownership laws is atrocious.

I'm outta here. I will leave you to

[NeverSure]

Well there's a parade of three among the 16% of members of the National Rifle Association who oppose improved and expanded background checks of Americans who want to buy guns. Or, if they're not members of the NRA, which has a fanatical extremist leadership, then perhaps they should be.

Remember that 95% of we 100 million Americans who own guns choose not to be members of the NRA, the major reason being its fanatical and extremist leadership. The NRA leadership ignores civics, pursuing instead only its sectarian compulsions.

The three are among the tiny minority of all Americans who opposed the legislation in the Senate, which to their pleasure and effort was unsuccessful, to improve and expand background checks of people like the Washington Navy Yard mass murderer Aaron Alexis, who, hearing voices controlling him from his microwave oven, bought a devastating shotgun to murder by massacre 12 employees of the Yard. The enhanced background checks proposal was supported by 87% of Americans.

The people who deny the dozens and dozens of scientific polls of the past 20 years that consistently show the vast majority of Americans support tighter gun ownership laws deny science. In these particular polls, the gun extremists see only cynical and sinister purposes, designs and intents. This is their attitude toward scientific surveys conducted over a score of years by diverse reputable scientific survey research organizations which also have been consistently accurate in their public polling of a number of presidential elections.

There is nothing good in the fullibuster. With gridlock the rule in a paralyzed and obstinate Congress, rules, processes and procedures such as the filibuster - which require a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY to overcome - are outdated, outmoded, deconstructive. It provides the minority party in the Senate disproportionate leverage that is negative in contemporary society and government. If my party is in the minority in the Senate, I don't want it to have the filibuster available to it. I don't want the filibuster regardless of which party is in the minority of the Senate. The destructive gridlock of the Congress has to stop, and to stop now.

The one clear matter concerning this issue is that gun extremists comprise a tiny minority subculture of the United States who, because of their jihadist-like zeal, combined with millions of dollars in political campaign money, wield disproportionate negative power over the Congress and thus the country.

I've never recommended a reading to anyone at this site, but in the matter of Congressional gridlock which allows the extreme minority to work its peculiar will, I would recommend others consider reading the book by Democrat Thomas Mann and Republican Norm Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The fillibuster rule by its nature opposes compromise, discourse, civility, efficacy.

Your side lost. There was a lot more money spent by the anti-gun extremists in the recent Colorado vote than was spent by those trying to recall the representatives, but the recall succeeded. Much of the money the extremists had was from out of state. New York Mayor Bloomberg was a big contributor himself.

I suppose if one disagrees with someone, he could call him an extremist, but the votes of the people would put the anti-gun crowd in the minority when given a chance to vote.

Your side keeps losing whether it be a local, state, or national vote and whether it be a vote of the people or a vote of a legislative body. But somehow you think you are among a vast majority.

Unbelievable.

In the Senate last April 54 of 100 US Senators voted to increase and to extend required background checks of individuals who apply to purchase a gun, and the proposal lost.

The majority loses.

The minority rules.

That's a screwed up system.

Especially on such a matter as guns and both incidents of mass murder and of everyday murder.

The particular provision that got 54 votes in the Senate was supported by 87% of Americans.

Unbelievable what the NRA does against the people of the United States.

Unbelievable.

You just keep parroting the same debunked thoughts. 87% by whose measure?

I keep proving that every time the vote is put to the people such as in the very liberal Colorado recently, or to any representative body, somehow your imagined 87% lose.

How can that be? How can you not see that the people, given a vote, don't vote the way your imagined but non-existent 87% believe?

You want more laws, but only the ones you agree with. You don't like the 60% supermajority rule in the Senate which has been in effect one way or the other since the 1700's. You don't like the current version which was put in place by the democrats and has been used to their advantage when they didn't have a majority.

I'm finished with this. We are both entitled to our beliefs. We can't convince each other and I think there's been enough back and forth to bring the relevant thoughts forward.

I see that we agree in the China thread and I have "liked" a lot of your posts there. I'm glad our debates aren't personal.

Cheers.

[NeverSure]

Thanks, Publicus. Good debate.

[Publicus]

Thanks, Publicus. Good debate.

Indeed.

[F430murci]

I disagree that the absence of firearms for self protection will increase crime.

When the laws are tough against crime, it would deter crime.

Have a look at Singapore tough laws applied consistently.

Average 24 years and 24 strokes of the cane for rapists, 10 years for molesters, 15-20 years for armed robbery ( including carrying a knife for the robbery)

The tough sentences are enough to make criminals think twice and everyone can walk around the streets without worrying about others mental health and if they are armed

It does not eliminate murders or accidents of hurts but it certainly reduces the percentage of the injured and the possibility of massacre by a huge huge margins

The places in the US with the toughest gun laws have the highest crime rates by far. That would be like Chicago, Washington DC, etc.

The places with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates.

Gun ownership beliefs can be highly emotionally charged. But the anti-gun people don't have the facts on their side.

In my state (Oregon) I and all with a concealed handgun license are allowed to carry a concealed handgun into any school from a kindergarten to a university. Yet the only school shooting I know of was done by a 15 year old kid in Springfield, Oregon. Link At 15 he wasn't allowed to buy a gun by any means, and no amount of background checks or other recently proposed laws would have helped. He is currently serving a 115 year sentence without the possibility of parole.

He had already been suspended from school for possession of a stolen handgun. Much of his behavior was bizarre. He slipped through the cracks. He should have been in jail for possession of the stolen handgun at the time of the shooting.

This was more than 15 years ago. He is now 31 years old. The guns he had were a 9mm pistol, a .22lr pistol, and a .22lr rifle. No "assault weapons" were involved.

Oregon has a population nearing 4 million. This shooter killed four people. Therefore in Oregon, .001% of all people have been killed in a "mass" shooting which was completely avoidable under the laws at the time.

Demographics. Nothing to do with gun laws.

[Credo]

The gun debate is dominated by scare tactics and unknowns. Every effort to curb gun ownership brings a ground-swell of fear. Fear that the 2nd Amendment is being infringed, fear that it's a gov't plot and fear that the wording will give wider powers than intended by the voters. The result is the status-quo is better than the unknown.

I am firmly in favor of more restrictive gun laws. Would I vote for them....well, that's a very different question.

[SinCityGr8One]

Ha Ha Ha Mayors against Illegal Guns is owned and operated by the little Dictator of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Can you say Super Size is illegal! Which by the way was overturned in court. Sorry Mate but your polls credibility was just flushed down the loo! Flush twice as it has a long way to go to get to Gracie Mansion!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Publicus]

Ha Ha Ha Mayors against Illegal Guns is owned and operated by the little Dictator of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Can you say Super Size is illegal! Which by the way was overturned in court. Sorry Mate but your polls credibility was just flushed down the loo! Flush twice as it has a long way to go to get to Gracie Mansion!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The poll was conducted by the Republican party pollster Frank Lutz.

Flush that.

Michael Bloomberg has been elected mayor of New York City three times and is now completing his 12th and final year as mayor, which makes your "little Dictator of New York City" comment OTT.

And I flushed the NRA a long time ago.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Publicus

[F430murci]

More reason why all current gun owners also need mental evaluations.

This lovely doctor was driving erratically and passing cars using emergency. Guy uses his cell phone camera to get license plate. Doctors slows down as guy filming on cell phone, rolls down his window and fires a shot. Caught on video.

Good thing no one was hit or could have caused a bad accident in highway.

I am sure doctor thought he was mentally stable enough to own a gun. His actions speak otherwise so who really should be making mental health decisions on gun owners: gun owners themselves or health care professional?

http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/Doctor-arrested-in-connection-with-road-rage-video-225907051.html?device=phone