@maporsche,
This would seem to presume that something the Democrats have proposed
could have prevented the horrific event in Florida and that despite knowing this was the case, the Republicans blocked it.
That's pretty interesting and quite a charge. Do you think you could offer some supporting evidence for it because time and time again we learn after these atrocities occur, that the additional regulations proposed by Democrats
would not have prevented the massacre?
It's far too early to know how this shooter secured his weapons and whether or not the additional regulations sought would have, realistically, kept them out of his hands, but in order to blame any group of legislators for these crimes don't you have to be able to make the case that the additional regulations you and others favor will make a real and consistent difference?
The typical response to this challenge is
"Well if they could prevent one child from being shot and killed..." The fact of the matter is that no one really subscribes to this reasoning. There are all sorts of ways to make sure that certain bad things don't happen, but many of them happen to be pretty bad themselves, and
everyone draws a line between saving a life and freedom and liberty...
everyone. Now, your line may be in a far different place than mine, but you still draw one. No matter how certain either of us is about knowing where the proper placement of the line should be, we are merely presenting our personal opinions. In the absence of certitude (and, for that matter, even if there is certitude) the question of whose opinion gets to form a response is a matter that voters get to decide, not outraged liberals ...even if it involves a Constitutional question which requires a court to make the call...temporarily.
You can trot out polls on gun control all day, but if increased regulations on gun purchases and ownership were one of the top two or three things the American people wanted, they would get them. It would take a little while because we're not real big on national referendums and especially any that might go up against the Bill of Rights, but if people made it clear that increased regulations are what they want and that they were not going to vote for anyone who isn't willing to give them to them, politicians would sense the shift in the wind and rather than losing their seats, they would start supporting them.
A very small minority could make sure that such regulations found their way to the Supreme Court which might overturn them on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, but as anyone who took a civics class in HS knows, the Constitution can and has been amended (on numerous occasions). Is it easy? Of course not, because the process was designed to be difficult and requires a super-majority's will for it to happen. The argument I've seen made in this forum in the past is that it is
too hard for it to ever happen. This, of course, is an obvious dodge intended to support action taken by minority interests and lower courts. It doesn't matter how certain any one person or any large group of people are that increased regulations will prevent these horrific events, they can't be implemented by fiat and if you don't like the 2nd Amendment you should attempt to change in through the process provided for just such a thing,
Truth be told, the Democrats don't have gun control high up on their list of priorities either. Of course they certainly sound like they do right after one of these shootings and during election campaigns if they think the issue will help decide the contest,but wait and see: At some point in the not very distant future the wringing of Democrat hands and gnashing of Democrat teeth will subside and then fade away just as it has after every other shooting. Over 50 people were gunned down by a lone gunman armed to the teeth in Las Vegas and if today's tragedy hadn't occurred we wouldn't be seeing comments on Twitter, Facebook and right here about how "Enough is enough! Something has to be done now!" or "How long will we allow the GOP and NRA to turn our schools into shooting galleries!" Etc, etc, etc
When Obama was elected, the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority and what did they do with it? The passed a stimulus package and Obamacare.
The stimulus package got zero Republican votes in the House and only 3 in the Senate (Two from quintessential RINOs Collins and Snowe and the third from a GOP Senator, Arlen Spector, who was probably already working out a deal with the Dems for his party switcheroo) Obamacare got zero GOP votes in both houses.
Passing these bills wasn't a piece of cake, and in the case of Obamacare, they were flying into a headwind of public disapproval, but they
really, really, really wanted to have these bills pass. Fine and dandy. They had the necessary power by virtue of winning enough elections and a whole lot of people agreed with them that the two programs should be enacted. It would have been a bit less controversial and presented a nicer image of a harmonious Congress if they had wooed more than 3 Republicans on the stimulus and even one on Obamacare, but as Obama so famously lectured Republicans,
"Elections have consequences." Indeed they do and a consequence of the 2008 elections was that the Democrats were in a position to pass
any bill they really wanted. There may not have been enough time to pass
all the bills they really wanted , but if I'm reading the chart in the following link correctly, the 111th Congress passed over
380 bills into law during 2009 and 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress
In addition ot the Stimulus package and Obamacare they made the time to drive
101 bills, resolutions and decrees through congress that accomplished the following very important business of the American people
Named a myriad of federal and postal service buildings after such reknowned Americans as
Sam Sacco, Andrew Bogue, Winston Arnow and John Cooper Godbold. Other buildings were named for lesser lights such as
Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Stewart, Ron Brown. Geraldine Ferraro, Matin Luther King Jr, and George Marshall
A slew of medals were awared including one for
Arnold Palmer and Muhammed Yunus
Casimir Pulaksi was posthumously granted honorary citizenship.
You will find on this list, one or more bills accomodating the interests of every Democrat constituency and involving:
Women's "reproductive rights," "Equal pay for women," environmental protections, social programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Gay rights (I couldn't find anything for transgenders but if I recall correctly the battle for same sex marriages wasn't won until the 112th Congress was in sessions and so the Dems hadn't yet moved on to the pressing issue of the rights of gender fluid citizens),
anti-Fat Cat capitalists, criminal justice reform, HIV/AIDS, gynecological cancer, undocumented immigrants, trial attorneys, and Uganda.
What you won't find is anything at all related to Gun Control.
Nothing, Nada, Zip. Now I appreciate that if the Dems had spent time saving school children from mass murderers they might not have been able to get that medal awarded to Arnie, or authorized a multimillion dollar research program to study how America can compete better in the Global Economy, or enocuraged the American flag to be flown on
"National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day," but would it really have been impossible for them to ram some form of increased gun control through Congress as they did with Stimulus and Obamacare? They could manage two really big bills but a third was out of the question?
To add insult to injury, there are quite a few bills on the list which I'm sure the Republicans were happy to see passed. More than I expected in fact. So why didn't your party push for and pass increased gun control?
Well, despite a lot of loud and sanctimonious blather, the Democrat caucus was not and still is not unified on the issue the way they were on the Stimulus and Obamacare. Clearly a fair number of Democrat members of Congress felt and feel that their seats might be in jeopardy if they supported any measure that could be said to infringe on the rights of their constituents to purchase and bear arms.
Truth be told as well, not every Democrat member of Congress embraced Obamacare and some had concerns, that proved to be valid, that if they went all in on it they would lose their seats. However, the President really wanted it and the Democrat Leadership either wanted it as much as Obama did or they just wanted him to be the first Democrat to secure healthcare "reform." Regardless, Pelosi and Schummer put a full court press on any reluctant member of their caucus whether it was with carrots or sticks. They spent their political capital on Obamacare when they could have spent in on Gun Control. Hell, they could have spent it on both and the Stimulus to boot.
They didn't because there isn't a sizeable constituency for which gun control is the primary concern but there is one that is primarily focused on "defending" the 2nd Amendment. In short, the Dems don't believe gun control will
win them a significant number of votes but they know it could
lose them a great many and enough to lose elections.
It's pure speculation, and perhaps overly cynical (I doubt it), but I also suspect that the Dems didn't want a high-stakes showdown on gun control because they know that the increased regulations they claim to support will not prevent mass shootings. There is an entirely rational argument to be made that they won't, in most cases, that is based on the facts of each incident that has occurred in the last 10 years or so. Taking another unpopular stand after Obamacare may have been one too many for skittish Dems in Red or Purple districts. At least with Obamacare front-loading all the goodies before the pain would be felt created an excellent chance that by the time the next elections rolled around Americans would love the Leviathan. Turns out they didn't but it wasn't for a lack of strategy. However, if the sort of gun control that liberals really want was passed, and one or more shootings followed, their opponents would be shouting for all to hear
"See the Democrats eviscerated the 2nd Amendment and what did we get for it? Just like we told you, Congress can't pass a law that will prevent a determined madman from shooting up a schoolyard full of kids!"
There is much more to be gained from casting Republicans as cold-hearted stooges for the NRA than actually attempting to pass gun control. Given the absence of a real upside, they punted.
Now if you are going to blame these shootings on Republicans because they resist Democrat efforts to impose further regulations that you are certain will save lives, I'm having a hard time understanding why you wouldn't also blame them on Democrats? Perhaps they wouldn't have been as successful with Gun Control as they were with Obamacare (nothing is a sure thing) but they didn't even make a serious effort to try. The list provided doesn't detail any gun control that was passed, but it doesn't cover bills that were introduced but defeated. However, do you remember the 111th Congress, fully controlled by your party, making a huge push for increased gun regulations the way they went to war for the Stimulus Package and Obamacare? I sure don't and, again, if they had the votes to shove those other two programs down the throats of a kicking and screaming GOP, then they had the votes to pass significant gun control measures.
If you know you have the means to save the lives of school children and you don't do everything in your power to put them into law when you have as good a window for getting bills passed as you ever will, what does this say about your commitment to reducing the number of school children killed by guns? I would argue it says something much
worse than any GOP obstruction you might claim existed. At least the Republicans have been, for years, running on the 2nd Amendment and a great many of them actually don't believe additional gun control will help. What's Schummer and Pelosi's excuse?
You have a real hard time with edgar arguing that the Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans (even he won't argue they are
as bad), but in this case it sure seems to me that pro-gun control liberals should consider them not only as bad, but worse. Perhaps you can tell us why they shouldn't without alleging some diabolical power the Republicans secured from selling their souls to Satan which apparently doesn't work on stimulus packages and health care reform but is just gang-busters on gun control.
versus many lost.
