Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Martin Alvito said:
That said, there's nothing saying that we can't have strict controls on who can own what where, and when. Sure, there's existing case law, but that can always be set aside if popular sentiment shifts enough. Roberts is smart - he recognizes that the Court's legitimacy with the American people is its biggest asset, so he's charted a fairly cautious course in the direction that he wants to go.

I've always put this one this way - if you don't want a hypothetical next-door neighbor with severe mental problems owning a bazooka, then you believe in some level of gun control. All we're quibbling about is where the line is. Sure, in a vacuum having a gun makes an individual safer in a conflict. The problem is that, if we all have guns, we collectively become less safe than we were when none of us had them. If these sorts of incidents start happening enough, what will happen is the left will arm and they will start shooting first, which is not exactly what the right has in mind.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. There is so much more that we could be doing, but when it comes to repealing it is not up to the President and that was the point that I was making. Because it is easy to blame the man in power when in reality it’s Congress that continues failing us. But the interest of gun lobbyists and the NRA is always ahead because they are enriching politicians pockets. And while I agree that Roberts is a smart judge, the reality is that now that the court has shifted to the right he has less power than before Amy Coney was confirmed by the Senate.

Based on polling the majority of Americans want some level of gun control but it seems our will is not enough to push Congress to enact actions such as expanding background check, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines which could make a difference stopping some gun violence. It is just very frustrating because like you say, we don’t want the left to also begin arming themselves but that’s the reason why some people that I know have acquired a weapon, because they are afraid that if a civil conflict happens in the US just those on the right will have the guns to defend themselves.
 
Sassy Colombian said:
I totally agree. There is so much more that we could be doing, but when it comes to repealing it is not up to the President and that was the point that I was making. Because it is easy to blame the man in power when in reality it’s Congress that continues failing us. But the interest of gun lobbyists and the NRA is always ahead because they are enriching politicians pockets. And while I agree that Roberts is a smart judge, the reality is that now that the court has shifted to the right he has less power than before Amy Coney was confirmed by the Senate.

Based on polling the majority of Americans want some level of gun control but it seems our will is not enough to push Congress to enact actions such as expanding background check, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines which could make a difference stopping some gun violence. It is just very frustrating because like you say, we don’t want the left to also begin arming themselves but that’s the reason why some people that I know have acquired a weapon, because they are afraid that if a civil conflict happens in the US just those on the right will have the guns to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
To be direct, people apportion credit and blame to the president for a lot of stuff because they don't understand how our government works. The gun manufacturer lobby (which the NRA unambiguously is) has conducted an extremely effective media and campaign contribution strategy for decades, which is why we are where we are on the issue.

The argument that Barrett Coney's appointment rendered Clarence Thomas functionally the chief justice for a fair number of issue areas has merit.

The problem isn't so much a lack of political will as the structure of the government and the distribution of political allegiance in a polarized era. Meaningful gun control, like so many issues, requires the Democrats to get 60 votes in the Senate. The 2020 presidential election, which was a good one for the Democrats, only resulted in them carrying 26 states (adding together the vote tallies in the two congressional districts for Maine). They narrowly lost Collins' seat anyway. I can imagine a world where the Democrats hold the Senate seats in all 26 of those states, plus North Carolina and Florida. They have some seats in interesting places, and they would have to hold all of those, flip the least red delegations and get senators like Manchin who are electorally vulnerable on board to make something happen.

That's a tough ask. If gun control became a big enough issue, it could happen. It's worth pointing out that most of the places where the deadliest shootings have happened are or have become blue and purple states.
 
TN Toffee said:
They’ve completely stepped in his bull****. Maybe the most obvious example I’ve ever seen of trying to preemptively clean up his image before the civil suits.
Click to expand...

How do civil cases work in the USA? Surely if hes 17/18 he hasn't got any assets worth taking?

Can you just go bankrupt like you can over here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top