1. Obama tries to bring in laws to control guns and stem the number of shootings in the USA. 2. The Republican party blocks any change no matter how cosmetic. 3. The killing goes on. 4. People claim Obama is inefective.
Unique
I think a lot of people don't understand what powers the President does and doesn't have. In this case there's nothing he can really do except try and encourage Congress to do something. The President can veto bills, but he can't make them, and he can't override the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution
1. Obama tries to bring in laws to control guns and stem the number of shootings in the USA. 2. The Republican party blocks any change no matter how cosmetic. 3. The killing goes on. 4. People claim Obama is inefective.
Unique
I think a lot of people don't understand what powers the President does and doesn't have. In this case there's nothing he can really do except try and encourage Congress to do something. The President can veto bills, but he can't make them, and he can't override the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution
Right, and given there is a Republican congress, he has little control over what congress does.
That said, I don't think the "Ineffective" tag still hangs over him. He has used "executive orders" on things like LGTBQ+ rights, and has also had the Justice Department stop pursuing low level drug crimes as policy. Since he started giving zero fucks what Republicans in Congress think about him, he has become far more popular and successful.
Three police officers shot dead in Baton Rouge, LA.
And so the cycle continues.
Is there no politician brave enough in the States to stand on the platform of amending the 2nd amendment?
It's the only way to stop these massacres. No one in power seems to care.
Thank God I'm a Brit.
Whatever his other missteps, Obama has always been trying to crack down and strengthen gun controls but the Senate is not playing ball. And a politician who stands on gun control will not get voted in. It shouldn't be that way, but it very much seems that it is.
Unfortunately with American logic they'll say every police officer should be issued with a heavy assault weapon to defend themselves, rather than disarming the general population.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
The answer to this is really quite simple.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
The answer to this is really quite simple.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
The answer to this is really quite simple.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
Where's the "really quite simple" answer then?
It is answering this question: I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
The point is that a huge number of Americans in progressive, coastal states have their political will on things like gun control massively diluted by the fact that 500,000 people in South Dakota get two Senators and 40 million in California get the same number.
Therefore, you only need to have Senators from 26 smaller states [potentially representing only around 60 million of 320 million people] opposing gun control, or whatever legislation, and you don't have the numbers for any change.
The President can't do a thing without the numbers in the Senate and no Senator from Shitsville, Wyoming or Dogfuck, Idaho is ever going to vote for any kind of gun control in a million years.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
The answer to this is really quite simple.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
Where's the "really quite simple" answer then?
It is answering this question: I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
The point is that a huge number of Americans in progressive, coastal states have their political will on things like gun control massively diluted by the fact that 500,000 people in South Dakota get two Senators and 40 million in California get the same number.
Therefore, you only need to have Senators from 26 smaller states [potentially representing only around 60 million of 320 million people] opposing gun control, or whatever legislation, and you don't have the numbers for any change.
The President can't do a thing without the numbers in the Senate and no Senator from Shitsville, Wyoming or Dogfuck, Idaho is ever going to vote for any kind of gun control in a million years.
Because most of em don't live in a 21st century democracy and most probably never will.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
The answer to this is really quite simple.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
Where's the "really quite simple" answer then?
........or Dogfuck, Idaho ........
Dogfuck has banned all personal weapons Downtown, since 1989.
Three police officers shot dead in Baton Rouge, LA.
And so the cycle continues.
Is there no politician brave enough in the States to stand on the platform of amending the 2nd amendment?
It's the only way to stop these massacres. No one in power seems to care.
Thank God I'm a Brit.
Many, many do. There was just a sit in in congress that demanded votes on gun reform. My home state of California just passed laws regulating the sell of ammunition. But the NRA has a lot of money and a very engaged, if not relatively small base that is able to quash any realistic attempts at federal gun control.
I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
The answer to this is really quite simple.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
Where's the "really quite simple" answer then?
It is answering this question: I struggle to comprehend how the vast majority of Americans cannot see that the right to bear arms is no longer relevant in a 21st Century democracy.
The point is that a huge number of Americans in progressive, coastal states have their political will on things like gun control massively diluted by the fact that 500,000 people in South Dakota get two Senators and 40 million in California get the same number.
Therefore, you only need to have Senators from 26 smaller states [potentially representing only around 60 million of 320 million people] opposing gun control, or whatever legislation, and you don't have the numbers for any change.
The President can't do a thing without the numbers in the Senate and no Senator from Shitsville, Wyoming or Dogfuck, Idaho is ever going to vote for any kind of gun control in a million years.
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
The reporting of this is getting a little bit silly.
I'm sure there have been shootings nearly every weekend in cities over American for decades and we would never hear about it. Now if anything happens it's headline news in this country.
Sure , if it's terrorism but a nightclub shooting?
The reporting of this is getting a little bit silly.
I'm sure there have been shootings nearly every weekend in cities over American for decades and we would never hear about it. Now if anything happens it's headline news in this country.
Sure , if it's terrorism but a nightclub shooting?
I think that raising the profile of gun related deaths in America will increase the opportunity to bring in anti-gun or at least more stringent gun laws?
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Just for my own understanding, why do the NRA oppose having sensible checks in place ?
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Just for my own understanding, why do the NRA oppose having sensible checks in place ?
They think it's a slippery slope. They would rather keep things the way they are than give gun restrictions an inch and let them take a mile.
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Just for my own understanding, why do the NRA oppose having sensible checks in place ?
They think the 2nd amendment is absolutely inviolate. And also they don't understand what the word amendment means.
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Just for my own understanding, why do the NRA oppose having sensible checks in place ?
They think the 2nd amendment is absolutely inviolate. And also they don't understand what the word amendment means.
The NRA also believe that *if* certain types of guns are banned this will lead to a total ban on ALL guns. Furthermore, there are two legal interpretations/philosophies of the Constitution - Is it a "living document" that judges can interpret as they please? Or should judges stick to what the founding fathers intended?
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Just for my own understanding, why do the NRA oppose having sensible checks in place ?
They think the 2nd amendment is absolutely inviolate. And also they don't understand what the word amendment means.
Or should judges stick to what the founding fathers intended?
And here's one of the most advanced guns that existed when those guys made the amendment. Hard to imagine anyone pulling this out of their pocket and taking down the patrons of a saloon.
Comments
That said, I don't think the "Ineffective" tag still hangs over him. He has used "executive orders" on things like LGTBQ+ rights, and has also had the Justice Department stop pursuing low level drug crimes as policy. Since he started giving zero fucks what Republicans in Congress think about him, he has become far more popular and successful.
"I just heard there has not been a shooting in America for 30 seconds"!
Is there no politician brave enough in the States to stand on the platform of amending the 2nd amendment?
It's the only way to stop these massacres. No one in power seems to care.
Thank God I'm a Brit.
It's not the fucking Wild West any more and the good old Colt 45 and Winchester repeater have been replaced with semi automatic weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
At least amending the 2nd to only include non automatic weapons would be a start.
Anti- gun California (5th largest economy in the world) and New York - combined population 60 million - have two Senators each.
Massivly Pro-gun North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee (not an exhaustive list) have a population of only around 40 million - also have two Senators each.
Therefore, the pro-gun 'flyover' states - despite containing a fraction of the US population and contributing only a fraction of the US economy, have a massively disproportionate influence on domestic policy.
That is just as the Founding Fathers wanted it, but it has had unfortunate consequences.
The point is that a huge number of Americans in progressive, coastal states have their political will on things like gun control massively diluted by the fact that 500,000 people in South Dakota get two Senators and 40 million in California get the same number.
Therefore, you only need to have Senators from 26 smaller states [potentially representing only around 60 million of 320 million people] opposing gun control, or whatever legislation, and you don't have the numbers for any change.
The President can't do a thing without the numbers in the Senate and no Senator from Shitsville, Wyoming or Dogfuck, Idaho is ever going to vote for any kind of gun control in a million years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36882456
I'm sure there have been shootings nearly every weekend in cities over American for decades and we would never hear about it.
Now if anything happens it's headline news in this country.
Sure , if it's terrorism but a nightclub shooting?
I could be wrong though.
I'm not saying that you're 100% going to shoot someone because you own a gun or at least have access to one.
But by having firearm access you've improved your chances to try if you so wanted to from 0% to 100%.