I was at lunch with a friend who opined that there was not enough money to bribe enough senators.
I said that there was never enough money to bribe enough congress-critters, especially after the salutary post-Obamacare mid term example.
Why do you think it failed?
-XC
One reason is that it's impossible to enact any meaningful gun control in the U.S. Many liberals don't' really want to see more gun control. Most my friends are liberal and at least 30% of them own guns, at least 60% enjoy shooting guns, all the people in that set aren't really yearning for gun control. Most the legislation would only serve to inconvenience law abiding gun owners without having any effect on crime. Many liberals I know want to be armed when the revolution comes.
Generally speaking with all legislation, I think bribery is important but secondary to the fact that very few people control any singular issue. For example, a few thousand Cubans in FL control our entire policy toward Cuba, due to the electoral process. Likewise, we have a situation with guns where senators who are up for reelection are hedging their bets that the very politically engaged and rapacious voters who support guns will far outweigh the voters who are in favor of limited gun control. In short, I think a lot of political oddities can be understood in terms of the winner-take-all, election-by-district voting model we have.
"rapacious"? FWIW, we have astounding amounts of "gun control" in this country compared to many other things that are much more dangerous. You can put a pool in your backyard without answering a single question about how many kids you have at what age. You can buy a car without showing a drivers license. You can learn to fly a plane without anyone looking at your health history to see if you're nuts. Heck, you can run for president with tax problems and and an illegitimate child that's being paid for by your donors - and avoid jail for it. Guns are really hard to buy. -XC PS - Pet peeve: machine guns aren't illegal to own. They are merely expensive to purchase due to scarcity and tax stamps. And the cost of ammo :-)
By rapacious, I mean that they will fight for every inch that they can. They are a very aggressive group. I meant it as a compliment, actually. There are very few groups who are as politically organized as the gun interest. When you can defeat a bill that has 90% public support, you are obviously doing your job well, for better or worse.
Ah. Got it. By the way, I call BS on that 90% number. I suspect that 99% of the people who "support" it don't really have it properly explained. I never could figure out what it meant from the lamestream media - "required background checks when buying guns over the internet" is stupid as you can't buy them that way now. And if you require private gun sellers to do background checks, well, I could run one on you, couldn't I? If I have to handle a 4473 from you then I have your SS#, etc. Plus if you then get turned down, then I know that you've probably been registered into a mental health facility or lied about an arrest. Heady stuff. I think most people would not be in favor of that. -XC
The idea of keeping a list of mentally ill people would have terrible consequences. The vary mentally ill people you wanted to keep away from guns would never get help because they would have their guns taken away. I can't say that I think most people would be against background checks that revealed mental illness or a criminal history, people are pretty scared of everything in this country and will willingly give up any right to feel safe.
Perhaps not. I can't say I have a strong opinion on gun control. Whether the support for the bill would wane if everyone was aware of the minutia contained within is certainly a relevant question. Still, I would argue that independent of the specific debate, our legislative process has turned into a farce. I think understanding the legislative process is more informative and interesting that any particular topic.
It's my personal belief that gun violence is a symptom of a much bigger disease. I base this only on my own experience (anecdotal, a terrible thing to base beliefs on, I know). I live a mere 25 miles from where I grew up. Both cities have very high rates of gun ownership. The place I grew up, Rochester, MI, a wealthy suburb, has negligible crime, while my current place of residence, Detroit...well, we all know the stats. Therefore, it's incorrect to conclude that guns cause crime. Guns are correlated with crime, and they certainly make committing violent crimes easier. But areas with lots of guns are not necessarily ares with lots of violence. The thing Detroit has that Rochester doesn't is unmitigated poverty, which is itself a form of violence. We can take away every single gun in the country, and kids would still be starving. I wish lawmakers would drop their obsession with treating the symptoms and focus on the disease. The best anti-gun bill would be an effective anti-poverty bill. That I would support.
I don't mean to say that more money will solve poverty. That approach seemed to have results early, but has stagnated or even reversed of late. What we should do is to rethink how we're spending the money that is already committed. I was one of the few liberal leaning people I know who didn't laugh off Newt Gingrich's suggestion of paying school kids to clean the lunch room and help out with chores around the school. I would be all in for giving a teenager $10/hr to clean up litter in my neighborhood. I think that some way of letting kids have the experience of making a paycheck, of having their own money that they earned, will do wonders to break the cycle of poverty that gets passed through the generations.