I don't understand why gun accidents are even being talked about in light of this.
What are you talking about? We have gun-related news every single day. We have crazy people, people on watch lists, and criminals walking around with guns. The point of the conversation which you have avoided is that the weapons have become so large as to enable a single person to take out large groups of people. I want to know why ”the right to bear arms” includes assault rifles but not grenade launchers. How come the NRA isn’t advocating for everyone to have grenade launchers?
Actually, grenade launchers, tanks, warplanes, and battleships should all be legal. A few bizarre rulings by a stacked Supreme Court back in the 20s and 30s made up most of the restrictions on arms. Before then, almost anything was understood to be legal.
To give you an indication, at Lexington and Concord, back at the very start of the American Revolution, the rebels had cannon. Privately owned cannon, supplied by normal citizens. Cannon, being the best, most powerful, available ground weapon, were frequently owned by private citizens. Wealthy militia members were
expected to supply cannon, in fact.
The US Constitution calls out Letters of Marque and Reprisal - grants to private armies and navies for acting in the interests of the nation. In other words, the US had laws specifically to encourage private citizens to form and equip armies with modern weapons, to buy and sail modern warships, and to reward the private citizens for acting for the US through pay, salvage, and loot.
Follow the money.
You folks in Germany should be aware of how your government was taken over by a fringe political party. America has gone through much the same thing in the last couple decades. The name of the party is the same, but today’s Republicans are different than those of the 80s. We are seeing extremism within that party and specifically in areas of women’s rights (e.g. right to healthcare, abortion, and access to birth control), civil rights (Laquan McDonald case, etc.), weapons, climate change (Republicans are most likely to refuse to acknowledge it), and foreign policy. It’s cloaked in language that’s religious (because they need to appeal to mostly southern ignorant people, look at our voting record map). It’s cloaked in language that’s heavy on patriotism and nationalism.
Todays Republicans are different, yes. The current Republican party wants less government force being used on the citizens of the United States. And despite your suggestion, the Democrats have moved much farther to the left than Republicans to the right. We have a self-proclaimed socialist as a viable Democratic presidential candidate! We have gay marriage! Both would have been unimaginable a mere 20 years ago, even 15.
You'd have to specify what you find objectionable to women's rights, but since I know the standard tropes, I'll refute them now: No, there is no block preventing women from getting health care, they have the most liberal and free access to abortion in the entire world, there are no laws preventing them from buying birth control, there is no 77c pay gap, and there is no 'war on women'.
And please, do not insult religious people as ignorant. It's as bad as pretending that rural folks are stupid - your insulting the poor, rural, religious south is classist, racist, and anti-religious bigoted. If you have specific complaints about policies, then name the policies you object to - but painting 100 million Americans as stupid because they don't agree with you is pretty bad.
By the way, Laquan McDonald was killed by the Chicago PD, and Chicago hasn't had a Republican in the government in over 50 years. In fact, the Chicago government executed a cover-up to suppress news of the killing until after Rahm Emanuel's election was over. Why are you blaming this on the Republicans?
One of the great sales pitches of Republicans is that laws and regulations are bad. But Republicans like laws! They like making them as long as they benefit the people putting money in their pockets. For example, the Bush tax cuts was a Congressional bill passed that disproportionately benefited rich people. They made that law. That’s why President Bush obstructed stem cell research. Republicans are also known for the Proposition 8 California constitutional amendment that tried to ban gay marriage. “Republican presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain released a statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment.[61] Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich released a video in support. Both characterized the court ruling requiring recognition of same sex marriage as being against the will of the people.[62] A political action committee run by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who personally supported the proposition, donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage during their campaign for the proposition.[63]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#cite_note-33
That case is also known as Hollingsworth versus Perry. Hollingsworth was a Republican state senator from California. The Republicans lost, and gay marriage was legalized in the United States.
Politicians like to make laws - it's their job, they think. Although I find it amusing that you are criticizing Republicans for trying to pass laws while ignoring Democrats doing the same thing. For example, Clinton was the one that signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
"Tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich" - well, duh, they're the ones with the money, of course any tax cut will impact them more. How is someone that doesn't pay taxes supposed to be impacted by a tax cut? Most accurately, tax laws always benefit the rich, because the rich don't have to pay most taxes, and they certainly don't pay income taxes on their wealth, as it isn't even income. This has nothing to do with favoritism or the power of one party to benefit another, it has to do with the nature of wealth. Even back when the top tax rates were above 60%, the rich actually paid LESS of a percentage than they do now.
But the statist attributes of both parties are well established historically. Since FDR demonstrated the power that politicians could accrue through doling out Federal taxes revenue to potential supporters. Only recently, with the rise of the conservative Tea Party and similar groups has there been a political faction that actually intended to reduce the power of government.
Why is this important? Because Republicans like to make laws! It’s just the laws they agree with that they like making.
Someone mentioned that making laws was useless. Well, here are the following things that involve regulation and laws that you use on a daily basis from your government: regulated water supply including daily testing to protect you, the FDA (which regulates what’s allowed to be sold as food and bars food manufacturers from lying on food labels), the EPA (which regulates the air we breathe, among other things, to prevent situations like Beijing China), public schooling, public roads, public utilities, the FBI, fire and police, medical practice regulations, medical device regulations, the court system, Social Security, the Department of Health, etc.
The government does a lot of things! A lot of good things. The idea that everything the government does is bad, and we need less regulations is perpetuated by those crazy uncles at Thanksgiving who shout out the most embarrassing things. It’s born out of ignorance and stupidity. And if we can regulate water quality, air quality, our food supply, provide public education, I don’t see why we can’t put a stop to selling weapons to crazy people and people on watch lists. It’s not unreasonable. In fact, it makes a whole lot of sense! But we can’t do it because we have some seriously ignorant people who would rather play politics than make rational decisions.
This is the usual strawman that pro-government supporters use. No one, in any party, is suggesting that EVERY law or regulation be repealed. There are already many laws in place to prevent pollution, guarantee safe products, or maintain public safety. This includes weapons. Guns are regulated beyond your wildest imaginings - the guns used in the San Bernardino shootings were already covered by so many laws and regulations it isn't funny. Yet, because the shooters were not criminals, were not known terrorists, and were willing to take the time and pay the money, there was no law that could prevent the sale of those weapons. If you think there is a law that would have helped, please - suggest it. 9 out of 10, it'll either be redundant or unconstitutional (the last 1/10, it'll be ineffective). So, no, the answer to every problem is not 'another law' and 'more regulations'.
The useful regulations you refer to have all been around for decades. The EPA, for example, has no major success stories. The great LA pollution, or Ohio River, were already taken care of by state laws before the EPA ever existed. But they took years to take effect, and the Federal Government proudly stole the success of the state laws as its own.
The EPA does have a number of great failures, though - Gold King Mine comes to mind.
If people want change, you need to get informed about how the American system of laws works. You have to participate. If you don’t want to believe me about how Republicans are ruining our country, that’s fine, but you need to go and make an effort to learn for yourself. Research who is making the decisions. Learn about climate change. Learn about how weapons are bought and sold in this country. And if these stories about shootings bother you, you need to vote appropriately. And you need to vote in more than just presidential election years. Congressional election years also! Even your city election.
Trying to put all the blame on Republicans is very biased. Just to use one quick example, the average cost of food has gone up almost 40% in the past 10 years. One of the largest drivers of this cost increase has been the ethanol gasoline push, using grain that otherwise is used to feed livestock or create food. That drive to use ethanol fuel, which actually lowers gas millage btw, was driven by Democrats. This is a strongly regressive policy, as the poor use a much higher percentage of their income on food.
You see people everyday on TV with their eyes rolled back into their heads talking about ”our founding fathers said…” Well, the truth is that our Republic, our version of democracy as it were, is based on participation. The way it’s set up, you have to participate if you want something to happen. If you just throw your hands up and say everything is useless, and everyone sucks, and the government is bad, and bury your heads in the sand, the only people that are going to have control over things are the ones that pay for it. The only ones that can make the decisions will be the ones with the big lobbies, like the NRA. But if you actually care, if this thread bothers you, start googling and start learning, and participate in the process. It takes all of 30 minutes of your time every two years to vote. There’s no excuse.
The Constitution was written by the founding fathers to guarantee that the passions of the day would be unable to rewrite the laws for oppression and abuse. That meant it took time, and massive popular support, to produce fundamental changes to the government. The impatience of some modern politicians is what has driven much of the polarization.
Obergefell is one of the worst legal rulings to come out of the Supreme Court since
Roe v Wade. However proper the result, it was based on a purely imaginary legal basis, for no other reason than the majority in that case felt it was the 'right' thing to do. The proper thing would have been to leave it to the states, as a large majority already supported gay marriage, or to overturn government involvement in a limited set of religious ceremonies completely.
I do agree, though, that everyone should become educated on the issues, and take the time to VOTE, every single election. Even local elections, even for dog-catcher. Participate, and make sure your voice is heard!
The NRA, by the way, isn't even in the top 100 lobbying groups. They are a single-issue organization, which means they ignore almost everything else, so they are simply more efficient that other, multi-issue, organizations. The real high-spending lobbyists are in the financial sector, with defense, health care, or education in solid competition.
Finally, someone mentioned Tokyo as acting against the collective. I spend a good deal of time over there, and it’s actually quite ordered. It’s very clean, even the subways. People are polite even in the most crowded rush-hour traffic. Being that close together, they have managed to create a fairly well ordered system that have a lot of flow, functions very well, and in a way that respects others. That’s the trick: finding your freedoms in such a way that it doesn’t hurt someone else.
Japan is not friendly to those that do not fit in: they have a sky-high suicide rate, and are wildly xenophobic. Even people born in Japan, to families that have lived in Japan for generations, find themselves discriminated against if they happen to be of foreign (especially Korean) descent. The Japanese experience very low crime, mostly because there is a long historical and culture precedent for complete submission to the ruling government. Combined with major corruption in the police and media, and when crime does occur can frequently be suppressed. Try reading "Tokyo Vice" sometime for a view on how the police, media, and criminal underworld conspire to keep things quiet.
If you don't like that, you can look at the UN Crime Victimization Survey for Japan, and see how victims report that they are unwilling to go to the police because of shame and lack of confidence. cuddly hug , for example, is reported to the police at less than 10% the rate of American cuddly hug victims.
The US is, and always has been, for its entire history, more violent than other, similar, societies. However, this is completely unrelated to the wide prevalence of gun ownership. It has more to blame on the broad multiculturalism and general degradation of the inner-cities than anything else. If the US were monocultural, like Japan or Norway, or if the inner-city population were reduced to crime rates that matched the rest of the country, then the US would be as safe or safer than most of Europe.
