'A dysfunction of our politics'
Who is this democracy representing? There's a certain ban that's about to expire. Don't click that link yet, just think about this for a second. If there is a ban on something, it doesn't matter what it is, that has "widespread popular support" and that the President said he would ostensibly support if it crossed his desk, shouldn't that ban be pushed? Shouldn't it be renewed? Don't representative democracies function on the assumption that if the people want something, their representatives fight for it?
What if it was "supported by at least two-thirds of Americans." A supermajority of people support this bill, why would it flounder? Why would law makers let it expire?
It is, I feel, a lack of concern for the desires, opinions and fears of their constituents.
There are, of course, the patently political reasons. Fear of backlash:
Democrats are well aware that they lost control of the House of Representatives in 1994, the year President Bill Clinton signed the original legislationexcuses:
Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, dismissed the ban as "a feel-good piece of legislation"and the utter lack of touch with popular opinion:
"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senator Bill Frist of TennesseeWhich Americans again? I think he means the 33% who have amongst their ranks the NRA, a gun lobby that is categorically against any kind of gun restrictions whatsoever. This ban is on assault weapons by the way. These are weapons that have no purpose besides tactical use against humans.
I'm tempted to go on a tyrade about how these weapons are useless in mundane, non-murder scenarios like target shooting, skeet, and hunting, but that really has nothing to do with this.
Representative democracy is failing right now, it's caving to special interest groups who, because of the money they dump into campaigns every cycle, are able to exert an absurd amount of influence and undermine the integrity of our legislative system.
I'm so mad I can't think of anything funny or ironic to go along with this
posted by Luke @ 10:41 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
A "feel-good piece of legislation", eh? Yeah, that's about right. I'd say I feel pretty good about being alive, as opposed to dying when I'm hit with a stray bullet from a gun that's shooting 100 of them a second.
Also, how did I not hear about this until last night? You'd think this'd be a bigger deal... And why on earth is there an expiration date on this bill, anyway? Did they think that automatic weapons would get less deadly over time? Maybe they thought that in a few years, people wouldn't want to kill each other anymore?!
But what's really shocking is that not even Kerry is saying anything. Who's he trying to appease? The NRA has already said they'll endorse Bush if the ban expires - no shockers there. So really, what has he got to lose - No, the real question is, what does he have to gain? I know - less dead voters!
And as for that "second amendment" crap the NRA crazies are always citing - last I checked, we don't need to form militias at the drop of a hat anymore... well, actually, you never know with Bush - so many sandy countries to invade, so little military...
Please, everybody, go rent Bowling for Columbine.
--Aleah
"not even Kerry is saying anything"
Fear. Fear that he'll alienate supporters.
Also cowardice. Bush has the same cowardice, despite saying that he's for the bill, he refuses to push it, because, ultimately, there are more gun toting republicans than democrats.
It's widely held that the reason the democrats lost so badly in the 94 election was the passing of the brady bill just months before.
There's also the fact that the NRA has publicly stated that it will support Bush once the ban lapses. That's a lot of people putting pressure on the president for a pretty stupid issue.
I don't even understand why NRA members want assault rifles in the first place. Like you mentioned, assault weapons have limited application outside of human vs. human combat. I think that the majority -- or, to be fair, hardly any -- members of the NRA are murderers.
I guess I see the need for people who belong to militias. After all, when Big Brother comes, he's going to have assault weapons, so the militia needs them too in order to protect and fight for the citizenry (by their logic). Still, that's just an arms-race argument, and I think that -- knowing more about weapons than your average citizen -- militia members could tell you that they are going to lose an arms race against the military-industrial complex no matter what.
Your right about the occasional, pointed failure of representative democracy, though. I know that this isn't always a fair question to ask when people make critical comments, but do you have a better idea? That's not a smack-down, I'm genuinely curious: how does the citizenry restructure government to limit influence by special interest groups and increase accountability of elected officials to the populace? That's a tough question.
It's a trite sentiment, but I think the biggest thing is education. People either don't understand how and why the system fails them, or they aren't hearing about it. Not a lot of people read the NY Times, and even less -- although not many less these days -- read your blog. They just become vagulely disaffected and windup disenfrachised from the political process in toto, which makes the problem even worse.
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
The ban is (was) against assault weapons, but not automatic weapons. "Automatic" meaning you pull the trigger and it empties the whole clip. Those have been illegal since forever though i'm sure the NRA would love to have them. Assault weapons are one trigger pull, one shot. But you don't have to cock the gun or anything between shots, which makes them "semi-automatic," i think.
"These are weapons that have no purpose besides tactical use against humans.
I'm tempted to go on a tyrade about how these weapons are useless in mundane, non-murder scenarios like target shooting, skeet, and hunting, but that really has nothing to do with this."
The NRA probably wants them for purely aesthetic reasons. An AK-47 or M-16 just plain looks cooler than a hunting rifle. As far as their having no tactical use against humans, that is definitely true, just as for hand guns. Lynard Skynnard even wrote a song about that i think. Anyway, if i ever wanted a gun i would definitely try to get an AK-47, but i don't want...
Wait, Bowling for Columbine?
i would DEFINITEY want a gun after seeing that movie.
-ben
The ban is (was) against assault weapons, but not automatic weapons. "Automatic" meaning you pull the trigger and it empties the whole clip. Those have been illegal since forever though i'm sure the NRA would love to have them. Assault weapons are one trigger pull, one shot. But you don't have to cock the gun or anything between shots, which makes them "semi-automatic," i think.
"These are weapons that have no purpose besides tactical use against humans.
I'm tempted to go on a tyrade about how these weapons are useless in mundane, non-murder scenarios like target shooting, skeet, and hunting, but that really has nothing to do with this."
The NRA probably wants them for purely aesthetic reasons. An AK-47 or M-16 just plain looks cooler than a hunting rifle. As far as their having no tactical use against humans, that is definitely true, just as for hand guns. Lynard Skynnard even wrote a song about that i think. Anyway, if i ever wanted a gun i would definitely try to get an AK-47, but i don't want...
Wait, Bowling for Columbine?
i would DEFINITEY want a gun after seeing that movie.
-ben
Post a Comment
<< Home