"dead children and monied politicians"

[BrokenBriton]

In this (new) article, David Simon seems in despair. I wouldn’t know what to quote, because there is nothing not to quote (fwiw, it’s only a few hundreds words long). His points capture my own concerns for the US, and I link to the article for comment:

The Senate's gun control fail: dead children and monied politicians | David...

Okay, here’s one passage:

Every day, there is less of this republic to respect, but in the United States Senate, there is little to nothing that remains. True, popular sentiment can’t as easily be undone in a national contest of wide scope in which both parties are equally monied and mobilized, but it isn’t the American presidency that’s broken. No, it’s the legislative branch; cash money has wrecked Congress, and in doing that much, it has paralyzed American governance beyond all practical hope

In the light of his comments and observations; in any meaningful sense, is the USA Senate democratic, is it representative of the people?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

I’m scared for my country.

[HurricaneDitka]

I thought Charlie Cook had some insight on this:

National polls, cited as if they were argument-winners, are irrelevant — especially when it comes to the Senate. There is a touch of Pauline Kael about today’s progressive indignation. The population centers in California, Illinois, and New York may still be up in arms — your friends, too — but most other states probably do not have pro-gun-control majorities and, when it comes to regulating firearms, most Americans appear to err on the side of caution.
…
Geography aside, the gun-control movement has another problem: Gun-rights advocates are just infinitely more interested in this issue than the average American. Bill Clinton warned Democrats about this in January, urging them to remember that “these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues.” Message: Gun owners are engaged; most people are not. Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum put his finger on this this morning:

How did this happen even though, as liberals remind us endlessly, 90 percent of the American public supports background checks? Because about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but don’t really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.

[Evil_Captor]

Well whether or not the politicians suffer at the polls for their vote on background checks, perhaps some good will come of it as more people realize just how bought Congress is. Voting has become increasingly a sham … economically, the choice between Obama and Romney was one of technique, not intent. Should voters lose any ability to make a difference with ballots, the only thing they’ll have left to make a difference with will be bullets … and that would be a shame.

[o_rion]

Y u scared, bosda?
Could b a few reasons, I’m curious as to yours.

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Captor

Well whether or not the politicians suffer at the polls for their vote on background checks, perhaps some good will come of it as more people realize just how bought Congress is. Voting has become increasingly a sham … economically, the choice between Obama and Romney was one of technique, not intent. Should voters lose any ability to make a difference with ballots, the only thing they’ll have left to make a difference with will be bullets … and that would be a shame.

I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you advocating Second Amendment Solutions?

But do you really think the whole bill was about background checks? If it was, then maybe it would have passed.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you advocating Second Amendment Solutions?

But do you really think the whole bill was about background checks? If it was, then maybe it would have passed.

What else did it say? Its being reported as a pretty narrow bill on background checks and gun trafficking.

[Evil_Captor]

@John_Mace

I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you advocating Second Amendment Solutions?

But do you really think the whole bill was about background checks? If it was, then maybe it would have passed.

No, I am not advocating Second Amendment solutions. I FEAR them. Most of the people who get killed in any kind of Second Amendment Solution scenario will be the good guys and the innocent, I believe.

Don’t tell me that you think the bill was about creating a registry.

[BrokenBriton]

A follow up article in The Guardian:

Gun control vote: all but three ‘no’ senators received pro-gun cash

Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists

Picking out some of the less obvious points::

Information for the period since the Newtown school shooting is harder to come by because many quarterly filings due out on Tuesday have been delayed by the suspected ricin attack on members of Congress.

Far more money is spent on negative attack ads against politicians seen as weak on gun rights, than in favour of supporters

Some of the more relevant donations do not come explicitly from gun campaigners.

The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause.

Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash

[Flyer]

@Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor

I’m scared for my country.

Why? Because the Senate is functioning as the Founders intended?

[BrokenBriton]

Flyer - is it your opinion the Senate hasn’t been bought by vested interests?

[David_H_Singanas]

@BrokenBriton

In this (new) article, David Simon seems in despair.
In the light of his comments and observations; in any meaningful sense, is the USA Senate democratic, is it representative of the people?

A Senate vote against background checks for persons buying guns does not mean
the American people are against “gun control.” It means that Americans fear a
national registry MORE than any random firearm acts of violence. A major firearm
massacre seems to be at least an annual event in the USA. But the majority of
voters are very consistent in their opposition to anything resembling a national
registry. Remember that we are composed of 50 very different, self-governing
states.

Singanas

[BrokenBriton]

Simon is talking of what he perceives as (pretty much) a complete disconnect between electors and elected - that Congress has demonstrably been bought.

[Cyros]

@BrokenBriton

In the light of his comments and observations; in any meaningful sense, is the USA Senate democratic, is it representative of the people?

Should the Senate be representative of the people? I thought it was put in place to represent the sovereign states and those states’ interests in the Federal government.

[Sinaptics]

@David_H_Singanas

A Senate vote against background checks for persons buying guns does not mean
the American people are against “gun control.” It means that Americans fear a
national registry MORE than any random firearm acts of violence. A major firearm
massacre seems to be at least an annual event in the USA. But the majority of
voters are very consistent in their opposition to anything resembling a national
registry. Remember that we are composed of 50 very different, self-governing
states.

Singanas

Do you have a cite that Americans are opposed to a registry. I head this a lot, but I’ve never seen any numbers.

[Folacin]

@Flyer

Why? Because the Senate is functioning as the Founders intended?

I’m pretty sure the Founders expected the Senate to pass legislation by majority vote. The filibuster is not a constitutional requirement.

[QUOTE= David H Singanas]
It means that Americans fear a national registry MORE than any random firearm acts of violence.
[/QUOTE]

And, amazingly, the bill specifically forbids the creation of such a registry.

And don’t go ‘slippery slope’ - any registry would require a vote to establish it, and there would be on opportunity to filibuster then.

[marshmallow]

When hasn’t the mechanisms of government been in league with and furthering the interests of private power? That’s sorta been the point of government.

[Honesty]

@John_Mace

I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you advocating Second Amendment Solutions?

But do you really think the whole bill was about background checks? If it was, then maybe it would have passed.

John Mace, I think you’re being naive. It has been clear from the start that whatever policies Obama proposes or advocates, the opposition takes the opposite view even if they once held the position that they now oppose. To put it another way: if Obama were a flying unicorn and ate rainbows and defecated Skittles, the Republicans would hoot and holler that there weren’t enough red or orange candies compared to yellow and green. In real-life, it’s called goal-posting, in politics, I’m not sure what it’s called.

• Honesty

[anukulardecider]

I guess we now know who’s running the country.

[JXJohns]

@Folacin

…And, amazingly, the bill specifically forbids the creation of such a registry.

And don’t go ‘slippery slope’ - any registry would require a vote to establish it, and there would be on opportunity to filibuster then.

Without a registry, there would be no way to track whether “universal background checks” were actually taking place. No paper trail to track. The 1986 FOPA already banned national registries anyway. This has been mentioned a thousand times here and across the national media but those pushing for the measure just plugged their ears and choose not to listen.

In other words, this bill was once again, a worthless attempt to make it look like the Senate was doing something.