Nearly twenty dead at school shooting

[Iangould]

No, but you can correlate that access to guns makes it easier for people wanting to kill themselves.

You might want to reconsider that position

(I'm surprised to learn that the suicide rate in the US is higher than in Australia though. suicide is seen as a HUGE social problem here.)

[worstblogever]

You can keep the smarmy wee shite.

Only if it's to see him and Martin Bashir fight each other like Highlanders for the right to be the "British liberal guy on the American News".

[kane]

You seem to have a very poor grasp of current American politics.

Politicans want to be re-elected and stay in power, that is the only thing they care about besides money. If a majority wanted the second amendment changed, then politicans would have to do that to stay re-elected,imho. You are right that I do not know much about american politics, but I have read, that most politicans are afraid to change the current situation in fear of not being re-elected, so it seems to me that not enough people are interested in changing the status quo. As far as I know not only republicans but also some democrats defend the right to bear arms.

If enough people want to change the situation, then they will vote for politicans who promise to do that and so gain the necessary political majorities. This is how democracies are supposed to work.

[macul]

You can keep the smarmy wee shite.

No, really, we don't want him. Please take him back. I'll pay you.

[Iangould]

Politicans want to be re-elected and stay in power, that is the only thing they care about besides money. If a majority wanted the second amendment changed, then politicans would have to do that to stay re-elected,imho. You are right that I do not know much about american politics, but I have read, that most politicans are afraid to change the current situation in fear of not being re-elected, so it seems to me that not enough people are interested in changing the status quo. As far as I know not only republicans but also some democrats defend the right to bear arms.

Check out the opinion pollnig on, inter alia, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and withdrawal from NAFTA, politicians pander to the people who might vote to re-elect them not to the majority of the population (most whom, in the US don't actually vote).

If enough people want to change the situation, then they will vote for politicans who promise to do that and so gain the necessary political majorities. This is how democracies are supposed to work.

this is what political scientists refer to as "the naive view of politics" as you may infer from the name, they don't hold it in high esteem.

[kane]

Check out the opinion pollnig on, inter alia, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and withdrawal from NAFTA, politicians pander to the people who might vote to re-elect them not to the majority of the population (most whom, in the US don't actually vote).

If people do not vote, then they are not interested enough in changing the status quo. To vote is the most simple thing.

[carabas]

Politicans want to be re-elected and stay in power, that is the only thing they care about besides money.

And they are perfectly capable of doing that by pandering to a relatively small percentage of the total population because most people don't vote anyway.

If a majority wanted the second amendment changed, then politicans would have to do that to stay re-elected,imho.

Your opinion is mistaken.

You are right that I do not know much about american politics, but I have read, that most politicans are afraid to change the current situation in fear of not being re-elected, so it seems to me that not enough people are interested in changing the status quo. As far as I know not only republicans but also some democrats defend the right to bear arms.

American politicians don't require voters to get re-elected. They require tons and tons and tons of cash. Which they get from, for instance, the weapon industry.

If enough people want to change the situation, then they will vote for politicans who promise to do that and so gain the necessary political majorities. This is how democracies are supposed to work.

Are supposed to...
You run into a problem when any politician who claimes to do that sees his election treasure chest cut in half.

It's an unforseen side effect of the anti-government paranoia built into the American constitution. In most democracies, it's much more regulated where a politician can and can't get his money for re-election.

[kane]

And they are perfectly capable of doing that by pandering to a relatively small percentage of the total population because most people don't vote anyway.

Your opinion is mistaken.

American politicians don't require voters to get re-elected. They require tons and tons and tons of cash. Which they get from, for instance, the weapon industry.

Are supposed to...
You run into a problem when any politician who claimes to do that sees his election treasure chest cut in half.

It's an unforseen side effect of the anti-government paranoia built into the American constitution. In most democracies, it's much more regulated where a politician can and can't get his money for re-election.

But in the end the people decide. No matter how much money NRA etc. puts into the elections, people still have the possibility to say "fuck that, im am going to vote for a politician ,who is against guns". You still have free will. If you do not vote against guns, then apparently the gun problem does not matter enough to you.

[Iangould]

If people do not vote, then they are not interested enough in changing the status quo. To vote is the most simple thing.

Yeah unless you live in the US where voter suppression is very real.

[kane]

Yeah unless you live in the US where voter suppression is very real.

Obama still got elected 2 times, so it is possible to make things happen, if enough people want it. We are not talking about a third world country here.

[Iangould]

Obama still got elected 2 times, so it is possible to make things happen, if enough people want it. We are not talking about a third world country here.

True. Most third world countries don't require a super-majority to pass legislation through their upper house.

let me give you another example of the same phenomenon: opinion polling here in Australia, as far back as you can go, shows a clear majority in favor of the death penalty. Successive governments of both the left and the right have ignored that fact because, amongst other factors the international diplomatic cost of such a move would be too great.

In Britain, there's a majority in favor of a directly elected House of Lords.

You can find similar exmaples in essentially every democracy.

[kane]

True. Most third world countries don't require a super-majority to pass legislation through their upper house.

let me give you another example of the same phenomenon: opinion polling here in Australia, as far back as you can go, shows a clear majority in favor of the death penalty. Successive governments of both the left and the right have ignored that fact because, amongst other factors the international diplomatic cost of such a move would be too great.

In Britain, there's a majority in favor of a directly elected House of Lords.

You can find similar exmaples in essentially every democracy.

In your example it seems to me that politicans ignored the public opinion because of a greater good. And people still vote for them, so the death penalty issue is apparently not that important.

What do you think would happen, if 75 % voters decided to vote only for a party, which agrees to death penatly.

[carabas]

But in the end the people decide. No matter how much money NRA etc. puts into the elections, people still have the possibility to say "fuck that, im am going to vote for a politician ,who is against guns". You still have free will.

But you can't vote for anti-gun politicians if those politicians never manage to make it to an electable position due to the causes mentioned.

[Iangould]

In your example it seems to me that politicans ignored the public opinion because of a greater good. And people still vote for them, so the death penalty issue is apparently not that important.

What do you think would happen, if 75 % voters decided to vote only for a party, which agrees to death penatly.

See that's not how democracy works.

You hav a limited range of parties to choose from, none of which represent your views 100%.


This hypothetical pro-death-penalty party, what' their stance on gay marriage? Because whatever it is, st least 40% o the population is going to disagree with it.

For that matter, I support the death penalty but only in certain extremely restricted circumstances (essentially limited to treason and terrorism). So I'm unlikely to vote for a single-issue party running on a platform of broad application of the death penalty in criminal cases. how do I fit into you paradigm?

[thwhtGuardian]

If the majority has a problem with this situation, then it should not be a problem to change the second amendment.

Politicans want to be re-elected and stay in power, that is the only thing they care about besides money. If a majority wanted the second amendment changed, then politicans would have to do that to stay re-elected,imho. You are right that I do not know much about american politics, but I have read, that most politicans are afraid to change the current situation in fear of not being re-elected, so it seems to me that not enough people are interested in changing the status quo. As far as I know not only republicans but also some democrats defend the right to bear arms.

If enough people want to change the situation, then they will vote for politicans who promise to do that and so gain the necessary political majorities. This is how democracies are supposed to work.

As others have said, this is nearly impossible to do and shows a great deal of misunderstanding on how the process of amending the constitution works.

To start with the United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy, even with unpopular amendments. It's an incredibly rigid document that resists change, personally I think it should be a flexible, living document but the founding fathers never consulted with me when framing the Constitution so I guess it is what it is.