Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[Tiger337]

59 minutes ago, antrat said:

Nothing will change in this country until the working class wake up and realize that Republicans are their enemies.

Not illegal immigrants or people of color or poor people.

I think it's a small group of super wealthy people who are their enemies.  It's definitely not poor people and race/ethnicity is irrelevant.  America is an oligarchy and the people that really run the country love our culture wars.  It's the perfect distraction.   

Edited May 25, 2022 by Tiger337

[Motown Bombers]

4 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Are you suggesting the elimination of states as we know them today?

I'm suggesting eliminating the senate as we know it today. Why are people in Wyoming more important than California? 

[Motown Bombers]

Democrats represent 56.5% of the population in the senate. They have 50 senators. Republicans represent 43.5% of the population. They have 50 senators. Since 1996, Democrats have represented the majority of the population in the senate. Republicans have controlled the senate in 14 of those 26 years. 

[Tigerbomb13]

We currently have minority rule in this country and that minority rule believing guns are more important than dead kids, but hey 1787. 

[Motown Bombers]

California has the same population as roughly the 21 least populated states. Those states combine for 42 senators. California has 2. 

[1776]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Democrats have to expand the Supreme Court and add term limits if by some miracle they hold the House and add two Senate seats. 

1. End the filibuster

2. Expand the Supreme Court with 4 seats

3. Pass the Freedom to Vote Act

4. Make DC a state and add two Senators

These are the four biggest things that must happen if Dems retain power and add Senate seats to get around the two lite beer Republicans in Manchin and Sinema.

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? 
I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

 

[Motown Bombers]

In the 1790 census, Virginia was the largest state in the country. It was 12 times larger than the smallest state which was Delaware. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, 1776 said:

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? 
I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

 

You do realize the number of Supreme Court justices has been changed multiple times in the past? There is literally no rule in the constitution that you have to have 9 justices.  

[Motown Bombers]

5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

In the 1790 census, Virginia was the largest state in the country. It was 12 times larger than the smallest state which was Delaware. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 

Keep in mind these population totals are including slaves who had no rights. The south had far fewer free people than the north so giving them the same number of senators benefited the slave states. It shouldn't be any surprise that 200 years later the states that benefit from this senate are rural white states. 

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

You do realize the number of Supreme Court justices has been changed multiple times in the past? There is literally no rule in the constitution that you have to have 9 justices.  

also no rule that the House has to be 435. As has been discussed here before, enlarging the House tp ~500 would be the most straightforward way to increase the level of democracy in the country at least a little. It wouldn't help with the Senate but it would help with the electoral college. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

5 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? 
I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

Rules change all the time. Like when Mitch McConnell refused to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland for a vote on the Supreme Court. The balance of the court and number of Justices on it has changed in the past too. Andrew Jackson added two Justices in 1837. FDR attempted to add up to 6 new Justices. There is no fundamental flaw in changing the balance of the court so it represents the opinion of the majority in this country. Tyranny of the minority opinion, as we have on issues like abortion, corporations as people, money in politics, gun safety reforms, is far more dangerous for our current situation than allowing the majority of this country to govern.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Amnesty: Gun Control Works Facts and Research

Great research and hard data showing that gun safety reforms/gun control does actually work.

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

In the 1790 census, Virginia was the largest state in the country. It was 12 times larger than the smallest state which was Delaware. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 

This is all absolutely true but you can make an even stronger case that nation that the founders envisioned was one where states had primacy so the quality of democracy was more important at the state than Federal level. We are no longer that nation and we cannot go back to being that nation. The growth in the importance of the Federal government is irreversible, both because of the nature of foreign threats, and even more so the size and power of the economic entities and the environment, health and safety threats it must regulate. That has dramatically increased the need for more democracy at the Federal level than the Founders ever planned for.

Edited May 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

16 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? 
I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

 

what rule?

Where is it written that the court has to have 9 justices?

As Tater said... McConnell decided in 2016 that the Court only needs 8 justices.

That seal's been broken.  Repbulicans will pack the court if they need to and have the ability.  Bank on it.  

 

[gehringer_2]

35 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Are you suggesting the elimination of states as we know them today?

if you mean by 'as we know them' in the sense of citizens of various states having non-uniform voting power at the federal level - YES exactly that.

Edited May 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

This is all absolutely true but you can make an even stronger case that nation that the founders envisioned was one where states had primacy so the quality of democracy was more important at the state than Federal level. We are no longer that nation and we cannot go back to being that nation. The growth in the importance of the Federal government is irreversible, both because of the nature of foreign threats, and even more so the size and power of the economic entities and the environment, health and safety threats it must regulate. That has dramatically increased the need for more democracy at the Federal level than the Founders ever planned for.

your point about the civil war is spot on.  Once we began horse trading new states based on senate seats and slavery then the sanctity of the Senate as an institution was broken.  Why do we have a North and South Dakota?

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Duplicate post.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[1776]

26 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

You do realize the number of Supreme Court justices has been changed multiple times in the past? There is literally no rule in the constitution that you have to have 9 justices.  

Yes, I do realize that the number can and has fluctuated. 
 

 

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Populations varied from state to state in 1787 as well. The population apportionment of representation is through the House of Representatives. The founding fathers purposely intended for the Senate to be represented evenly by the states. The purpose of the Senate is, in large part, to check the whims and shenanigans of the House. The Senate was in intended to be a check point on extreme ideas and legislation coming from the lower House. As much as I abhor politics in general these days, I believe the Senate is satisfying that expectation to a degree. The idea of six year terms with 1/3 of the Senate facing the voters every two years is intended to maintain a degree of stability in that chamber. 
If the Senate is determined by population per state, there will be under representation in the Senate by smaller states. The argument that the Senate should be determined by population undermines the intent of the founders. The government in general was in need of a mechanism to guard against powerful majorities, not endorse them. The separation of powers, though muddied and skirted by today’s self serving politicians, was designed to make it difficult for significant change without strenuous debate and compromise. It would be a mistake to determine Senatorial representation by state population. 
A Congress (Senate & House) based solely on populations would literally deny smaller states a voice in Washington. 
 

All of that went out the window when Congress decided to divide up territories like the Dakotas into separate states. When the Constitution was ratified Virginia included what is now Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana and Illinois were part of Virginia. Also West Virginia and parts of Ohio and Western Pa. 

A lot has changed in 275 years...

[Motown Bombers]

 

[1776]

29 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

also no rule that the House has to be 435. As has been discussed here before, enlarging the House tp ~500 would be the most straightforward way to increase the level of democracy in the country at least a little. It wouldn't help with the Senate but it would help with the electoral college. 

Can you imagine adding house members with the two parties where they are now? I can’t imagine there would ever be an agreement on the numbers or districts. Current districts are constantly being challenged through the courts now. The only thing Washington can agree on is that it can’t agree on anything. Then sometimes, that’s not a bad thing.

[smr-nj]

So… I guess we’re “over” yesterday’s atrocity, and now we just wait for tomorrow’s mass shooting so that we may again offer our thoughts and prayers?

Jeez. Didn’t even take 24 hours.

[1776]

3 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

All of that went out the window when Congress decided to divide up territories like the Dakotas into separate states. When the Constitution was ratified Virginia included what is now Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana and Illinois were part of Virginia. Also West Virginia and parts of Ohio and Western Pa. 

A lot has changed in 275 years...

Yes, a lot has changed in 275 years.
 
Confederate General Stonewall Jackson was born in present day West Virginia but at the time of his birth was born in The Old Dominion, which I believe you probably already know. WV seceded from Virginia during the war. 

[gehringer_2]

17 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Can you imagine adding house members with the two parties where they are now? I can’t imagine there would ever be an agreement on the numbers or districts. Current districts are constantly being challenged through the courts now. The only thing Washington can agree on is that it can’t agree on anything. Then sometimes, that’s not a bad thing.

I think only one thing is certain, and that is that the more the minority presses its current undemocratic advantages, the closer the country is going to get to coming apart at the seams. Remember the mantra that started this whole enterprise was "no taxation without representation."  Still applies as driving force today.

The people in the Wyomings and Utahs can keep thinking it's their appointed destiny to keep the country safe for guns and Jesus, but at some point the CAs and NYs are going to take the ball and go home and WYs and UTs will get very poor very fast.

Edited May 25, 2022 by gehringer_2