Thoughts and prayers...

[Hards Alumni]

It didn't do much, but the Safer Communities Act was added to gun control in 2022.

Thanks, I didn't know about this.  Seems like a good start.

[Pakuni]

I'm no Vance fan but that's disingenuous.  He called it a sad fact of life.  His overall message lacked empathy but he wasn't flippant.

He didn't say "sad," but I agree he wasn't trying to be flip. He was just robotically reciting NRA talking points because expressing any kind of normal human emotion isn't an area in which JD thrives.
If we could run him through a battery of tests, I suspect we'd find he has a fairly high IQ and almost nonexistent EQ. People like that tend to make terrible leaders and (surprise) terrible political candidates.

[Pakuni]

Are they banned?

They were for a decade, and mass shootings declined during that time. The legislation was passed with a sunset clause and the Republican-majority Congress in 2004 declined to reauthorize it.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

He didn't say "sad," but I agree he wasn't trying to be flip. He was just robotically reciting NRA talking points because expressing any kind of normal human emotion isn't an area in which JD thrives.
If we could run him through a battery of tests, I suspect we'd find he has a fairly high IQ and almost nonexistent EQ. People like that tend to make terrible leaders and (surprise) terrible political candidates.

In other words, the perfect mentee for Peter Thiel.

[Hards Alumni]

They were for a decade, and mass shootings declined during that time. The legislation was passed with a sunset clause and the Republican-majority Congress in 2004 declined to reauthorize it.

And then Democrats didn't have a trifecta to pass a replacement after 2004? 

[Pakuni]

And then Democrats didn't have a trifecta to pass a replacement after 2004? 

They tried in 2013 and failed. Several Democratic senators from purple/conservative states voted against it.

[Hards Alumni]

They tried in 2013 and failed.

So it stands to reason that we should also hold them accountable, yes?

[Pakuni]

So it stands to reason that we should also hold them accountable, yes?

Sure. But it doesn't stand to reason to suggest both parties are equally to blame for the lack of seriousness about addressing gun violence in this country.
The guy going 75 mph down the interstate and the guy going 110 mph are both speeding, but they're not the same.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

So it stands to reason that we should also hold them accountable, yes?

Those that voted against it, hell yeah. Looking at you, Joe Manchin.

But I think you need 60 votes in the Senate to get any legislation like this across the line.

[jficke13]

They tried in 2013 and failed. Several Democratic senators from purple/conservative states voted against it.

I love how people, especially lefties actually, will get so mad about Dems failing to pass policy X under Obama when they just completely memory hole the existence of senators like Joe Liebermann or policy Y under Biden while ignoring Sinema/Manchin. Shocker, but in reality, having the letter "D" next to both chambers and in the white house does not afford carte blanche to enact anything and everything that might get proposed.

[tower912]

I am OK with Vance acknowledging that school shootings are the reality we live in.   As a both/and type of guy, I like having officers in school and more/better school security (spoiler alert:  tax dollars) 
   I am also on board with the notion that America needs a change of heart and needs to turn away from violence.

Thou shalt have no gods before me.

A subset of America have made guns their god.   Just like a subset has money their god.    Just another type of evil.  So, in the end, this young man is the product of a high school dropout father and a drug using mother who went through an ugly divorce recently.   The father filled emptiness with gun worship, leading to purchasing an AR for his 8th grader.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

[Hards Alumni]

Sure. But it doesn't stand to reason to suggest both parties are equally to blame for the lack of seriousness about addressing gun violence in this country.
The guy going 75 mph down the interstate and the guy going 110 mph are both speeding, but they're not the same.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  They're both not really serious about it.  They both get to campaign and raise money from the issue.  Lip service is the American Way.

[Hards Alumni]

I love how people, especially lefties actually, will get so mad about Dems failing to pass policy X under Obama when they just completely memory hole the existence of senators like Joe Liebermann or policy Y under Biden while ignoring Sinema/Manchin. Shocker, but in reality, having the letter "D" next to both chambers and in the white house does not afford carte blanche to enact anything and everything that might get proposed.

So you're suggesting that Democrats don't have an effective coalition? 

Counterpoint is that they don't want to pass these things and keep people like Manchin/Sinema/Lieberman around to use as scapegoats.  I think there is a bit of naivete here.

Both sides of the aisle use scapegoats to scrap legislation they don't actually want to pass.  For reasons that are financial.

[Pakuni]

Counterpoint is that they don't want to pass these things and keep people like Manchin/Sinema/Lieberman around to use as scapegoats.  I think there is a bit of naivete here.

Facts in evidence suggests they don't keep people like Manchin/Sinema/Lieberman around.
Sinema went independent when she realized she couldn't win a Democratic primary. Lieberman went independent after losing a Democratic primary.
Manchin went independent because he'd been flirting with a presidential run, but saw he couldn't win as a Democrat.

[Jockey]

Dems never had 60 members to pass real gun legislation.

[Hards Alumni]

Facts in evidence suggests they don't keep people like Manchin/Sinema/Lieberman around.
Sinema went independent when she realized she couldn't win a Democratic primary. Lieberman went independent after losing a Democratic primary.
Manchin went independent on his way out the door because he's been flirting with a presidential run, but knows he can't win as a Democrat.

Manchin has been in office for 14 years as a senator, and was the governor for 5 years prior to that
Sinema has been in the Senate for 5 years, and congress since 2013
Lieberman was in the senate for 24 years... and was the VP candidate with Gore in 2000.

So, you're suggestion is that these folks aren't long term Democrats?

[jficke13]

So you're suggesting that Democrats don't have an effective coalition? 

Counterpoint is that they don't want to pass these things and keep people like Manchin/Sinema/Lieberman around to use as scapegoats.  I think there is a bit of naivete here.

Both sides of the aisle use scapegoats to scrap legislation they don't actually want to pass.  For reasons that are financial.

I'm not sure if you're implying that the political parties have the ability to unplug difficult senators and replace them with compliant ones on a whim, because the idea that the democratic party could (for example) have replaced Joe Manchin with anyone else via any means whatsover (electoral or otherwise) is nonsensical.

What I'm suggesting is that in reality, if you do not have an overwhelming majority (and in the senate given it's odd parliamentarian rules that means 60+ votes) then you are subject to whipping your caucus in such a way that you can achieve the votes you need. If you have a 50-50 senate, then one person who holds out has an outsized influence they would not have had in a 60-40 senate. A, for example, conservative democrat from a very conservative state like WV might have the capacity to prevent any number of progressive policies from passing.

This isn't complicated. Don't be willfully obtuse.

[jficke13]

Manchin has been in office for 14 years as a senator, and was the governor for 5 years prior to that
Sinema has been in the Senate for 5 years, and congress since 2013
Lieberman was in the senate for 24 years... and was the VP candidate with Gore in 2000.

So, you're suggestion is that these folks aren't long term Democrats?

If what you're actually saying is that its the democrats fault for not passing legislation because they are not a voting monolith that exacts lockstep compliance from every elected official, then I guess that's *technically* correct, but in a way that has ceased to have any practical meaning.

[Hards Alumni]

Dems never had 60 members to pass real gun legislation.

Wrong as usual.

In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

So you're suggesting that Democrats don't have an effective coalition? 

Counterpoint is that they don't want to pass these things and keep people like Manchin/Sinema/Lieberman around to use as scapegoats.  I think there is a bit of naivete here.

Both sides of the aisle use scapegoats to scrap legislation they don't actually want to pass.  For reasons that are financial.

How do you pass this without 60 votes?

I mean, where you have a 50/50 split in the Senate, and 48 of 50 Dems vote for gun legislation and 0 of 50 Repubs vote for it, the party's are equally to blame?

[Uncle Rico]

I am OK with Vance acknowledging that school shootings are the reality we live in.   As a both/and type of guy, I like having officers in school and more/better school security (spoiler alert:  tax dollars) 
   I am also on board with the notion that America needs a change of heart and needs to turn away from violence.

Thou shalt have no gods before me.

A subset of America have made guns their god.   Just like a subset has money their god.    Just another type of evil.  So, in the end, this young man is the product of a high school dropout father and a drug using mother who went through an ugly divorce recently.   The father filled emptiness with gun worship, leading to purchasing an AR for his 8th grader.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

This will be passed over as the other argument goes back and forth here, but this pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Also, guys, there is no real desire to bring back the assault weapon ban.  D's know the game that if they pass it, it becomes an election loser in the next cycle.  Hards is right.  A lot of lip service and act tough but no real desire to whip the party to pass something like that.

Guns won.  You need a new generation(s) to have any chance at legit gun legislation.  Maybe if enough kids get slaughtered, a light will shine on these coming generations

[Hards Alumni]

I'm not sure if you're implying that the political parties have the ability to unplug difficult senators and replace them with compliant ones on a whim, because the idea that the democratic party could (for example) have replaced Joe Manchin with anyone else via any means whatsover (electoral or otherwise) is nonsensical.

What I'm suggesting is that in reality, if you do not have an overwhelming majority (and in the senate given it's odd parliamentarian rules that means 60+ votes) then you are subject to whipping your caucus in such a way that you can achieve the votes you need. If you have a 50-50 senate, then one person who holds out has an outsized influence they would not have had in a 60-40 senate. A, for example, conservative democrat from a very conservative state like WV might have the capacity to prevent any number of progressive policies from passing.

This isn't complicated. Don't be willfully obtuse.

I am well aware of how it works, I'm not sure you're following along.  If the Democrats can't get their people to vote the way they want, they can kick them out of the party.  They can with hold money from their elections.  There are dozens of ways to get them out of the way of their agenda.

They use these congresspeople as cover so they don't pass legislation that their corporate backers don't like.

[Hards Alumni]

How do you pass this without 60 votes?

I mean, where you have a 50/50 split in the Senate, and 48 of 50 Dems vote for gun legislation and 0 of 50 Repubs vote for it, the party's are equally to blame?

Yes, that is what I'm saying.  Much like the Democrats not codifying reproductive rights.

They've had plenty of opportunities, but they sit on their hands and don't pass overwhelmingly popular legislation ALL THE TIME.

Plus, they could just eliminate the filibuster rule.  You know the Republicans would and will do it the moment they have the chance.  Democrats won't because they're certain that "rules" still exist in politics.  Mitch McConnell's existence should have given them the hint that it doesn't.

[Jockey]

Wrong as usual.

In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.

Okay, doughnut boy.

[Hards Alumni]

Okay, doughnut boy.