This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/gun-control-reforms-senate-vote-not-fair-republican-congress
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Gun control reforms failed in the senate. But it wasn't a fair vote Gun control reforms failed in the senate. But it wasn't a fair vote | |
| (6 months later) | |
| The US Senate voted down four gun control bills on Monday, almost entirely along party lines. But that predictable result actually fails to encapsulate the views of most Americans – to the extent that we can track what Americans believe by who they elect to represent them. | The US Senate voted down four gun control bills on Monday, almost entirely along party lines. But that predictable result actually fails to encapsulate the views of most Americans – to the extent that we can track what Americans believe by who they elect to represent them. |
| Though the Democratic caucus includes only 46 of 100 senators, together they represent roughly 56% of the US population. That population is heavily concentrated in just 15 states, where roughly two-thirds of Americans live, and these states skew Democratic. That is, Republican senators represent fewer Americans overall, but they get a larger say when voting on contentious issues. | Though the Democratic caucus includes only 46 of 100 senators, together they represent roughly 56% of the US population. That population is heavily concentrated in just 15 states, where roughly two-thirds of Americans live, and these states skew Democratic. That is, Republican senators represent fewer Americans overall, but they get a larger say when voting on contentious issues. |
| This can have important consequences for public policy, and few issues illustrate this better than gun control. At least 55% of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, and it likely that we would have them were it not for the undemocratic structure of the Senate. | This can have important consequences for public policy, and few issues illustrate this better than gun control. At least 55% of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, and it likely that we would have them were it not for the undemocratic structure of the Senate. |
| Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein’s amendment, which would have allowed the attorney general to deny firearms to people on the terrorist watch list, was defeated with 47 votes in favor and 53 votes against. But the 47 senators who voted in favor of the bill represent roughly 56% of the American population. And though the bill sponsored by Democrat Chris Murphy to require background checks on all gun sales was also defeated, with only 44 votes in favor, these 44 senators also represent roughly 56% of the population. | Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein’s amendment, which would have allowed the attorney general to deny firearms to people on the terrorist watch list, was defeated with 47 votes in favor and 53 votes against. But the 47 senators who voted in favor of the bill represent roughly 56% of the American population. And though the bill sponsored by Democrat Chris Murphy to require background checks on all gun sales was also defeated, with only 44 votes in favor, these 44 senators also represent roughly 56% of the population. |
| By contrast, the two Republican-sponsored amendments, by senators Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn, lost in both ways – failing to win a majority of the Senate, and failing to garner enough senators who represent more than about 45% of Americans. | By contrast, the two Republican-sponsored amendments, by senators Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn, lost in both ways – failing to win a majority of the Senate, and failing to garner enough senators who represent more than about 45% of Americans. |
| Previous gun control provisions have suffered similar fates. A 2015 bill, proposed after the shooting deaths in San Bernardino, would have extended FBI background checks to every gun purchase, including currently unregulated gun shows and online sales. The bill failed to pass, with just 48 yes votes to 52 no votes, though the 48 senators that voted in favor of the bill represented a full 58% of the American population. | Previous gun control provisions have suffered similar fates. A 2015 bill, proposed after the shooting deaths in San Bernardino, would have extended FBI background checks to every gun purchase, including currently unregulated gun shows and online sales. The bill failed to pass, with just 48 yes votes to 52 no votes, though the 48 senators that voted in favor of the bill represented a full 58% of the American population. |
| Gun rights supporters might say that gun ownership is precisely the kind of constitutional right that is best kept out of the hands of reckless and impulsive majorities. But even the majority opinion of the US supreme court, in DC v Heller, which declared an individual right to gun ownership and was written by the conservative late justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. It is worth recalling the late justice’s words: | Gun rights supporters might say that gun ownership is precisely the kind of constitutional right that is best kept out of the hands of reckless and impulsive majorities. But even the majority opinion of the US supreme court, in DC v Heller, which declared an individual right to gun ownership and was written by the conservative late justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. It is worth recalling the late justice’s words: |
| Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms…[or] of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” | Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms…[or] of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” |
| Nothing, in other words, in the current legal construction of the second amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that require backgrounds checks at the point of sale or of prohibiting sales to people the government has substantial reason to suspect of being a serious threat to national security. | Nothing, in other words, in the current legal construction of the second amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that require backgrounds checks at the point of sale or of prohibiting sales to people the government has substantial reason to suspect of being a serious threat to national security. |
| Many gun rights advocates conflate losing in Congress or in statehouses with a violation of their constitutional rights. But majority rule is not tyranny and losing is not oppression. The major threat to American democracy at the moment is not tyranny of the majority but, rather, the ability of a minority cohort to defeat the policy preferences of the majority. | Many gun rights advocates conflate losing in Congress or in statehouses with a violation of their constitutional rights. But majority rule is not tyranny and losing is not oppression. The major threat to American democracy at the moment is not tyranny of the majority but, rather, the ability of a minority cohort to defeat the policy preferences of the majority. |
| This, in turn, creates enormous frustration among the electorate and delegitimizes politics and politicians, driving people even farther away from the political process – making it even more likely that virulent political minorities will have disproportionate influence on policy. | This, in turn, creates enormous frustration among the electorate and delegitimizes politics and politicians, driving people even farther away from the political process – making it even more likely that virulent political minorities will have disproportionate influence on policy. |