johnny9fingers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
johnny9fingers) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2018-02-24 04:12 pm
johnny9fingers) wrote in talkpolitics2018-02-24 04:12 pm
Entry tags:
The biter bit....
After many years of funding various politicians of both major political parties in the States, and enquiring about the voting records of Senators and Congresspersons it seems that the NRA is finally getting a taste of its own medicine:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/23/us-companies-nra-best-western-wyndham
So... I have to ask, after the NRA, a pressure group with charitable status, has used the tactic of buying politicians and has upheld a frankly essentialist interpretation of the Second Amendment; is this poetic justice, or a quick sop to the victims and victim's families, after which all will continue as before?
Will this start a movement, or just fizzle out?
I'd love it to be the beginning of change for US gun laws, but I realise I'm being an over-empathic snowflake parent with small children in a different country who doesn't want to see kids killed randomly any more than is absolutely accidental, which gun-killings aren't. Responsible folk in charge of guns is one thing; the whole damn population with them is another. Maybe if folk have signed up to a well-maintained militia which is overseen for compliance, in accordance with the broader idea in the Bill of Rights (well regulated, after all) a gun is required.
Getting that interpretation through SCOTUS would take some doing. Especially as the Dems screwed the pooch with appointments to SCOTUS after the Republicans refused to endorse 44's nominee, whilst awaiting the victory of 45. That was a huge gamble unless they had better information about the voting public than the rest of us, but it is one that has really paid off.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/23/us-companies-nra-best-western-wyndham
So... I have to ask, after the NRA, a pressure group with charitable status, has used the tactic of buying politicians and has upheld a frankly essentialist interpretation of the Second Amendment; is this poetic justice, or a quick sop to the victims and victim's families, after which all will continue as before?
Will this start a movement, or just fizzle out?
I'd love it to be the beginning of change for US gun laws, but I realise I'm being an over-empathic snowflake parent with small children in a different country who doesn't want to see kids killed randomly any more than is absolutely accidental, which gun-killings aren't. Responsible folk in charge of guns is one thing; the whole damn population with them is another. Maybe if folk have signed up to a well-maintained militia which is overseen for compliance, in accordance with the broader idea in the Bill of Rights (well regulated, after all) a gun is required.
Getting that interpretation through SCOTUS would take some doing. Especially as the Dems screwed the pooch with appointments to SCOTUS after the Republicans refused to endorse 44's nominee, whilst awaiting the victory of 45. That was a huge gamble unless they had better information about the voting public than the rest of us, but it is one that has really paid off.