My brother still lives in Winnetka. For years, he didn’t talk about that day, and we didn’t ask. Now he has his own children, and they attend local schools. The elder, at Washburne, has started active-shooter drills. Last summer, a killer took an assault rifle to the Fourth of July parade in nearby Highland Park. My brother was with his family at Winnetka’s parade a few miles away, when everyone was told to evacuate because there was an active shooter. He told his wife, who was terrorized, that he had already been through his shooting trauma, and was processing the fear differently. Then they had to explain the reality of guns in America to their preschooler, who attends Hubbard Woods.
It blows my mind that we have parents, and maybe in some places grandparents, that have lived through this trauma and have to watch their own children live through the same thing. I can’t imagine...
It blows my mind that we have parents, and maybe in some places grandparents, that have lived through this trauma and have to watch their own children live through the same thing. I can’t imagine the anguish and fear that must cause them. Not can I comprehend the failure of our society in supporting them.
This was an incredibly well written, heartbreaking article. As an Australian I completely agree with the sentiment that the rest of the world considers the debate incomprehensible, particularly...
This was an incredibly well written, heartbreaking article. As an Australian I completely agree with the sentiment that the rest of the world considers the debate incomprehensible, particularly after our own regulations and gun buy back schemes following the Hoddle Street and Port Arthur massacres were so successful.
That being said, I worry that the United States has passed a 'point of no return' when it comes to regulation - perhaps if national gun regulations were introduced in the late 1980's (or even after Columbine) and backed up with a supreme court ruling overturning Heller things would be different today. I fear the U. S is now a quarter of a century behind, and the hostile political climate offers no possibility of bi-partisan support.
You're very right. The rise of right wing media also helps build the hyperpartisanship in our nation. So how we get out of this is unclear, but likely will be done with solely Democratic Party...
You're very right. The rise of right wing media also helps build the hyperpartisanship in our nation. So how we get out of this is unclear, but likely will be done with solely Democratic Party support (Republican voters do largely agree with the need for more regulation though).
There is one path - by holding the Senate, picking up the House, and holding the presidency, Congress can end the filibuster, expand the court to 13, and pass laws like the only 90s assault weapons ban but without regular renewal. If challenged in courts, the new SCOTUS would properly read 2A as still begetting regulation.
The AWB didn't reduce crime or murders. It's a emotional law that does nothing to actually help anyone. If you want to stop gun violence, you need to focus on fixing society. These things would do...
The AWB didn't reduce crime or murders. It's a emotional law that does nothing to actually help anyone. If you want to stop gun violence, you need to focus on fixing society. These things would do more to reduce all violence than any bans or buy backs or any other gun control laws.
Ending the War on Drugs
Ending Qualified immunity
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren't 30-40 kids for one teacher.
Single Payer healthcare
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
End for profit prisons
Enforce the laws already on the books
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don't turn to violence/gangs to survive.
Increase the minimum wage
Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don't turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
Term limits
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system.
I'm very progressive but had heard otherwise about the effects of the ban. Regardless, I agree with all of your points. We have another shot in 2024 to achieve at least some of the most important...
I'm very progressive but had heard otherwise about the effects of the ban. Regardless, I agree with all of your points. We have another shot in 2024 to achieve at least some of the most important parts. Holding the presidency, holding the Senate, and picking up the House - all doable if people that voted in 2020 but sat out 2022 are convinced to vote - gives us the votes we need to overturn the Senate filibuster. That gives us the votes to expand SCOTUS to 13 seats, bring in DC & PR as states. I unfortunately think M4A is still a ways away but we're getting closer.
I disagree on the need for term limits in Congress, though. I'm more for an age cap of 65-75 like most nations. As long as someone is cognitively able they should be able to be in office. Eliminating insider trading and generally tamping down corruption in office will eliminate the want for term limits. The presidency needs it because it's one powerful person (and I'd argue single 5-year or 6-year terms would be more effective), but the House and Senate are constantly changing. I believe the biggest change we need is uncapping the House. Use Wyoming as a baseline - give Wyoming 3 Reps (because no state should have 1 Rep when the Senate is supposed to be the more "deliberative" chamber yet has a required 2) and then use 1/3 a Wyoming as the population required per Rep. We'd end up with about 1600 Reps, which also will help balance proportionality in the Electoral College. It still won't be as perfect as using the popular vote since every state has those 2 Senators but it'll be a lot closer by my math. In addition, people would have a greater chance of actually knowing their Rep on a more personal level. In addition, it should not be capped, so this number would keep growing relative to the smallest state divided by 3.
Anyways that's not the main point of this. Just a tangent I love to get on. We need change and structural change to our democratic systems is the only way we'll get everything else that is needed. We're behind the rest of the developed world on so much and we have to play catch-up. These are some ways to help us get there.
The intital data suggested, for certainty, the AWB of '94 had no reasonable affect on gun crime. Having said that, we are now almost 20 years past that sunset, which is much farther than the Brady...
The intital data suggested, for certainty, the AWB of '94 had no reasonable affect on gun crime.
Having said that, we are now almost 20 years past that sunset, which is much farther than the Brady bill going into effect.
As a 2A supporter, even I have to admit that shits gone a little bit too far with how things are going concerning firearms. I'm glad that all 50 have some sort of legal carry laws. I'm glad that we can exercise out rights as codified, and widely interpreted, by out constitution.
I'm very concerned about the lack of actual enforcement of those laws being broken are. Violating gun laws should come with more punishment that violating a drug law.... It doesn't.
And it's generally a plead out charge, if not dropped in lieu of other charges.
I agree with a lot of what SupraMario says. For me, it comes down to some very simple ideas about correcting the socioeconomic disparities, and enforcing current laws on the books.
If we aren't doing those, more laws and registrations aren't going to help. Which is why I am personally against "New laws". There is very little enforcement of the current laws, and almost NO effort to correct the circumstances that allow misdirects folks to make the decision to kill another.
This is a terrible idea. Same with stacking the courts. You would be giving power to the next group that has it. You'd be asking for a complete mess if you did this. The issue with not having term...
gives us the votes we need to overturn the Senate filibuster.
This is a terrible idea. Same with stacking the courts. You would be giving power to the next group that has it. You'd be asking for a complete mess if you did this.
I disagree on the need for term limits in Congress, though.
The issue with not having term limits is you get career politicians who just go from one fund raiser to the next to stay in power.
The presidency needs it because it's one powerful person (and I'd argue single 5-year or 6-year terms would be more effective), but the House and Senate are constantly changing.
A lot of the senate and house are career politicians, they change less than the presidency.
Use Wyoming as a baseline......
RCV would resolve this. Our two party system is the reason everyone wants to change everything. Red vs Blue hasn't done us any good for decades now.
Due to population growth in conservative areas, 40% of the nations population will be represented by 60 of the US Senators by the 2040s. They will have a filibuster proof majority without ending...
Due to population growth in conservative areas, 40% of the nations population will be represented by 60 of the US Senators by the 2040s. They will have a filibuster proof majority without ending it and we will not be able to overcome. The filibuster itself has racist origins, for another reason why it just shouldn't exist. We need immediate change, this is a straight path to it. Don't do it, and there is a literally 0% chance of any change. Rs will be holding a Supreme Court advantage until roughly the 2050s thanks to how young the newest are. "Stacking the courts" is what you call what Rs did already. They cheated multiple seats their way. 5 of the 6 conservative majority were named by Rs that didn't win the popular vote their first time, and the last one by an R that was also single term.
Your point about term limits ending career politicians also just seems to completely ignore all of what I said. I invite you to please read it.
And RCV doesn't solve the same problem as uncapping the House does. In addition, getting nationwide RCV is harder with the current Court you're adamant about keeping them uncapping the House which inherently doesn't go against decisions this SCOTUS has made. RCV is about our reps being someone the majority actually picked. Uncapping the House is about making more Reps, while also being more likely to be someone the majority picked, and getting closer to popular vote representation in the EC.
I enjoy this discussion. But there is a time limit on the changes needed. Ending the filibuster is a must for that. Please again read what I've said on career politicians. Having people be in office for extended periods isn't bad when they act in good faith and are cognitively present; the issue we have is that they don't represent us, they represent corporate interests and their pockets. You weed out corruption, otherwise with term limits you end up with former officials going straight to lobbying or media roles and corrupt term limited politicians being replaced by other corrupt politicians bought by the same interests. Other nations do well with age limits. Let's run their model and adjust from there.
Don't confuse demographics with future politics. Just a few years ago people were boasting that Democrats would rule the country forever thanks to there being less white people? The parties and...
Due to population growth in conservative areas, 40% of the nations population will be represented
Don't confuse demographics with future politics. Just a few years ago people were boasting that Democrats would rule the country forever thanks to there being less white people?
The parties and politics are very dynamic things, and if we start to see a country with a much stronger right wing vote we will not see an endless Republican majority, we'll see a democratic party that adjusts it's politics to capture more of that vote.
What does that look like? We don't know. It's the future. So much could happen that you may as well write a fantasy novel about it and you're about as likely to be right as the next guy.
I think a reasonable thing we should do on the filibuster is to actually require the people speak to delay the house. If they care, make them actually get up and do it. If they can't because they're too old, too bad, the vote goes forward.
It blows my mind that we have parents, and maybe in some places grandparents, that have lived through this trauma and have to watch their own children live through the same thing. I can’t imagine the anguish and fear that must cause them. Not can I comprehend the failure of our society in supporting them.
This was an incredibly well written, heartbreaking article. As an Australian I completely agree with the sentiment that the rest of the world considers the debate incomprehensible, particularly after our own regulations and gun buy back schemes following the Hoddle Street and Port Arthur massacres were so successful.
That being said, I worry that the United States has passed a 'point of no return' when it comes to regulation - perhaps if national gun regulations were introduced in the late 1980's (or even after Columbine) and backed up with a supreme court ruling overturning Heller things would be different today. I fear the U. S is now a quarter of a century behind, and the hostile political climate offers no possibility of bi-partisan support.
You're very right. The rise of right wing media also helps build the hyperpartisanship in our nation. So how we get out of this is unclear, but likely will be done with solely Democratic Party support (Republican voters do largely agree with the need for more regulation though).
There is one path - by holding the Senate, picking up the House, and holding the presidency, Congress can end the filibuster, expand the court to 13, and pass laws like the only 90s assault weapons ban but without regular renewal. If challenged in courts, the new SCOTUS would properly read 2A as still begetting regulation.
The AWB didn't reduce crime or murders. It's a emotional law that does nothing to actually help anyone. If you want to stop gun violence, you need to focus on fixing society. These things would do more to reduce all violence than any bans or buy backs or any other gun control laws.
Ending the War on Drugs
Ending Qualified immunity
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren't 30-40 kids for one teacher.
Single Payer healthcare
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
End for profit prisons
Enforce the laws already on the books
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don't turn to violence/gangs to survive.
Increase the minimum wage
Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don't turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
Term limits
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system.
I'm very progressive but had heard otherwise about the effects of the ban. Regardless, I agree with all of your points. We have another shot in 2024 to achieve at least some of the most important parts. Holding the presidency, holding the Senate, and picking up the House - all doable if people that voted in 2020 but sat out 2022 are convinced to vote - gives us the votes we need to overturn the Senate filibuster. That gives us the votes to expand SCOTUS to 13 seats, bring in DC & PR as states. I unfortunately think M4A is still a ways away but we're getting closer.
I disagree on the need for term limits in Congress, though. I'm more for an age cap of 65-75 like most nations. As long as someone is cognitively able they should be able to be in office. Eliminating insider trading and generally tamping down corruption in office will eliminate the want for term limits. The presidency needs it because it's one powerful person (and I'd argue single 5-year or 6-year terms would be more effective), but the House and Senate are constantly changing. I believe the biggest change we need is uncapping the House. Use Wyoming as a baseline - give Wyoming 3 Reps (because no state should have 1 Rep when the Senate is supposed to be the more "deliberative" chamber yet has a required 2) and then use 1/3 a Wyoming as the population required per Rep. We'd end up with about 1600 Reps, which also will help balance proportionality in the Electoral College. It still won't be as perfect as using the popular vote since every state has those 2 Senators but it'll be a lot closer by my math. In addition, people would have a greater chance of actually knowing their Rep on a more personal level. In addition, it should not be capped, so this number would keep growing relative to the smallest state divided by 3.
Anyways that's not the main point of this. Just a tangent I love to get on. We need change and structural change to our democratic systems is the only way we'll get everything else that is needed. We're behind the rest of the developed world on so much and we have to play catch-up. These are some ways to help us get there.
The intital data suggested, for certainty, the AWB of '94 had no reasonable affect on gun crime.
Having said that, we are now almost 20 years past that sunset, which is much farther than the Brady bill going into effect.
As a 2A supporter, even I have to admit that shits gone a little bit too far with how things are going concerning firearms. I'm glad that all 50 have some sort of legal carry laws. I'm glad that we can exercise out rights as codified, and widely interpreted, by out constitution.
I'm very concerned about the lack of actual enforcement of those laws being broken are. Violating gun laws should come with more punishment that violating a drug law.... It doesn't.
And it's generally a plead out charge, if not dropped in lieu of other charges.
I agree with a lot of what SupraMario says. For me, it comes down to some very simple ideas about correcting the socioeconomic disparities, and enforcing current laws on the books.
If we aren't doing those, more laws and registrations aren't going to help. Which is why I am personally against "New laws". There is very little enforcement of the current laws, and almost NO effort to correct the circumstances that allow misdirects folks to make the decision to kill another.
This is a terrible idea. Same with stacking the courts. You would be giving power to the next group that has it. You'd be asking for a complete mess if you did this.
The issue with not having term limits is you get career politicians who just go from one fund raiser to the next to stay in power.
A lot of the senate and house are career politicians, they change less than the presidency.
RCV would resolve this. Our two party system is the reason everyone wants to change everything. Red vs Blue hasn't done us any good for decades now.
Due to population growth in conservative areas, 40% of the nations population will be represented by 60 of the US Senators by the 2040s. They will have a filibuster proof majority without ending it and we will not be able to overcome. The filibuster itself has racist origins, for another reason why it just shouldn't exist. We need immediate change, this is a straight path to it. Don't do it, and there is a literally 0% chance of any change. Rs will be holding a Supreme Court advantage until roughly the 2050s thanks to how young the newest are. "Stacking the courts" is what you call what Rs did already. They cheated multiple seats their way. 5 of the 6 conservative majority were named by Rs that didn't win the popular vote their first time, and the last one by an R that was also single term.
Your point about term limits ending career politicians also just seems to completely ignore all of what I said. I invite you to please read it.
And RCV doesn't solve the same problem as uncapping the House does. In addition, getting nationwide RCV is harder with the current Court you're adamant about keeping them uncapping the House which inherently doesn't go against decisions this SCOTUS has made. RCV is about our reps being someone the majority actually picked. Uncapping the House is about making more Reps, while also being more likely to be someone the majority picked, and getting closer to popular vote representation in the EC.
I enjoy this discussion. But there is a time limit on the changes needed. Ending the filibuster is a must for that. Please again read what I've said on career politicians. Having people be in office for extended periods isn't bad when they act in good faith and are cognitively present; the issue we have is that they don't represent us, they represent corporate interests and their pockets. You weed out corruption, otherwise with term limits you end up with former officials going straight to lobbying or media roles and corrupt term limited politicians being replaced by other corrupt politicians bought by the same interests. Other nations do well with age limits. Let's run their model and adjust from there.
Don't confuse demographics with future politics. Just a few years ago people were boasting that Democrats would rule the country forever thanks to there being less white people?
The parties and politics are very dynamic things, and if we start to see a country with a much stronger right wing vote we will not see an endless Republican majority, we'll see a democratic party that adjusts it's politics to capture more of that vote.
What does that look like? We don't know. It's the future. So much could happen that you may as well write a fantasy novel about it and you're about as likely to be right as the next guy.
I think a reasonable thing we should do on the filibuster is to actually require the people speak to delay the house. If they care, make them actually get up and do it. If they can't because they're too old, too bad, the vote goes forward.