I would do anything to reduce gun violence, but I won't do that (an open letter to Joe Manchin)
Dear Senator Manchin,
You are not my Senator, however despite the 'all men are created equal' concept your vote is more than 20 times more powerful than the Senators who do represent me. I therefore feel compelled to write and ask you to reconsider your position against ending the filibuster.
In The Hill this week you are quoted as saying:
"You all know where I stand; I’ll do anything I can."
But then, unfortunately:
"The filibuster is the only thing that prevents us from total insanity. Total insanity."
I believe that you hold this position out of principle. I also know that you have previously worked (and failed) to strengthen background checks. We can't make any progress solving this problem without you. Please take an evidence based approach to the actual danger involved in allowing the Senate to legislate with a simple majority. Consider as a starting point the rest of the G-7.
Canada only requires a supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment. Those trucker protests got a little out of hand, but Canada is not insane.
France does not require a supermajority. It is not insane.
Germany does not require a supermajority. It is not insane.
Italy uses a supermajority for early rounds of presidential voting but otherwise not. Also not insane.
Japan needs a supermajority to amend their constitution. Again, not insane.
I'm not in love with the House of Lords, but the United Kingdom manages to pass laws without a supermajority and is not insane.
Our inability to control gun violence and our inability to allow the duly elected government to legislate are the same problem. Insanity is doing the same thing (in this case nothing) over and over again and expecting different results.
Thank you for your consideration.
Related Posts
- I'm with Her
- Drones and Gun Control
- What if the Senate Voted Proportionally to Population
- 2020 Results
- Legislative Service
(Published to the Fediverse as: I would do anything to reduce gun violence, but I won't do that (an open letter to Joe Manchin) #politics #senate #filibuster #guns An open letter to Senator Joe Manchin on ending the filibuster in the U.S. Senate so that we can control guns. )
Gun Insurance could pay for Buybacks
Gun buybacks are not a new idea, in fact a mandatory buyback scheme was a big success in Australia. Gun insurance as a means of reducing gun violence isn't either. But what if you combined the two?
Set up a mandatory government run insurance program for all new firearms sales. If you are a 40 year old farmer with a shotgun stored in a gun safe then insurance is pretty cheap. If you are a 19 year old with an assault rifle then it is eyewateringly expensive. The risk that you will do something harmful with the gun is priced into the cost of ownership.
One of the criticisms of gun insurance (and of any gun control measure in general) is that there are so many firearms already in circulation in the US. So take the proceeds of the insurance scheme and use them to buy back guns.
Responsible gun owners are not inconvenienced, we reduce risky firearms sales and slowly draw down the number of uninsured guns in circulation.
Related Posts
- Drones and Gun Control
- I would do anything to reduce gun violence, but I won't do that (an open letter to Joe Manchin)
- Boob Bombs
- The Economics of Digital Rights Management
- Facebook shouldn't own your social graph
(Published to the Fediverse as: Gun Insurance could pay for Buybacks #politics #guns #insurance A Government run gun insurance program would reduce risky firearm sales and at the same time buy back and destroy excess weapons. It would not infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners. )
Drones and Gun Control
A quick question for the two thirds of Americans who see gun rights as being protection from tyranny. Your government has just refused to rule out killing you by drone in the US without due process (never mind that US citizens outside the country are already fair game). If not now, then when?
You realize that by the time ATF has seized your weapons and you're all locked up in internment camps for gun enthusiasts it will be too late, right?
If the Attorney General deciding that under circumstances he won't reveal it's OK to kill you without a trial doesn't cross the line then what does? Seems like the dictionary definition of tyranny to me.
I've got to admit that I wouldn't like to try taking down the government via violence. They've got drones. Not to mention aircraft carriers, nukes, F-35s and whatever it is that's festering on Plum Island. Personally I'll stick with voting and blogging.
So if you're not actually going to overthrow the government can we drop this ridiculous 'need' for guns and move on?
Related Posts
- Time to get rid of the word ROBOT
- I would do anything to reduce gun violence, but I won't do that (an open letter to Joe Manchin)
- Episode Four
- Gun Insurance could pay for Buybacks
- Pew: Two Thirds of Americans Support National Popular Vote
(Published to the Fediverse as: Drones and Gun Control #politics #guns #drones At what point would you actually use those precious second amendment rights to fight off tyranny? )