AWB '94 vs VA 2020

[AlexanderA]

The House was supposed to be accountable to the people, the Senate to the state. The 17th amendment threw a monkey wrench into that political power structure in which state entities actually held some power against the federal government.

Senators still represent states, except that now they're selected by the general electorate of the state rather than the legislature. The deeper problem is that small states have the same representation in the Senate as large states. California, with 40 million people, has two senators, the same as Wyoming with 580 thousand people. A Wyoming resident has 69 times the clout of a California resident when it comes to representation in the Senate. In other words, a Wyoming resident is equal to 69 Californians regarding Senate power. This is neither fair nor democratic.

 

[Basura Blanca]

In thinking about the many comments here (and I don't even want to think about what's going on over at AR.com) that seem to allude to an inevitability of violence regarding the current events in Virginia, I have to ask was this an issue in 1994 with the federal Assault Weapons Ban?

Well, there was this.
One thing I've learned over the years, there will always be unhinged people trying to lead others down similar paths of nuttery. Let's not be them.

 

[40-82]

"Compromise" is like negotiating a car purchase. Both sides walk away with some of what they wanted and neither side gets all of what they wanted. You never give something for nothing.

I meant to use a bit of humor. Perhaps it didn't come across. We've been hearing how we should compromise for years. It goes like this: we give up one little, small insignificant right--insignificant to them because they don't want us to have it. It doesn't change the world for the better, and what we get in exchange, their compromise, is they promise to give us a tiny bit of credit for some reasonableness and some flexibility. In the next legislative session they want another little tidbit.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I can say, I’ve only wondered why people in NY, CA, NJ etc let things go so far.

It's complicated because politics is hard although I wouldn't say we've *let* anything happen.
We've had pro-gun Democrats in the California legislature as recently as twenty years ago. People like Denise Ducheny and Rod Wright come to mind. We've also had a slew of terrible Republicans at all levels of government, who weren't friendly to the cause. We're also a huge state and we've been the test market for a lot of bad policy before it became cool like it's becoming elsewhere now, and the most vicious of it was codified long before Heller.

 

[Tommygunn]

Senators still represent states, except that now they're selected by the general electorate of the state rather than the legislature. The deeper problem is that small states have the same representation in the Senate as large states. California, with 40 million people, has two senators, the same as Wyoming with 580 thousand people. A Wyoming resident has 69 times the clout of a California resident when it comes to representation in the Senate. In other words, a Wyoming resident is equal to 69 Californians regarding Senate power. This is neither fair nor democratic.

The fact that they're selected by the general electorate of the state, rather than the legislature, is the reason why they do not represent the state, but the people. The ability to put a person into political office is power and that power derives from the entity that selects them to office.
That was the point of the Founders' original design.
The House was beholden to the people.
The Senate was beholden to the state.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I have long argued that the farther we get from the original meaning and intent of the Framers, the deeper trouble we get into as a nation.

HERE! HERE!

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Senators still represent states, except that now they're selected by the general electorate of the state rather than the legislature. The deeper problem is that small states have the same representation in the Senate as large states. California, with 40 million people, has two senators, the same as Wyoming with 580 thousand people. A Wyoming resident has 69 times the clout of a California resident when it comes to representation in the Senate. In other words, a Wyoming resident is equal to 69 Californians regarding Senate power. This is neither fair nor democratic.

That was the argument at the framing of the Constitution, and it was a problem with the Articles of Confederation's one-house legislature. However, the adoption of the Connecticut Compromise, creating a bi-cameral system offset that issue to some extent. While Wyoming has equal clout to California in the Senate, it is totally eclipsed, almost to the point of irrelevance in the House. (Wyoming's 1 vote to California's 55 plus votes, out of a total of 435.)

If you want the states to have political representation apportioned by population in both houses of the legislature then, a.) We don't need two houses-merge them into one, and b.) be prepared for California and New York to legislate every aspect of our government. That would be a democracy. Our founders didn't want a democracy because they knew places like California and New York would simply vote away the rights of others. That's why they created a republic; it's a balance between the tyranny of absolutism and the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Jessesky]

Social media is it’s own animal. Almost like an uncontrollable force of group think that will go in whichever direction it decides. Plenty of people wanting to see change when these national tragedies are posted all over the internet, but not caring enough to research what works and what doesn’t.

 

[DoubleMag]

Moving to a "free state" is no longer long-term viable option as one by one, states have...

Disease. Disease left untreated only has one course and that is spread. Just as I found ppl calling me just a few years ago '' where are some 22LRs?'' , I STILL hear ''oh, they won't do that'' and/or ''that'll never happen'' , as it happens all around locale to locale, state to state, area to area.


The disease once diagnosed is apathy.

Now those calls present the faulted plan of, ''I'll just move.''

 

[MidRoad]

I’m not sure what to say.

I can say, I’ve only wondered why people in NY, CA, NJ etc let things go so far. The attitude of just move never made sense to me. You can only run so long.

So with that said, I’m proud to be a Virginian, and proud that we’re the ones who are saying ENOUGH.

like Washington, Oregon and other states where people fled high taxes and far left wing rule only to vote the same people in, we are seeing it in Northern Virginia. It’s like New York City consoling the state.

I’m not sure if this answers your question. But I too am afraid it’s a tinder box about to explode. I hope and pray that some of the so called moderate Democrats see all the effort that has been activated by pro 2nd Amendment supporters, and cross the isle and vote against the proposed laws. But I doubt it. But as we saw in 20@6 miracles can happen. Maybe with all the effort we’re putting in to finally fight another will happen.

Well as an upstate NY resident I can tell you there are a TON of pro gun folks. You drive down most roads in not so urban areas and you're bound to see a couple of anti safe act signs or atleast one truck with a "f**k Cuomo sticker in the window, the "k" being an ar-15 image .

The major cities are what skew the numbers polls. What they want is not what the rest of the state wants. Look at the 2018 governor's election for example. That sleeze ball Cuomo got relected, look at this map though, it shows what "most" of the state supports....

 

[BigBore44]

Well as an upstate NY resident I can tell you there are a TON of pro gun folks. You drive down most roads in not so urban areas and you're bound to see a couple of anti safe act signs or atleast one truck with a "f**k Cuomo sticker in the window, the "k" being an ar-15 image .

The major cities are what skew the numbers polls. What they want is not what the rest of the state wants. Look at the 2018 governor's election for example. That sleeze ball Cuomo got relected, look at this map though, it shows what "most" of the state supports....

I believe California is very similar.

 

[BSA1]

D.B Cooper that is a good explanation of the Congress. The Senate is also intended to be a “calming influence” on the bills the House passes. I am a bit surprised that Alexander A wants to give California and other anti 2A States more power in the Senate.

 

[MidRoad]

Senators still represent states, except that now they're selected by the general electorate of the state rather than the legislature. The deeper problem is that small states have the same representation in the Senate as large states. California, with 40 million people, has two senators, the same as Wyoming with 580 thousand people. A Wyoming resident has 69 times the clout of a California resident when it comes to representation in the Senate. In other words, a Wyoming resident is equal to 69 Californians regarding Senate power. This is neither fair nor democratic.

Yes but it gives each state the same say as one another in the Senate. Rather than being able to completely tip the scales like they do in the house because they have big populations. Especially these days where there are so many Democrats in the urban areas. If both the house and Senate were based on population, we would be in a worse state in regards to the second amendment.... Atleast the smaller population states can get the votes to elect pro gun senators to help keep things in check within the Senate.

Again as a NY resident I feel this. Many laws and policies are developed around the urban areas and their values , and the rest of the state who doesn't live that way or feel that way has to live by those laws....

 

[GEM]

The urban / rural split is accelerating with more people being raised in areas with no major gun culture interests. The failure of gun culture to make inroads in that area is what is leading to basically holding actions in many states. The continued association of gun culture with one end of the political spectrum also exacerbates the problem for gun rights. Said that all before. The positive trends have been in the area of the increasing self-defense slice of gun culture 2.0. However, that segment is partially independent of maintaining military style semi auto long arms (ridiculously called modern sporting rifles) as the case they are not necessary for home self defense is being made, seen to be supported (with controversy) by Heller, and their inherent rampage potential trumps the need for them in SD (use a shotgun).

 

[AlexanderA]

I am a bit surprised that Alexander A wants to give California and other anti 2A States more power in the Senate.

If both the house and Senate were based on population, we would be in a worse state in regards to the second amendment.... At least the smaller population states can get the votes to elect pro gun senators to help keep things in check within the Senate.

Our concern about the gun issue makes us sensitive to the political rights of the minority. I can understand that. However, the continual frustration of the wishes of the majority leads to long-term instability. The very legitimacy of the system is called into question. That is how you get revolutions. Democracy is the ultimate safety valve.

Let's put aside the gun issue for the moment and think about how the system can be made more democratic. Ideally, the Senate should be abolished entirely, because at its core it's undemocratic. Failing that, it could be made powerless, like the current British House of Lords. Or at least remove the filibuster rule, that lets 41 senators block most legislation. (This could be done by a simple rules change.)

The Electoral College system of selecting the President is also undemocratic. Go to a national popular vote. Heck, a constitutional amendment is not even needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

And we need to think about the very concept of "states." The idea that they are sovereign entities is largely a fiction. In reality, they are glorified administrative subdivisions. (This is not what they were at the Founding, but history has progressed a lot since then.) Large states should be broken up, and small states consolidated. Current boundaries are totally irrational, and are the result mostly of historical accident.

One of the problems of the current state makeup is that a few urban centers often control the politics of the entire state. (That's why Illinois, New York, etc. are "blue.") The remedy would be to make these urban centers "free cities" with their own representation, outside their states of origin. (For example, in Virginia, we have independent cities that are outside of counties. This concept could be scaled up to a national level.)

These are thought exercises. I realize that we have to work within the current system.

 

[LiveLife]

The urban / rural split is accelerating with more people being raised in areas with no major gun culture interests.

The way I see it, if women and blacks lose interest in voting, it does not change their constitutional right to vote.

In the same manner, even if people lose interest in firearms, it does not change the constitutional right to keep and bear firearms.

It should not matter how many people don't want women/blacks to vote. The will of the antis to impose on the rights of the gun owners, that's the constitutional problem I see.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Our concern about the gun issue makes us sensitive to the political rights of the minority. I can understand that. However, the continual frustration of the wishes of the majority leads to long-term instability. The very legitimacy of the system is called into question. That is how you get revolutions. Democracy is the ultimate safety valve.

Let's put aside the gun issue for the moment and think about how the system can be made more democratic. Ideally, the Senate should be abolished entirely, because at its core it's undemocratic. Failing that, it could be made powerless, like the current British House of Lords. Or at least remove the filibuster rule, that lets 41 senators block most legislation. (This could be done by a simple rules change.)

The Electoral College system of selecting the President is also undemocratic. Go to a national popular vote. Heck, a constitutional amendment is not even needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

And we need to think about the very concept of "states." The idea that they are sovereign entities is largely a fiction. In reality, they are glorified administrative subdivisions. (This is not what they were at the Founding, but history has progressed a lot since then.) Large states should be broken up, and small states consolidated. Current boundaries are totally irrational, and are the result mostly of historical accident.

One of the problems of the current state makeup is that a few urban centers often control the politics of the entire state. (That's why Illinois, New York, etc. are "blue.") The remedy would be to make these urban centers "free cities" with their own representation, outside their states of origin. (For example, in Virginia, we have independent cities that are outside of counties. This concept could be scaled up to a national level.)

These are thought exercises. I realize that we have to work within the current system.

To me, this is a horrifying concept. You would hand all political power to my enemies. The only thing keeping America from turning completely blue in all 50 states (and that includes every big government/redistribution of wealth social program associated with that cause-including total disarmament, IS the electoral college and and the US Senate's two votes per state.

Democracy is not a safety valve, and this nation is not, never has been, and never was intended to be, a democracy; it's a republic. If we can keep it.

 

[bearcreek]

Democracy is not a safety valve, and this nation is not, never has been, and never was intended to be, a democracy; it's a republic. If we can keep it.

Quoted because this deserves to be said again and again.

 

[LiveLife]

this nation is not, never has been, and never was intended to be, a democracy; it's a republic.

Quoted because this deserves to be said again and again.

Yes.

And I would like to add, "Constitutional Republic" where the WILL of the majority CANNOT be imposed on the constitutional RIGHTS of the minority.

As long as the republic stands with three branches of government, the judicial branch has the FINAL "enforcement" voice.

Bring it and "We the People" will see you in court.

 

[AlexanderA]

To me, this is a horrifying concept. You would hand all political power to my enemies. The only thing keeping America from turning completely blue in all 50 states (and that includes every big government/redistribution of wealth social program associated with that cause-including total disarmament, IS the electoral college and and the US Senate's two votes per state.

Disagree. Ultimately, every right, including the RKBA, depends on persuading the people to support it. That's why we're in the predicament that we're in -- we have failed to convince people that having guns is a good thing. The only thing that the Electoral College and the Senate can do is delay the inevitable.

And, BTW, the antidemocratic features of the U.S. system work both ways. Let's say we get a majority to want to loosen gun regulations. Then the veto power of the Electoral College and the Senate could work against us. (We saw that already when the Hearing Protection Act and national carry reciprocity went nowhere, even though we theoretically had control of both houses of Congress as well as the presidency.)

Democracy is not a safety valve, and this nation is not, never has been, and never was intended to be, a democracy; it's a republic. If we can keep it.

Wrong. For one thing, you are mixing apples and oranges. Democracy is a political philosophy, that is, government by the consent of the governed. That was always the ideal in this country, starting with the Declaration of Independence. Too often, democracy is confused with ochlocracy (mob rule). These are not the same at all. In ancient Greece, where these terms originated, democracy was rule by the demos, which was the organized and ordered body of the people. (There were rules, for example, as to who was allowed to vote, and the procedures for doing so.)

On the other hand, a republic is simply a form or mechanism of government, specifically, something that is not a monarchy. It may or may not include representation. And it may or may not include protection for minority rights. Republics can be dictatorships or democracies (as can monarchies). The U.S. is a democratic republic, or a democracy expressed through republican forms.

 

[czhen]

Sadly, I strongly believe Virginia will be the East cost California soon or later.
The issue is their propagation as slogan through the election season. I am not versed enough to say how to fix it.
However, I can assure you, once it lost your rights don't return.
Voting against anti-gun rights and buying more guns doesn't correct the issue, we must request our chosen representative to be active against to try to take our rights away.

czhen

 

[LiveLife]

U.S. is a democratic republic

Well, North Korea is officially known as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" also with Constitution/Bill of Rights similar to ours - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea

"Chapter 5 - Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens - Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67), freedom of religious belief (Article 68), right to submit complaints and petitions (Article 69), right to work (Article 70), right to relaxation (Article 71) ..."

Yeah, sounds great? Even "Right to relaxation" ... sure, more like "Right to work".

BUT as justice Gorsuch explained, the key difference is the enforcement behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

Sure, North Korea's BOR guarantees liberty but our BOR is enforced by our judges, like in DC v Heller.

And China is officially known as the "People's Republic of China" but look what's happening to Hong Kong residents' liberties and they are screaming for our Second Amendment.

To me, the framers chose the Constitutional Republic as our representative form of government but later added the Second Amendment to ensure the First Amendment could be maintained. And why we all can exercise our First Amendment right in "modern" form of freedom of speech known as internet forum.

Words written on paper for North Korean's Bill of Rights are worthless because they lack the enforcement of our judges to be the backstop for our rights. So when law makers pass unconstitutional laws, they will be challenged and it will be the judges who will rule them unconstitutional and make them comply to the Constitution/Bill of Rights, just like DC v Heller.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Ultimately, every right, including the RKBA, depends on persuading the people to support it.

If that is true, then we never had any rights at all; we have privileges that can be taken away at any moment by the winds of popular opinion. (Exactly the opposite of what the founding fathers designed.)

If that is true, what is to keep the masses (the mob rule) from voting away our 4th amendment rights and eliminating the requirement for a search warrant, so that police can be more effective and we can all be safer?

That's why we're in the predicament that we're in -- we have failed to convince people that having guns is a good thing.

I shouldn't have to convince anyone that my rights are a good thing.

Or, to put it in other terms, your opinion is contrary to most of us here. Convince us that your right to express that opinion is a good thing. And if you can't, then silence, peasant!

 

[taliv]

When I ask many of the AR owners why, their answer is often because I still can, which as far as I'm concerned is legitimate.

which is usually more literally "because the gov doesn't want me to"

Senators still represent states, except that now they're selected by the general electorate of the state rather than the legislature. The deeper problem is that small states have the same representation in the Senate as large states. California, with 40 million people, has two senators, the same as Wyoming with 580 thousand people. A Wyoming resident has 69 times the clout of a California resident when it comes to representation in the Senate. In other words, a Wyoming resident is equal to 69 Californians regarding Senate power. This is neither fair nor democratic.

the avg WY resident has 69x more common sense, so it's probably for the best.

Our concern about the gun issue makes us sensitive to the political rights of the minority. I can understand that. However, the continual frustration of the wishes of the majority leads to long-term instability. The very legitimacy of the system is called into question. That is how you get revolutions. Democracy is the ultimate safety valve.

Let's put aside the gun issue for the moment and think about how the system can be made more democratic.

,snip.

And we need to think about the very concept of "states." The idea that they are sovereign entities is largely a fiction. In reality, they are glorified administrative subdivisions. (This is not what they were at the Founding, but history has progressed a lot since then.) Large states should be broken up, and small states consolidated. Current boundaries are totally irrational, and are the result mostly of historical accident.

One of the problems of the current state makeup is that a few urban centers often control the politics of the entire state. (That's why Illinois, New York, etc. are "blue.") The remedy would be to make these urban centers "free cities" with their own representation, outside their states of origin. (For example, in Virginia, we have independent cities that are outside of counties. This concept could be scaled up to a national level.)

These are thought exercises. I realize that we have to work within the current system.

1. all of your "how can we make it more democratic" points seem to be more about "how do we remove restrictions preventing mob rule"
2. this is currently popular for half the country for the sole reason that they won the popular vote and lost the electoral college a few years ago. the same people never seemed to mention it when they want their rights even though the majority disagrees, for example, even a majority of california voters passed Prop 8.
3. although none of this is really on topic for this forum, democracy isn't inherently right just because 51% of the people vote for something. e.g. What if the majority supported slavery? thus, the current obsession with implementing the will of 51% on liberal policies is wildly misguided and will backfire on them spectacularly. the obsession should be with protecting the rights of everyone.

I shouldn't have to convince anyone that my rights are a good thing.

here's the net of the situation:
we have a social contract, which is our constitution, which enumerates some of our rights and leaves others unenumerated.
when the gov violates those rights, and by extent our breaks our contract, then we no longer have any moral obligation to follow the laws of a tyrannical government.
the same applies to the mechanics of representation. From the beginning, the only way to get small states to join with the large states was a compromise that gave the small states outsized representation. it's just as necessary today. if the big states conspire to remove the representation of the small states, then there's scant reason to expect small states to remain in the union.

 

[LiveLife]

What if the majority supported slavery? thus, the current obsession with implementing the will of 51% on liberal policies is wildly misguided and will backfire on them spectacularly. the obsession should be with protecting the rights of everyone.

A major BINGO.

Just because a child throws a fit against the mother doesn't make the child correct. Even if a majority of children throw a fit against the mothers do not make the children correct.

Our founders won against the immense British empire where they had no voice in England ... The colonists were a tiny minority seeking their right to equal citizenship. The framers wrote and amended the Constitution with Bill of Rights so the voiceless minority's rights COULD NOT be taken away by the will of the temper tantrum throwing majority.

Just because antis speak the majority voice does not mean they are correct. (I refer to taliv's slavery example)

And no, our country cannot be compared to England, Australia and New Zealand's gun ban/confiscation because their founders did not frame their constitutions with OUR Bill of Rights.

A child wanting to throw a fit pointing to other children throwing fits doesn't justify why the child should throw a fit.

What the antis are doing is unconstitutional and like other unconstitutional laws, they will be challenged in court and eventually overturned.