Each one seems to have a fairly unique set of causes, but there are some consistent factors. And it isn't just about stopping/lessening massacres like Sandy Hook or Charleston, it's about gun violence as a whole.
A consistent factor of note to me is the 'fish in a barrel' aspect of the venues chosen.
For some reason to perpetuate these mass killings the assailants choose places that typically render the law abiding defenseless.
I think if you seek to reduce 'gun violence as a whole' you'd be better off not trying to do so in the context of preventing premeditated psychopaths without violent histories. That's kind of like chasing unicorns. Many more people will die driving to and from church this year than died in the cross hairs of that weirdo. Resources are limited, so focus on where good can be done.
The first step I'd take to reduce 'gun violence as a whole' is to end the War on Drugs.
But the opponents to any ideas or laws to attempt to lessen gun violence hold those to a completely different standard, in that if they won't completely stop all of it, then we shouldn't do anything.
Pointing out that proposed 'solutions' don't address the actual problem that gave rise to the 'solution' being offered is a good thing.
You seriously think the NRA, and special interest groups are 'the electorate' that pols should be beholden to
I seriously think that pols should be beholden to voters, and that is the reality. Isolating them from political repercussions for their actions doesn't strike me as a net positive for the republic.
Enlighten me, or propose different time periods or an idea, or simply state why you think term limits are a bad idea; also see last point.
I don't think term limits are necessarily on net a bad idea. I'm thankful for the 22nd amendment or I think we'd have been basically stuck with 'president-for-life' after FDR broke Washington's Cinncinatian example.
I do think someone should understand why the different branches and Houses of Congress have varying terms before tearing it asunder. I'm reminded of when people try to fix their computers by deleting files of which they don't know the purpose.
Anyone in favoring of amending the Constitution should actually trouble themselves to read to the Federalist Papers and gain thereby some insight into the discourse that guided decisions. The Constitution is a deliberate construction, not an accident.
Specifically in this instance I'd direct you to Federalist #57 (regarding the House of Reps, Madison says it better than I could:
"All these securities, however, would be found very insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence, in the fourth place, the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it."
Also, Federalist #62 gives a good run down on the trade offs of how the Senate is constituted on the term limit issue.
I think a better idea for Congressional representation in our republic would be to abolish the 17th amendment. It has empowered political parties and diminished the role and voice of sovereign states in our republic.
Do you honestly think that pols have the public in mind when they'e legislating? That's the point. Money controls pols, not votes, period.
Pols have voters in mind when they're casting votes. Not 'the public' - the voters. There is a distinction there that is important. Because unless you think our next president is Donald Trump you realize votes ultimately matter more to the politician than money. The guy with the NRA bumper sticker
votes, and the pols know it.
This is the wooooooorst kind of person to deal with. Everyone's worked with this person. The one that can only come up with reasons not to do something and/or problems, but doesn't even attempt to come up with a solution.
The worst kind of person to deal with is the person who wastes your time 'brainstorming' terrible ideas that they don't (or can't) think through, but force you to waste your time demonstrating won't work even after implemented. Everyone's worked with this person. The one that can't see something won't work until you waste your time showing them and even then they act like a victory was achieved because, hey, at least we 'did something' about the problem, even though 'something' did nothing to solve the problem.
I'm INTJ, so I realize there are trade offs in life that can't be obviated even if we listened and acted every time some clown said, 'there oughta be a law...'
