1. That’s a lot of people, but still a small fraction of the population–I don’t know anybody who died in a shooting like that, though I did have a friend who was killed by a stray bullet in her own neighborhood, because of a drug deal that went wrong.

    People think it’s horrible, but then they think “I might want a gun sometime.” I’m not just talking about hard-right people here.

    It took the shooting of a very conservative President to get the Brady Bill.

    What will it take to get us real substantive reform?

    I don’t know.

  2. Maybe all gun owners should be required to register for their local state militia and train regularly, sans pay, as volunteers.

    Maybe ammo should be heavily taxed to support a rigorous licensing regime.

    1. If you consider who owns most of the guns in this country, and what their politics tend to be like, you can probably think of some objections to this plan.

      Passing taxes is harder than passing gun control.

      Passing constitutional amendments is, quite simply, impossible in the present-day political atmosphere.

      We need a new Supreme Court.

      1. Agreed on most accounts.

        Unfortunately holding the White House alone is not enough. A party must also have 60 votes in the Senate. The Senate can change it’s rules so the 60 vote threshold could change but for now that’s what’s needed.

        In the current atmosphere without both the White House and 60 votes in the Senate it seems unlikely that any new Supreme Court nominee appointed by either party can be confirmed. Instead as the current Justices retire their seats will remain vacant because the Senate will not consent to any nominee.

        The only possibility to fill a position would be a recess appointment and those will likely be prevented with pro forma sessions.

Comments are closed.