The opposition also becomes saboteurs because any wins they give the ruling party means the ruling party gets to look better, and hell no, we can't have that, we have to destroy them!
Funnily enough when lockdowns started, the billions of bailout got bipartisan support. It seems like both sides knew a hungry populace would go for their heads, whatever the label after their name is. EDIT: then again, Dems are a more conscionable bunch (which makes fighting against a win-by-whatever-means-possible bunch hard), they knew people needed the money. The hypocrisy was GOP saying money doesn't grow on trees, until it does...
I'm confused by your comment. Your main thesis is worded as though it applies to all U.S. political groups, but the rest of your post seems specifically anti-Republican.
(Which would be ironic, but I don't support either party.)
Same could be said about taking a more piecemeal and less legally inventive approach to healthcare reform back under the Obama administration. They passed exactly as much as they thought they could squeak through the legislative process. A plan with 2/3 consensus could have been pursued but they decided to burn all the political capital they could instead. Enter Trump shortly later... a "fighter".
Unfortunately "control a majority of the branches of government" isn't enough to get legislation passed. You need control of house, senate, and presidency. The senate is particularly difficult because of filibusterers, so you need 60% votes, not a simple majority.
[1] https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/former-p...
Maybe the "living document" view is the only obvious play, given past SCOTUS rulings?
N.B.: I've never studied law, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about.
Witness the various efforts to “repeal Citizens United,” which often (always?) require amending the First Amendment.
This includes saying things like: constitutional review didn't exist until Marbury v Madison. This ignores that it was a thing under the various state constitutions, with it not being called out specifically, and that it falls naturally under the fact that SCOTUS has the power to decide all cases and controversies, and Stare Decisis combines with that to say that if SCOTUS decides one way on a constitutional issue, they'll continue to decide the same way on that issue, so if a lower court judge decides the other way, they'll get reversed when it gets appealed, probably summarily in a one line opinion of the Court.
Most people don't understand the difference. And to be quite frank, the organizations running the polls might not understand either, or it's in their best interest to not explain
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist...
I thought you were maybe speaking more expansively though. Like what about people that think almost no one should privately own a pistol or whatever.
(ie. recheck any odd notions you might have about gun bans in Australia)
Stricter gun laws, more complicated laws aren't the answer - simple clear uniform gun laws, equally reinforced will do the job.
Unfortuneately the very nature of the (un)United States seems predestined to never enact uniform laws wrt firearms let alone maintain an up to date central register of information etc.
So low population state "strong-arming" the majority is OK? The design is poor, it is Tyranny by the minority.
The design appears to be working well looking over the 240 years since the US' Constitution was ratified. A broad consensus of the states, _not of the people in the US as a whole_, is required to effect large scale, national changes.
The intent is to make it changeable, but not too changeable. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's not beneficial if it can be changed at a whim.
At any rate, I'm a 10th generation American, and the sense of responsibility for protecting life and liberty with firearms is deeply embedded in my culture. It's not weird, we're the oldest democracy for a reason, the people are armed and stubborn.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
57% think gun laws should be more strict.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/in...
This time it's 64%. Yes, it is true that Americans want stricter gun laws. Your made-up reasons why Americans oppose gun control are Not Even Wrong when in fact there is no such opposition.
The majority of Americans want fewer mass shootings of random individuals out in public.
This topic is a bit more complicated than an outside observer would be able to pick up on without perhaps doing a bit more research. One common misconception people from other countries seem to have is that all the change is being made at the federal level. In fact, quite a lot of legislation is produced from smaller jurisdictions, and gun legislature changes frequently, and becomes more strict over time especially in heavily populated areas like Chicago, Seattle, New York City, their respective counties, etc. Keep in mind, the US is larger geographically than all of Europe, so there's a lot of diversity in issues and ideals across the states.
Gun reforms at the federal level are complicated. There is a large portion of the US (at least geographically) that is vehemently against a gun reform, or additional legislature on the subject. And not that this conversation has been about the subject of a nationwide gun ban, but often enough that's where these conversations lead so I'll just take it there -- there's a real concern that a national ban of guns would increase the frequency of gun related violent crimes. Guns are such a large part of the culture here, and so many people have them, and would likely not return them in a ban scenario but rather hide them, that the people committing violent crimes would be more unopposed than ever. We would hope that the people committing such crimes wouldn't suddenly become more ambitious. Couple that concern with the general lack of confidence in our police force. Generally in an active shooter situation, the police are arriving on scene 5+ minutes after casualties have already started piling up. Or in the case of someone threatening your life, the police can't really do anything about it -- often your best bet is just to file a restraining order... which of course doesn't stop a person from assaulting you.
A common thread amongst gun advocates seems to also be that restricting the ability for law abiding citizens to acquire guns is not an effective counter to gun related crimes. If there's one thing that the Mexican drug cartel has made clear, it's that if there's a market for the trafficking of illegal objects, they can be smuggled en masse into the country and be sold to people that are clearly willing to break the law. I think this argument holds some merit, and I say "some" because of course there are gun crimes committed with legally acquired guns.
My disclaimer of bias is that I am a legal gun owner, but I am for gun control legislation. I am agreeable to things such as required universal background checks on gun purchases. Background checks are already required by the federal government for store gun sales, but background check requirements from private sales (person to person) vary from state to state. I am not against a national gun registry. I am not against the restriction of types of firearms that are used disproportionately to commit violent crimes as long as there is a probation period where the new restrictions are measured for efficacy. What I am personally against is what I see more commonly instituted, which is legislation that is purely reactionary and pushed by people with a lack of knowledge on the subject. I talk to too many people about gun control that are familiar with the terms "bump stocks" and "binary triggers" and wanted them banned, but they couldn't even tell me what these things were when asked. I talk to too many people that think I could just go to a gun store and buy a full auto machine gun, which is also false and would be federally illegal. This is just to say, gun control is a topic of much ignorance (from both sides of the fence.) I think it is equally ignorant to be universally against gun control measures, but unfortunately I think their ignorance is at least somewhat valuable in fighting off the ignorance from the other side. I wish that our elected officials were more likely to talk to experts on a topic before proposing what they might propose, but the unfortunate truth is that they don't, and often need reining in.
Someone "universally against gun control measures" here. I'd be interested in knowing how I'm as ignorant as people who want to regulate things based on scary buzzwords, vaguely describing items that they generally lack any knowledge of.
I'd assert it's possible to hold this position, yet also be quite well informed about the history, mechanics, laws, and social consequences surrounding firearms and their accessories. For example, one could simply consider retaining the individual agency that this part of the Bill of Rights has preserved for us as being of higher utility than any of the downsides that additional (or existing) legislation purports to address. My personal view is a bit more nuanced than that (in fact, I agree with most of your post), but wanted to point out that one could start with different base axioms/heuristics, examine the same data, and end up with a different end perspective via perfectly rational (i.e., non-ignorant) reasoning.
Put another way, I think it's fair to say that the majority of people who care about enacting stricter gun control, also do not put it in say... the top 5 issues, especially at a national level (loosening gun control laws might be otherwise). The converse position is true on the other side. I don't think there are many gun fans who would say... "repeal the NFA" as a top 5 'must have' position. But "national semi-auto ban"... well, that's like a top 5 position right there.
Put another way - would you have preferred Obama to enact ACA, or stricter gun control laws?