[snip] — “Other legislators?” Are you an elected official?
No. What I meant was that it’s possible for anyone to support the idea of background checks in principle, but then balk when it’s time to vote for them, because of the constitutional issue.
First. Background checks have a 90% approval rating. Period. Not 90% approval rating from (D)s and/or (I)s; 90% across the board. Maybe you are of the 1 in 10 that doesn’t approve, but it is an issue that has nearly universal US support.
Let’s start out by defining some terminology. “Background checks” mean different things to different people. A background check law that amends HIPAA so an applicant’s psychiatric history, and keeps a nutcase from getting a gun, is one thing; a background check law that can disqualify you for a parking ticket is another thing entirely. I have no doubt that 90% of the US would like to see the first one; the second one, not so much.
So, point #1 is that a poll that just says “hey, you want background checks” without any specifics is suspect.
Point #2 is that we’re messing with a Constitutional issue here. If 90% of the people in America decided they no longer wanted a free press, should we muzzle them? Of course not. The popularity of a proposal matters of course, but if is a constitutional issue, popularity may be moot.
Second. Background checks are already federal law. The issue is legal loopholes such as allowing gun purchases without a check at gun shows, and stopping “straw man purchases” where some person with a clean record buys multiple guns legally and then sells them to criminals illegally.
I quite agree that the definition of “gun dealer” should be tightened up.
Third. Constitutional rights are all limited. We have, “free speech,” but not the right to threaten to foment violence (for example). We have the right to own arms, but you can’t open up “Bazookas ‘r Us” and start selling RPGs to the general public. So we are discussing degrees of limitation on a constitutional right, not whether there should be limitations at all.
Of course. My point is simply that when there’s a constitutional issue at stake, you better be careful, no matter what polls say.
Hmmm…couldn’t be all that pharma money going to politicians, could it? [cough] corey booker [cough]
Well, Corey is a Good New Jersey Senator. :-). No New Jersey Senator is going to support drug price negotiation outright.
I think you just forgot the quotes.
Yea, sure did. Sorry.
Solving it is another matter (your point) and I agree. A great first start would be to make it easier for workers (blue and white) to organize. That is currently not the case.
I don’t see any reason why organization should be encumbered in any way. Free country and all that. But, as soon as union membership becomes a requirement in order to work, you’ve lost me.
Having a sliding scale so that people can “work up” to where they need no assistance has a much better chance of success. This is partly because getting public assistance is not a, “I lost my job — now I get assistance” process. Getting off of assistance is quick. Getting back on…not at all.
Agree, although we have sliding scales today. I don’t know if the problem is how they are designed at the margins, or the fact that welfare in 2018 is tied to annual income in 2017.
Capitalism is the worst economic system…except for all the others!
Yes, I love this quote.
Then the logical and correct conclusion can only be that a “free market” is one in which there is no regulation.
Let’s not quibble over semantics. Market freedom can be viewed as a linear scale. To the far right is “laissez-faire”; to the far left, “socialism”. In order for market freedom to exist, the government must provide and defend the go-to-market infrastructure (if there’s no roads, the produce rots in the truck).
Ending on a friendly note: I appreciate very much your cordiality and debate. As a olive branch I don’t have any cat videos to share, but I’ll point out that my avatar is actually my real dog’s snout (I think he’s very cute).