I find it interesting to compare the US and Australian elections and the information provided to the voters to enable them to make their choices. I watched a public cross=section invited to put intelligent questions to a current prime minister on Q & A for 80 minutes. I'm sure it will be on the web if anyone wished to view it all. Next week is the turn of the leader of the opposition.
I would be interested in seeing the same from the US but all I can seem to find is Preaching to the converted at rallies or candidates who just shout over each other and hurl insults on poorly run public debates. Is there anyone asking detailed questions?
Oh and rather odd that a very funny ad for a high tech Australian digital camera company should be run on the fox network but banned by other networks. Probably on the web unless the obi has had it banned too!
All credit to the members of congress holding the sit in. To quote Mr Lewis
"What has this body done [to respond to the violence]?'' Mr Lewis asked, referring to several failed efforts in the past week to pass a gun control bill.
"Nothing. We have turned a deaf ear to the blood of innocents. We are blind to a crisis. Where is our courage? How many more mothers... and fathers need to shed tears of grief?"
Couldn't agree more mate, the Aussies are behind you for what it's worth.
I do not know about Australia but in the US, most crime, gun and otherwise, occurs int he sities with the strictest gun control laws. Chicago, NYC etc. The only people who benefit from the gun control are the power hungry politicians and the criminals...redundant?
I misspelled 'in the cities'. Need more coffee.
kaoangle, your point is well taken! Even if your fact is accurate (and it's complicated, see http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-dea\nths-and-crimes/), localized gun control doesn't work - we have no checkpoints between states, between cities. Only a national approach will work to curb gun violence.
lol, that sit in is a protest to Republicans not wanting to ignore at least 2 amendments in the constitution. No due process to get your name on a list (5th and 14th amendments). Not to mention the obvious right to keep and bear arms. Ugh, same people pretending they know the constitution a few weeks ago happy to throw it out now. Funny how that works.
"What liberties do American enjoy because we can all purchase assault weapons?" And again the liberal lie that gets parroted by the ill-informed. Selective fire/automatic weapons are banned. Mostly great article on Vox about the reasons why the gun is popular: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11975850/ar-15-o\nwner-orlando
The dems that are sitting are not forgetting the constitution. They are actually exercising their rights. 90% of citizens favor some legislation. The protestors just want a vote. I support them.
Inaction is an action. It maintains the status quo.
Selective interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the problem. We should have a national debate to clarify its intent. "Well regulated" has just as much meaning as "the right to bear arms"
I would rather Bare Arms, or Arm Bears than bear arms. yuck yuck yuck.
If it turns out that the majority of voters decide they want the 2nd amendment to allow no regulations on guns than I would support that. As well as if the majority decides they want to add more regulation I will support that. However the Republicans do not want that debate to come to the floor.
I'm voting according to the candidate whose voice will grate less on my ears for eight years.
Smooth sailing, pretty much, from the beginning. 10.
Tuco: the debate over the meaning of the 2nd amendment was conducted in 1789 when Congress proposed the first 12 amendments (only 10 were ratified in 1791, 1 more was ratified in 1992, 1 is still pending).
B.T.W. the original proposed amendment was:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Notice that a well regulated militia was defined as the body of the people. In Federalist Paper 29 Hamilton suggests that it would be sufficient to assemble the armed people once or twice a year for instruction.