Ever notice how "the democratic will of the people" is only denied when liberals don't get what they want?

As I have been taught in my University, and something I absolutely agree with given the functions of the U.S. Electoral and Political system, the United States has never been and never was designed to be a democracy or even a republic. At its inception the United States was designed as a polyarchy, or rule by a group. In the case of the modern United States, we have a oligarchy. That being said we still have democratic institutions which allow for a limited degree of representation at the macro policy level for the individual citizens.

@dipplayer - Every notice how many times Conservatives bash Liberals? It's like they are jealous or something.

@jimgov - Ever notice how many times Liberals bash Conservatives?

@Draug - Actually, no. I do not. I don't have time now, but I would bet that if you just took this site and added all of the forum topics in the last few months that were Conservative bashing Liberal and compared them to the Liberal bashing Conservative, the numbers wouldn't even be close. Not by a long shot. Now we will give as well as we get in the posts, but the vast majority, IMO, are in response to shots fired from across our bow.

Take for example this thread. Nothing is really Conservative vs. Liberal BASHING until dipplayer spoke up. You see, if you give shit, you should get it back.

Well, to be fair, the conservative bashing liberal is usually krellin. You can't blame an entire politiphilosophical movement for one man's actions on a remote hobbyists forum.

And if you tally them all up, let's go look at Putin33 and Obiwanobiwan...

Granted, most of them are krellin. I just guess that he sort of stands out like a sore thumb. But, in fairness, liberal bashing was started first in this thread.

Yes, dipplayer started it. But did you notice none of us joined in, depsite some of us being right leaning individuals?

I looked at Obiwanobiwan's threads in the last few months and there is really few if any bashing topics. Now the posts inside may be different, but the threads are about Dr. Seuss and other benign stuff.

@Draug - yes, I noticed. And I hope you noticed that I directed my reply to dipplayer. I was just countering his "argument" with one of my own. We've had discussions before. There are many conservatives on this site, and elsewhere, that are level headed, sane individuals. And I try my best not to be one of "those" liberals. I usually only respond once the bashing begins,and only at the basher.

There was not a consensus of support for this bill. The People did not want. Democracy was not denied. Just a liberal cause that wanted to pass by emotionally blackmailing everyone with the Sandy Hook tragedy.

I wonder if the folks here complaining about filibustering would do so if it were being used to, say, stop a bill allowing people to opt out of the Social Security system in a Republican-dominated senate?

This thread made no suggestion on current legislation. The premise was e

The prenise is eother a vote be allowed requiring a majority or a filibuster require they actually filibuster and not grant a recess. That covers any bill, not just this one..

That is not a "left" or "right" issue

I assumed the context was the failure of the gun control bill, seeing as every liberal from the President on down has been throwing a tantrum about that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

Some interesting polls, show basically a desire for the status quo, with perhaps a move to more strictly enforce current laws.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/07/171383152/poll-9-in-10-americans-support-background-check-for-all-gun-sales

This however shows that the will of the people is universal background checks. I think the republicans would be foolish not to pass such a bill.

@dipplayer - I will not lump you in with other conservatives on this site. I will, however, lump you in with the fringe elements of the Republican party. I am guessing Tea Party, but I may be wrong. And speaking only to you, you are in the fringe. You do not speak for the majority of Americans. You are just some crazy who thinks that everyone should think the way they do. And, for the most part, we don't. So take your opinion and shove it.

@ josunice

The reason why America would be incompatible with the system of government that you outlined (a Senate with no real power) is because all 50 states are unique. They really are nations within one nation. This idea, along with universal and inalienable rights, is the very essence of our Republic and the reason that America has been so successful for much of its history.

Every state has its own government, its own treasury, its own military, its own people. I do not want to be ruled by a bunch of politicians from California, Texas, and New York. I want my state to have an equal say in one of the two legislative bodies.

I also agree with repealing the 17th Amendment. Senators should be accountable to their state, not the people.

@Gunfighter - While I agree with most of your post, each state does NOT have it's own military. There is no way that you can say the National Guard is equivalent to the actual military. Look at the equipment, training, money spent.... It is not equivalent.

Also, how in the fuck do you intend to enforce this background check law? Are you going to ID the guy selling bootleg Norinco shotguns out of the trunk of his 1989 Lincoln Town Car? I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, but it's incumbent on gun owners (not gun dealers) to keep their weapons either secured or on them.

@ jimgov

It's the principle. The Nat Guard answers to their respective governors in addition to the president (if he federalizes the Guard)

If you agree with most of my post, then why do you propose effectively disbanding the Senate as it currently exists?

@Gun - I never have said that the Senate should be disbanded. Never. I don't know who you are referring to, but it is not me. The Senate represents the states. The House represents the people. That's the setup. We all know the rules. I was referring to your latest post before mine that I agreed to (minus the military part).

@gun, obviously it isn't feasible to ID the guy selling guns out the back of his truck. But it would make it ILLEGAL to do so without going and getting a background check on who he is going to sell it to. It would be like you arguing that we can't do quality checks on the guy making moonshine, so why have quality checks at all?

@ josunice

"Why Wyoming has "equal" representation in the Senate as my NY is archaic bullshit and makes a Wyomian citizen's vote worth more than mine in the Senate."

"The Senate should not be a voting legislative body. The house votes on legislation which the executive and judicial branches serve as checks and balances against. The senate should form committees and assist in the oversight of government (as they do now) and be a deliberation body to add to the discourse around legislation, but not be a redundant voting body."

"that "balance" for equal states is highly antiquated and based on a time when there was vastly more parity between states. The government should treat each citizen as having equal voting power, and that is just not the case with the Senate. That body should then be a deliberation body to advise the house and not vote. Let that be the oversight body, and not a redundant legislative body. The executive and judicial branches are the checks on the legislative branch."

You proposed eliminating the Senate's voting power, which would be, in effect, disbanding it *as it currently exists*

@ Puddle

I understand your argument, but why would you saddle the guy selling his old hunting rifle at a garage sale with that kind of paperwork and then threaten him with prison if he makes a mistake or forgets the paperwork?

My counter-proposal is a nationwide, graduated licensing system, possibly with dividing guns into categories of combat effectiveness:

Single-fire hunting rifles/shotguns (including limited-capacity semi-automatic hunting shotguns) being category zero - no licensing requirement; free for all adults to own and carry on condition that the weapon is used in connection with hunting

Concealed carry pistols being category one - a two-hour class, instant background check, and one-time live-fire range qualification

Semi-automatic rifles and non-hunting shotguns being category two - a four-hour class, full background check, and one-time live-fire range qualification

Fully automatic weapons of all classifications being category three - a weekend class, extensive background check, and annual range qualification
__

I would repeal all laws banning high capacity magazines and cosmetic features (including short barrels). I would make concealed and open carry for all weapon types legal nationwide and ban gun-free zones (including schools). The catch is that you must have the appropriate category license to buy, own, and carry a weapon from that category (but each category of license qualifies an individual to own/carry weapons from lower categories)

This law would pre-empt all state gun laws, but states can opt-out on the condition that they do not enact more restrictive laws in its place.