The gun background check has been defeated in the Senate. When I was in Colorado working on the Obama campaign we talked about how undemocratic the Senate was and how this resulted in the government being more conservative and more prone to agricultural supports. I understand that the Senate is a creation of the founders and its role as a check on popular prejudice.
I like the phrase used to describe the totally useless Canadian Senate: the house of sober second thought.
I understand American Senators from rural, conservative states not supporting the bill. Most people don’t vote on the basis of gun responsibility (a phrase I like so much better than gun control), so that leaves the most dedicated members of the NRA to provide a 2 or 3% edge in any election.
What I don’t understand is that a 54 to 46 vote is a defeat! I know that this has to do with how the filibuster is currently structured, but really – if there was a talking filibuster, would the U. S. be any worse off?
This is just nuts – the rules of the Senate have to be changed so that the only filibuster is a talking filibuster.