"...we banned this."

[babylonsister]

[dmr]

1. Oh, wow. So fitting, in many regards.

[tridim]

3. Thanks for the info Jim Rob!

[stevenleser]

4. Actually it was a Republican filibuster that killed the bill. The real JimRob would know that.

I disagree with pretty much everything JimRob says, but he knows how the senate works.

[stevenleser]

6. There is no 'we'. Don't try to claim you are a Democrat. nt

[Fumesucker]

7. It was Democrats who refused to change the filibuster rules n/t

[stevenleser]

8. That is a different issue. nt

[Fumesucker]

9. No it isn't, we *knew* this would happen if the filibuster rules weren't changed n/t

[merrily]

13. I wonder why everyone agreed sixty votes would be required to pass it, though?

Wait. It's confusing.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/04/did-gun-legislation-fail-because-filibuster

[Sekhmets Daughter]

11. A jury voted 3-3 to leave this post alone.

At Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Actually, it was our own DEMOCRATS who control the senate! n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2708874

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Freeper disruptor. Jim Rob = Jim Robinson, the owner of Free Republic

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:53 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I don't like doing this, but I have to agree Jim.Rob58 is no Democrat. Off with his head!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't think it's the real dude. All the words are spelled correctly.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think it's a freeper troll impersonating Jim Rob--- but let's give him a little more rope and see where he goes with it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DainBramaged]

16. Jim Nob

truth hurts the haters...

[JEB]

14. I could give a rats patuti

what letter comes after their name. There is plenty of blame to go around. The stonewalling of sensible popular legislation for partisan ideology is disgusting, so is the failure to enact rule changes to stop or limit filibuster abuse. A small handful of Democratic sellouts is disgusting but familiar. The public has a track record of forgetting and forgiving all kinds of bullshit come election time.

[merrily]

15. It's confusing, but it seems that there was some agreement about sixty votes, too.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/04/did-gun-legislation-fail-because-filibuster

[kentuck]

17. That is one of the most clever cartoons I have ever seen!

kick

[KinMd]

18. The House wasn't even going to bring the bill up.

Gun control on a state level is all you can hope for at least until after mid-term elections

[joeglow3]

19. Sadly, we don't have a democracy

This is what can and does happen when you have a republic. And, I would argue that this highlights why we have a Republic - to protect the rights of the minority. Now, I am not saying this is the ideal outcome, but it DOES show why the government was set up the way it was (for right or wrong).

[Progressive dog]

20. Yes we do-a democracy is a republic

It's known as a democratic republic, representative republic etc. Being a republic has nothing to do with protecting minority rights.

[joeglow3]

21. Federalist Paper Number 10 would seem to disagree with you.

Madison argued that a Republic was necessary to protect against "factions." He went on to define factions as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".

Sorry. I meant to add this quote from the paper: "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths".

In short, it is to protect the rights of the minority.

[Progressive dog]

22. What part of "pure" democracy don't you understand

To pick one passage from one founder that qualifies what a pure democracy is and pretend that somehow, 200 years later, it proves that this is not a democracy, is a very weak argument. It is even more so when Madison wanted both houses of congress to be allocated per population.
Yes, I do understand the 2,000 year old Greek definition of a democracy and even why Madison argued against it. So while I agree that the USA is not a "pure" democracy, it is a democracy. I would try Merriam-Webster for the current definition if you have trouble understanding this.

[joeglow3]

23. You said a Republic was not about protecting minority rights.

m-w.com says "especially : rule of the majority"

A Republic is NOT a rule of the majority. The reason the Senate was set up the way it is was to avoid this.

However, my greater issue is that you seem to think our government was not carefully set up to make sure, among other things, that all laws did not change every time 50%+1 of the population had an opinion on something.

[Progressive dog]

24. Why not admit when you are wrong, and not set up straw men

Where the hell would you even have an inkling from any thing I have said, 'However, my greater issue is that you seem to think our government was not carefully set up to make sure, among other things, that all laws did not change every time 50%+1 of the population had an opinion on something."

Believe it or not, this is a majority rule country. The SCOTUS has even forced one man one vote on the states.

From wikipedia ". In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states[citation needed] use the word "republic" as part of their official names."

So by being a Republic, we number ourselves among the 135 countries that are designed to protect minority rights.

[joeglow3]

25. By being a Republic, we are what we intended to be upon our formation

Which is a country that has, as a core tenant, a structure set up to protect the rights of the minority. This is basic civics and it appears you refuse to see it. I am sorry for that.

[Progressive dog]

26. What does this have to do with whether we are a democracy?

I don't need a lesson in "civics" from some one who has core "tenants".

[joeglow3]

27. The point of the thread is that our democracy is broken because we did not have majority rule

I pointed out that our government was intentionally set up to not simply allow majority rule.

[Progressive dog]

28. no you claimed as follows

"This is what can and does happen when you have a republic. And, I would argue that this highlights why we have a Republic - to protect the rights of the minority."

You are defending what you claim as the intent of the founders. Do you really imagine that people who claimed that all men are created equal, who already governed by town meeting in much of New England, who had elected colonial legislatures did not intend to continue majority rule.
They set up the most democratic government that the world had known till then.

The point of the thread is that the SENATE is broken because they chose to write rules allowing a minority of SENATORS to obstruct the majority rule that the founders clearly intended.

Finally, if this government was set up as you say, is the minority that the senate is protecting the buyers and sellers of deadly weapons. What makes them a minority worth protecting? And how could any government be a Republic if it was not set up to benefit it's people?