Alright, let me try to clarify. Firstly, no, your observation does not "still stand", insofar as you are incorrect when you assume that I place the blame squarely on lawmakers; in fact, I do place it on both the general public and the lawmakers who represent them. In three of the four quotes you give, I clearly talked about lawmakers and the public together (although your selective quoting obscures it in the first quote), so I don't think it's intellectually honest of you to dismiss that fact out-of-hand and persist in your conclusion that I'm talking mainly about lawmakers and only occasionally mentioning the public they represent. I'm perfectly well aware that public opinion is the largest driving force behind legislation in our country, and if you try to pretend that I "lack the education or knowledge" to realize that, you are simply being disingenuous, or else misreading my posts.Originally Posted by faesce
Secondly, although public opinion certainly plays the largest single role, I think that you may lack the knowledge to appreciate how much of a role is also played by lobbying groups and special interests, not just pure public opinion, in driving new legislation. Let's take a perfect example from the world of gun-control legislation; the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which was a 2007 attempt to revive some of the prohibitions of the original federal AWB (1994-2004). This bill was introduced, sponsored, and pushed for by congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It would have reinstated the AWB's prohibition on the sale of firearms with barrel shrouds, among many other things. When pressed to explain what exactly a "barrel shroud" was, congresswoman McCarthy had to admit she had no idea, and then wrongly guessed at it's function: .
Now, where exactly do you think she got the idea to introduce legislation banning barrel shrouds, and a host of other firearm features that she probably doesn't understand either? I'm betting it wasn't from her constituents, the portion of the general public whom she was elected to represent; I'm betting that as she goes around her district and knocks on doors and goes to town hall meetings and talks to her constituents, she doesn't hear a lot of voters telling her, "Congresswoman McCarthy, what this community needs from you is a ban on barrel shrouds! Go back to DC and carry out the will of the voters by banning barrel shrouds!" I'm betting that in New York's 4th congressional district, barrel shrouds are not a highly important issue in the eyes of the public. Yet this woman decided that one of her top legislative priorities was going to be pushing this bill. She personally championed it; it was her 'thing'. Why? Because she was willing to work with the Brady Center and the CSGV and Stop Handgun Violence, and to introduce and sponsor this bill for them, without ever bothering to familiarize herself with the actual meaning or ramifications of it's content, in exchange for campaign support. They handed her a list of things to ban (actually just a stricter rehash of the '94 AWB), and without even really knowing what she was being asked to ban, she went out there and tried to make it happen.
THAT is the kind of politician that I'm saying that I have contempt for; THAT is why you can't lay all the blame at the feet of public ignorance and say that the actual legislators are just civil servants doing their job and democratically responding to public opinion. The fact that there are politicians who will so fervently push for something without even really understanding what it is they're pushing for, without even bothering to make the minimal effort to do a little background research and find out what their own legislation would do, is disgusting to me. They aren't just faithfully representing the views of their constituents, they are advancing the causes of special interest groups even if that means passing laws that they themselves do not understand. It disturbs me that we are represented by politicians who are willing to ban and restrict and regulate and prohibit things that they can't even define. That's a brand of ignorance that goes beyond simple reflection of public ignorance; it all politicians did was reflect public ignorance, we wouldn't see things like bans on barrel shrouds, because public ignorance of guns in no way creates pressure for lawmakers to pass that sort of legislation. And Carolyn McCarthy isn't the only one, this type of behavior is commonplace when it comes to firearms laws.
And of course it doesn't just apply to firearms laws, and it doesn't just come from Democrats. The problem is much broader than that. On numerous issues, there are politicians on both sides who are willing to fervently push for legislative agendas that they don't really understand and that their constituents may not really care about that strongly. Agricultural subsidies, both sides of the pharma regulation issue, various environmental and scientific issues, and many other issues are subject to this kind of thing; I'm only talking about it specifically in the context of gun control because that's what this forum is for. At any rate, I feel that lawmakers have a responsibility to make at least some effort to understand the issues they are passing laws on (they should abstain from voting on a bill if they really don't understand it's content), and if it's an issue that they are going to personally champion and introduce the bills on, then they should really know the issue quite well. I feel that it's part of the job, and I have contempt towards lawmakers who abrogate that responsibility, as many do when it comes to gun laws (and knife laws, to a lesser extent). I'm not anti-lobbying or anti-interest group either, I'm fine with that stuff in principle. I just don't like to see politicians push for laws that they obviously don't understand. So that's what I'm talking about when I shit-talk politicians in particular and not just the general public who elected them, because as I said: The ignorance of the general public obviously plays a huge role in driving stupid legislation, but it is not the only factor at work. Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear before in my criticisms of politicians.
This post has turned into a bit of a text-wall, but I genuinely hope you'll read it all, and that it will clarify what I meant a bit. Hopefully it will at least make it clear that there is really no parallel between my views and this "fuck tha police" business. I also hope that you, too, find it at least a little disturbing that we have politicians who can be told "ban these things and we'll support your campaign" and will actually try to do it without even bothering to find out what they're being asked to ban. You may not care about barrel shrouds in particular, but it's not like these politicians have some strict personal conviction that legislating from ignorance is only okay for gun laws, and not for any other type of laws.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks