|
|
|
|
|
by pandemicsoul
974 days ago
|
|
It's so tiring to have these kinds of conversations with folks who do not understand the legislative process. There's no need to treat the legislator like an idiot. She's doing what EVERY legislator does, which is to identify a problem ("printed guns are a loophole in how we manage guns in this state") and saying she wants to find a solution to that problem. One mechanism by which legislators do that is by writing draft bills and then helping it through the legislative process to be improved, sorta like how you'd write a draft essay for a college class and then go back for a second and third pass before submitting it. As part of this process, people who are in favor of no legislation will come forward, people who are in favor of strong legislation will come forward, she'll hear their advice and feedback. If she's lucky, the bill will be seen by a committee who will hold hearings and re-draft it. When you see a "ready to go bill," it's either been through a dozen-step process in this legislative session OR it's been brought up in a dozen different sessions and been improved along the way as legislators have to re-introduce all the bills they are sponsoring in each legislative session. The legislator is not an expert in the issue, and I doubt she's claiming she is. She's proposing the broad strokes of a solution to a problem she sees. The point is not to pass the bill in its current form – it's to figure out how to solve the problem, using this general idea as the starting point. |
|
But the legislator is an idiot, and should be treated like one. They aren't identifying a problem and trying to solve it, they are engaging in performative legislation for the benefit of their donors. That should not be rewarded, on either side of the aisle.