No, they can't. The process was designed to obstruct laws being written. That was intended to protect minority interests, but it means that even large majorities cannot pass laws.
And when, after superhuman effort, a law does finally get passed, the Court has nearly unlimited ability to say "No, that's not good enough, either."
The argument is meant to suggest, "Well, all you need is a simple majority. If you can't get that then clearly this is the correct outcome".
Except that it's not a simple majority. You have to pass the House and the Senate, by a filibuster-proof margin, and the President. And that's without taking into account the ways gerrymandering and the way the Senate favors small states. So it's a deception to suggest that we don't get such a law because a majority doesn't want it.
So that opinion is a lie. The Congress can't act, and they know it. That doesn't make their decision wrong, but it does imply that they feel the need to misdirect about it.
The problem is the process you describe is the same for all laws, if that system doesn't work, fuck it, appoint a head of agency that has the current leaderships opinion to reinterpret the meaning of a policy, and change the policy without requiring the law making body to play any role in that.
If we set that sort of precedence, and the wrong people get appointed to say the department of health, or the department of education then suddenly what is legal and what isn't shifts quickly, and with no recourse.
I don't care about bump stocks, they can make them illegal tomorrow, but it should be done through the same legal channels that our government is based on. And not as a work around because they couldn't get it done in the framework that is agreed upon.
"Well, they could just pass a law."
No, they can't. The process was designed to obstruct laws being written. That was intended to protect minority interests, but it means that even large majorities cannot pass laws.
And when, after superhuman effort, a law does finally get passed, the Court has nearly unlimited ability to say "No, that's not good enough, either."
The argument is meant to suggest, "Well, all you need is a simple majority. If you can't get that then clearly this is the correct outcome".
Except that it's not a simple majority. You have to pass the House and the Senate, by a filibuster-proof margin, and the President. And that's without taking into account the ways gerrymandering and the way the Senate favors small states. So it's a deception to suggest that we don't get such a law because a majority doesn't want it.
So that opinion is a lie. The Congress can't act, and they know it. That doesn't make their decision wrong, but it does imply that they feel the need to misdirect about it.