The Filibuster

I can't believe there's not already a thread about this. Extraordinary things happening on the Senate floor today. Going on hour 14 as I post this. 


I couldn't believe there wasn't more on the tv news about it  


Is it really news that the Senate has tied itself in knots?


RobB said:

Is it really news that the Senate has tied itself in knots?

It's way more than that. Senate Democrats filibustered for more than 14 hours to force a vote on 2 new gun control measures. The speeches have been extraordinary. Senator Chris Murphy led the charge, and Senator Booker was standing in solidarity the whole time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/15/sen-toomey-and-bloomberg-discussing-gun-control-measure-to-close-the-terror-gap/?tid=sm_tw


If a measure was brought to deny without due process abortion rights to anyone on a "government watch list" methinks they'd be filibustering in the opposite direction.


Robert_Casotto said:

If a measure was brought to deny without due process abortion rights to anyone on a "government watch list" methinks they'd be filibustering in the opposite direction.

Well, yeah, because that wouldn't make any sense.


I think it's fantastic and the speeches have been wonderful.


Robert_Casotto said:

If a measure was brought to deny without due process abortion rights to anyone on a "government watch list" methinks they'd be filibustering in the opposite direction.

No soap! Radio!


Proud That my Senator and his fellow Democrats  did this extraordinary filibuster to force a vote. Finally!!


On Thursday, McConnell strongly hinted that Republicans would be
offering an alternative to Feinstein’s legislation from Sen. John Cornyn
(R-Tex.) that would give the attorney general the power to deny
firearms to terrorists only if she could prove within a 72-hour window
that there was probable cause to do so.

Hmm, deny firearms to terrorists sounds good, but perhaps they could extend that window to NEVER?!?!!!  


ridski said:
Robert_Casotto said:

If a measure was brought to deny without due process abortion rights to anyone on a "government watch list" methinks they'd be filibustering in the opposite direction.
Well, yeah, because that wouldn't make any sense.

I'd be interested in additional responses to this one. Unlike air travel, gun ownership is a constitutional right. As is due process of law. Neither right is absolute, but many who favor more limits on the former feel strongly about protecting the latter. If that describes anyone out there, what are your thoughts on allowing the placement of an individual on a watch list to short-circuit one of his or her constitutional rights?


Well, it doesn't describe me so I'm out.


Eta: 

What describes me is a woman, raised in this country by Norwegian fishermen that never owned guns, never had a need for them, never hunted for land animals and never had a gun in her home.

Yet a five year old neighbor killed my five year old cousin with his father's gun.

WTF?

Many, many years ago. I was only eight and am now on way to seventy. I still feel the loss for his twin sister, my darling cousin.

I don't get guns without responsible control.


DaveSchmidt said:


ridski said:
Robert_Casotto said:

If a measure was brought to deny without due process abortion rights to anyone on a "government watch list" methinks they'd be filibustering in the opposite direction.
Well, yeah, because that wouldn't make any sense.

I'd be interested in additional responses to this one. Unlike air travel, gun ownership is a constitutional right. As is due process of law. Neither right is absolute, but many who favor more limits on the former feel strongly about protecting the latter. If that describes anyone out there, what are your thoughts on allowing the placement of an individual on a watch list to short-circuit one of his or her constitutional rights?

If we're going to be using the watch list in this way, I'd like to see it reformed to bring in more due-process guarantees.

As for this filibuster, best-case scenario is that it marks a shifting tide where we start to have a real conversation and real legislation that restricts guns while respecting the second amendment and, with a new SCOTUS, a stepping back from the absolutists position Scalia brought us to and back to a more traditional understanding of that amendment.

What'd be really great is to lift the ban on gun research so that we could actually have data on what works and what doesn't, and base legislation on that.


I'd like to see the second amendment repealed.  No one needs a gun in 2016.


hoops said:

I'd like to see the second amendment repealed.  No one needs a gun in 2016.

Don't be ridiculous. How can you shoot anybody if you don't have a gun? Of course we still need guns.


ridski said:
hoops said:

I'd like to see the second amendment repealed.  No one needs a gun in 2016.

Don't be ridiculous. How can you shoot anybody if you don't have a gun? Of course we still need guns.

dave,  we need to have a rec button for these amazing posts.  please?

 grin 


PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:


ridski said:
Robert_Casotto said:

If a measure was brought to deny without due process abortion rights to anyone on a "government watch list" methinks they'd be filibustering in the opposite direction.
Well, yeah, because that wouldn't make any sense.

I'd be interested in additional responses to this one. Unlike air travel, gun ownership is a constitutional right. As is due process of law. Neither right is absolute, but many who favor more limits on the former feel strongly about protecting the latter. If that describes anyone out there, what are your thoughts on allowing the placement of an individual on a watch list to short-circuit one of his or her constitutional rights?

If we're going to be using the watch list in this way, I'd like to see it reformed to bring in more due-process guarantees.

This seems totally reasonable to me. I would hope that gun rights advocates could get behind this as well.

The reality is that many of our rights have limitations and restrictions placed upon them. You have free speech, but you can't incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Surely we are all on the same side of wanting to keep guns out of the hands of people with bad intentions. I think it's time for the gun rights advocates to stand up and join the discussion about how we can do that. I don't want to hear "criminals will find a way anyway." 

There is pending legislation right now to override Christie's veto of a bill that would strengthen protections for domestic violence victims, which include confiscation of guns in the home where domestic abuse has happened, and limiting a person's access to guns for the duration of a restraining order. How anyone can disagree with that, including our governor, I truly don't know.


TarheelsInNj said:

There is pending legislation right now to override Christie's veto of a bill that would strengthen protections for domestic violence victims, which include confiscation of guns in the home where domestic abuse has happened, and limiting a person's access to guns for the duration of a restraining order. How anyone can disagree with that, including our governor, I truly don't know.

Guns = $$ period. As long as that is the case there will be people who support unlimited access to guns and ammunition, and there will be politicians willing to pass or prevent law that would reduce access to guns simply because their contributors demand it. 

The sad truth is that there is incentive for gun manufacturers and sellers for these events to actually take place. It drives sales of their weapons and their stock price. Why would they want to prevent these occurrences? 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641508/We-normally-sell-two-day-today-selling-15-hour-Georgia-gun-shop-reports-soaring-AR-15-sales-Pennsylvania-dealer-sold-15-000-Orlando-massacre.html

From the article:

" 'If we want to try and get into a terrorist mind, I think they go by their religious beliefs and I don't think the religious beliefs say kill people with a rifle,' he told the network."

" 'It just says 'kill people.' And if they don't kill people with a rifle, they'll kill them some other way and you won't be any less dead.' "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641508/We-normally-sell-two-day-today-selling-15-hour-Georgia-gun-shop-reports-soaring-AR-15-sales-Pennsylvania-dealer-sold-15-000-Orlando-massacre.html#ixzz4BqLdUNe0 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Why not just help them carry out the killing the easiest way possible by giving them access to a weapon that can kill many in a few seconds? 

From my point of view the only way things change is by hitting the gun makers, the sellers and the NRA where it hurts, in their pocket, with lawsuits and very heavy fines. Hold them accountable for these events and perhaps there will be some desire to implement some legislation. But short of that I don't see it happening. 

I mean why was the ban lifted in the first place?


Couple things to keep in mind:

Like the last time this debate came up, the press and some politicians are conflating the No Fly List (approx 47k people) with the "Terror Watch List" (1.9 million people). 1600 people are added to the latter daily.

The terrorist in Orlando found his way onto the broader "Terror Watch List" but was eventually removed.

The first gun store the terrorist went to denied his business, but it's being reported today that they actually CALLED THE FBI DIRECTLY to tell them they were worried about this guy. 

The ACLU came out aggressively last time around against using even the narrower No Fly List because it provides zero due process protections for those deprived of their rights.

So in short, nothing about the current legislation being bandied about would have stopped this guy. 


Adding to what JF said, the various lists are nonstarters for me. Adding paperwork, lists and bureaucracy won't prevent the vast majority of these tragedies. We need an outright ban on assault rifles. It won't solve everything, but it can prevent a lot of innocent lives being lost.


And this right here, next door to us in Long Island... We should be grateful that this was "caught" before someone  had a chance to do some damage...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/nyregion/weapons-cache-and-bomb-making-instructions-found-at-long-island-home.html


dave23 said:

Adding to what JF said, the various lists are nonstarters for me. Adding paperwork, lists and bureaucracy won't prevent the vast majority of these tragedies. We need an outright ban on assault rifles. It won't solve everything, but it can prevent a lot of innocent lives being lost.

That's the issue. The prior ban has been studied to death, and the evidence is that it had no measurable impact on firearm deaths.

So going a step further, to bring down gun deaths let's ban all firearms. To which rights advocates say, "saw that one coming."


Jackson_Fusion said:
dave23 said:

Adding to what JF said, the various lists are nonstarters for me. Adding paperwork, lists and bureaucracy won't prevent the vast majority of these tragedies. We need an outright ban on assault rifles. It won't solve everything, but it can prevent a lot of innocent lives being lost.

That's the issue. The prior ban has been studied to death, and the evidence is that it had no measurable impact on firearm deaths.

So going a step further, to bring down gun deaths let's ban all firearms. To which rights advocates say, "saw that one coming."

+1000


Jackson_Fusion said:
dave23 said:

Adding to what JF said, the various lists are nonstarters for me. Adding paperwork, lists and bureaucracy won't prevent the vast majority of these tragedies. We need an outright ban on assault rifles. It won't solve everything, but it can prevent a lot of innocent lives being lost.

That's the issue. The prior ban has been studied to death, and the evidence is that it had no measurable impact on firearm deaths.

So going a step further, to bring down gun deaths let's ban all firearms. To which rights advocates say, "saw that one coming."

yes, lets ban all firearms, but short of that lets ban these weapons of mass destruction.  As far as what "evidence" is required to see the impact of an assault weapon versus a hand gun, see Orlando, see Sandy Hook.

Of course I suppose there are so many deaths in the US from guns that given a massacre of Orlando's size it probably barely dents the yearly average, since according to wikipedia

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms- ...


so theres that.


Banning handguns would save many (many) more lives than banning assault-type rifles.


The vast majority of gun deaths are the result of hand guns, I know. But about 1/4 of mass shootings involve assault weapons. (I know that "assault weapons" is a somewhat vague term, essentially political shorthand for semi-automatics.) We could at least save the lives lost to the mass, indiscriminate killing protected by 2nd Amendment extremists. 

But the debate about assault weapons debate obscures other measures that could be taken (but won't), such as emulating the Swiss with stringent training and registration laws. (I know it's not a perfect comparison since we don't have conscription or a heterogenous population, but that shouldn't limit our imaginations.)

And I can't say that I care that gun advocates may say, "Saw that one coming." They are, after all, perfectly comfortable with Sandy Hook.


RobB said:

Banning handguns would save many (many) more lives than banning assault-type rifles.

Yup.


DaveSchmidt said:
Some more detailed context:
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?

I hate to say it, but my take on that shows LaPierre slightly more correct about the ban's effectiveness than Feinstein.

This whole latest thing seems to me yet another grandstanding charade to lend the appearance of action but without the desired effect.  Dems get to say they did something and Reps keep their guns and magazines.  Again.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.