Democrats begin filibuster for Universal Background Checks - Polidicks

[quote]Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks. "Senator Murphy and Senate Democrats are holding the floor because they will not accept inaction or half measures in the face of continued slaughter," Murphy spokesman Chris Harris said. "Congress cannot sit on the sidelines while killers freely buy weapons to brutally murder the people Congress is supposed to be protecting." Democrats are attempting to pressure Republicans on tougher gun-control laws after the Orlando mass shooting in which 49 people were killed and at least 50 were injured at a gay nightclub early Sunday morning. Because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has not filed cloture on the bill, Senate Democrats can talk indefinitely. [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369[/url] [/quote] i suspect if they get anything it will be the background checks and setup a system to petition the court, but i doubt they will get the no-fly list ban like they want

[QUOTE]The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”[/QUOTE] "We're not going to vote on a spending bill until we get two gun control items." Well then, since the Democrats were such asses about the moment of silence the other day, I say either ride it out or vote down the entire fucking bill. Remember when democrats had temper tantrums about republicans wanting things tacked on to a budget? What goes around should definitely come back around in this case. Oh, and by the way: [QUOTE]The NRA has backed an approach favored by Senate Republicans that would allow a judge to arbitrate people who mistakenly end up on the terrorism watch list and want to buy guns, while Democrats prefer giving the Justice Department such authority.[/QUOTE] The NRA and Republicans ACTUALLY HAD AN IDEA and it wasn't good enough? Fuck off. The executive branch can't be trusted to neutrally arbitrate these decisions like the judicial branch can, and there is a better appeals system for the judicial branch.

Even the ACLU [url=https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms]opposes[/url] the use of the no-fly list to restrict gun purchases. It's a huge deal to deny someone a Constitutional right without due process.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50527261] The NRA and Republicans ACTUALLY HAD AN IDEA and it wasn't good enough? Fuck off. The executive branch can't be trusted to neutrally arbitrate these decisions like the judicial branch can, and there is a better appeals system for the judicial branch.[/QUOTE] [quote] Both approaches were voted down by the Senate last December. [/quote] oh wait i remember this. The NRA proposed this bill then promptly killed it [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868[/url] they introduced it in 2007, let it bake for a few years then when it came time to vote on it, they promptly got their people out to kill it and plead ignorance

So let me get this straight, the purpose behind this move is to deny [i]suspected[/i] criminals constitutional rights? Why do I feel like this is a bad idea?

So what is the bill actually for? I'll never understand why they're allowed to filibuster for riders.

[QUOTE=unrezt;50527352]So what is the bill actually for? I'll never understand why they're allowed to filibuster for riders.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Senate Democrats are refusing to give up the floor, which prevents any amendment votes on the spending bill currently being considered by the chamber that provides funding for the Justice Department and other related agencies.[/QUOTE] I don't know if it's right to filibuster for this at present, but I know we desperately need to take action and regulate guns in some way. No other country on Earth has mass shooting trends even close to being level with ours. It's tragic. Unfortunately I don't believe Republicans will listen.

[QUOTE='Poesidan [GAG];50527537']I don't know if it's right to filibuster for this at present, but I know we desperately need to take action and regulate guns in some way. No other country on Earth has mass shooting trends even close to being level with ours. It's tragic. Unfortunately I don't believe Republicans will listen.[/QUOTE] no new legislation short of a complete ban would've stopped the orlando shooting, the FBI failed to do its job and allowed for this to happen through inaction, full stop guns are already ridiculously heavily regulated - the amount of red tape is fucking stupid, it's a minefield of arbitrary feel good legislation that does nothing to stop a criminal from buying a gun off his bud but everything to discourage a law abiding citizen from enjoying a hobby i am all for controls and restrictions that actually keep guns out of criminal hands but nothing we have currently does that and nothing that's been proposed will as a fully legal gun owner i am up to my neck in red tape, tip toeing the line of legality any time i think about tweaking my own firearms and i was in a huge grey area for 3 years with my handguns until i turned 21. i couldn't buy ammo from stores for handguns that i bought legally and i couldn't handle or rent handguns in stores or on range. meanwhile for criminals operating outside of the law it's business as usual, they haven't been affected in the slightest. i am at the stage where i would rather have zero gun regulation than trust this corrupt ass knee jerk government to do anything fair for us. the law gets so fucking stupid that in some cases putting a foreign made magazine in an AK pattern rifle is a 922(r) violation that carries a 5 year prison sentence and a fat fine

Fuck off, Democrats. We don't want to be like California and New York. Last time we gave you a chance to have some sensible gun regulations, you forced the AWB down our throats, and before that the Hughes Amendment. You lost your chances to impress or wooo us.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50527284]So let me get this straight, the purpose behind this move is to deny [i]suspected[/i] criminals constitutional rights? Why do I feel like this is a bad idea?[/QUOTE] The potential risk for it to be abused is too high for too little return.

The terrorists have won, they got what they wanted. All they have to do is attack us and we implode on ourselves.

[QUOTE='Poesidan [GAG];50527537']I don't know if it's right to filibuster for this at present, but I know we desperately need to take action and regulate guns in some way. No other country on Earth has mass shooting trends even close to being level with ours. It's tragic. Unfortunately I don't believe Republicans will listen.[/QUOTE] trying to pass legislation by attaching it to unrelated shit is bad, period

[QUOTE='Poesidan [GAG];50527537'][b]No other country on Earth[/b] has mass shooting trends even close to being level with ours. It's tragic. Unfortunately I don't believe Republicans will listen.[/QUOTE] seriously? Also the whole problem with gun regulation is that the only affect it has on actual criminals is that it disarms their potential victims. I don't see how gun regulation is the solution to people not following the law in the first place and killing other people with illegally obtained fire arms.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50527274]Even the ACLU [url=https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms]opposes[/url] the use of the no-fly list to restrict gun purchases. It's a huge deal to deny someone a Constitutional right without due process.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50527284]So let me get this straight, the purpose behind this move is to deny [i]suspected[/i] criminals constitutional rights? Why do I feel like this is a bad idea?[/QUOTE] I really don't understand this defensiveness about the outdated "constitutional rights" concept. I think the US would be better off if some of that stuff was changed drastically.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527591]I really don't understand this obsession over the outdated "constitutional rights" concept. I think the US would be better off if some of that stuff was changed drastically.[/QUOTE] i think the US would be better off if some self righteous foreigners minded their own business

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527591]I really don't understand this defensiveness about the outdated "constitutional rights" concept. I think the US would be better off if some of that stuff was changed drastically.[/QUOTE] Like what? I always see people say this but they never actually explain what.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527597]i think the US would be better off if some self righteous foreigners minded their own business[/QUOTE] The US happens to kind of be everyone's business nowadays. [QUOTE=DuCT;50527606]Like what? I always see people say this but they never actually explain what.[/QUOTE] I don't like how the constitutions seem to breed sovereign citizens who believe in that but not the rest of the law, as if they're religiously following the 10 amendments. And obviously I think the current way of handling guns is completely off the hook, but understandably that's not very easy to just "solve" at this stage.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527607]The US happens to kind of be everyone's business nowadays.[/QUOTE] norway has 31.3 guns per person and your laws are fairly permissive compared to many nations. yet you don't have the violence problem that the US has. looking at the numbers instead of selectively picking out gun violence statistics shows that the US has a problem with crime and violence in general, not strictly gun violence. it is clear that guns are not the cause of the problem and you cannot justify depriving millions of law abiding people of billions of dollars in property because an infinitesimally small percentage of the total population has carried out crimes with similar property. it doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527591]I really don't understand this defensiveness about the outdated "constitutional rights" concept. I think the US would be better off if some of that stuff was changed drastically.[/QUOTE] You [I]foreigners[/I] just don't get it. The constitution is gospel and we can never ever do anything to contradict it or progress past it or change it ever. If we ever change anything about the constitution, all of the bald eagles will die, the commies will help dirty poor people see the doctor, all women will be forced to get abortions and turn lesbian and humans will go extinct.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527591]I really don't understand this defensiveness about the outdated "constitutional rights" concept. I think the US would be better off if some of that stuff was changed drastically.[/QUOTE] The constitution is meant to be flexibile; it is meant to be amended. Amend the constitution in that case, don't arbitrarily deny certain parts of that document to certain groups of people based on suspicion that some brown-skinned dude might go on a rampage because he's Muslim.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527635]You [I]foreigners[/I] just don't get it. The constitution is gospel and we can never ever do anything to contradict it or progress past it or change it ever. If we ever change anything about the constitution, all of the bald eagles will die, the commies will help dirty poor people see the doctor, all women will get abortions, and turn lesbian and humans will go extinct.[/QUOTE] We have a system to amend the constitution. Why don't liberals ever use that route?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527628]norway has 31.3 guns per person and your laws are fairly permissive compared to many nations. yet you don't have the violence problem that the US has. looking at the numbers instead of selectively picking out gun violence statistics shows that the US has a problem with crime and violence in general, not strictly gun violence. it is clear that guns are not the cause of the problem and you cannot justify depriving millions of law abiding people of billions of dollars in property because an infinitesimally small percentage of the total population has carried out crimes with similar property. it doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE] I partially agree with you; "The guns aren't the sole cause of the problem". I however believe they make it easier to commit murders and suicides. I'm interested in seeing how this will be solved in the future. I'm not going to pretend I know how to solve this, but I'm sure the solution will be one you won't like.

[QUOTE='Poesidan [GAG];50527537']I don't know if it's right to filibuster for this at present, but I know we desperately need to take action and regulate guns in some way. No other country on Earth has mass shooting trends even close to being level with ours. It's tragic. Unfortunately I don't believe Republicans will listen.[/QUOTE] I duno man, I heard some dudes in Iraq were burning children alive for not being sex slaves and they control whole cities. Gun violence is revered so much in america not because it's a common problem but because you don't have recourse to stop it because the only way to counter someone who's violent with a gun is by force. It's kinda like the boogieman of your current issues.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527635]You [I]foreigners[/I] just don't get it. The constitution is gospel and we can never ever do anything to contradict it or progress past it or change it ever. If we ever change anything about the constitution, all of the bald eagles will die, the commies will help dirty poor people see the doctor, all women will get abortions, and turn lesbian and humans will go extinct.[/QUOTE] translation: "I don't care about this particular constitutional amendment protecting this fundamental right, therefor it isn't important and can be done away with"

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50527640]We have a system to amend the constitution. Why don't liberals ever use that route?[/QUOTE] Like I said, everyone knows that 'amending the constitution' is just a commie codespeak for 'change the constitution'. Anyone who thinks of taking our GUNS away is clearly anti-American if they don't believe in the 2ND amendment. [sp]I hope it's clear I am taking the piss and pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are against people changing the constitution on the subject of guns while citing the 2nd amendment which itself is a change.[/sp] [QUOTE=soulharvester;50527588]seriously? Also the whole problem with gun regulation is that the only affect it has on actual criminals is that it disarms their potential victims. I don't see how gun regulation is the solution to people not following the law in the first place and killing other people with illegally obtained fire arms.[/QUOTE] For every person who obtains a gun illegally on the black market, there will be plenty who don't know how, or know how but are afraid of getting caught, who could otherwise just walk into a gun store and buy a handgun.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50527588]seriously? Also the whole problem with gun regulation is that the only affect it has on actual criminals is that it disarms their potential victims. I don't see how gun regulation is the solution to people not following the law in the first place and killing other people with illegally obtained fire arms.[/QUOTE] You do realise that most illegally purchased firearms are just from another place in the US where they can be legally purchased right? Just look at Chicago [url]https://m.mic.com/articles/127842/this-is-how-chicago-gets-flooded-with-illegal-guns#.NTQzx3nxS[/url]

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527644]I partially agree with you; "The guns aren't the sole cause of the problem". I however believe they make it easier to commit murders and suicides. I'm interesting in seeing how this will be solved in the future. I'm not going to pretend I know how to solve this, but I'm sure the solution will be one you won't like.[/QUOTE] of course they make it easier to do those things it's easier to murder someone with a chainsaw than with a teaspoon, we haven't banned chainsaws because like guns they have many other valid, legal and morally acceptable applications people who are motivated to commit crimes will commit them with or without guns. they key is to minimize that impulse while maximizing liberties for everyone who is on the right side of the law. clearly guns can be legal and plentiful without an associated crime epidemic, so a gun ban is a heavy handed "solution" that only affects people who were going to follow the law anyway. killers will still kill - if they can illegally acquire a gun (and they will be able to) they will use that; if not they will use a knife or a car or a hammer or a bomb. maybe with different tools they will be less successful, but i don't see how that's [I]really[/I] an improvement, because they will still be motivated to commit crimes by other factors and may or may not succeed. by and large the impulse to commit crimes can be addressed and then there's no reason to take away things that they could use to commit them with from people who wouldn't have committed crimes anyway.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527628]norway has 31.3 guns per person[/QUOTE] Just a quick correction, it's [I]per 100 person[/I]. Still pretty high, ranking as the 10'th country in guns per capita.

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;50527690]You do realise that most illegally purchased firearms are just from another place in the US where they can be legally purchased right? Just look at Chicago [url]https://m.mic.com/articles/127842/this-is-how-chicago-gets-flooded-with-illegal-guns#.NTQzx3nxS[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah it's almost like Chicago has a gang violence problem that they should be addressing and not a gun problem. If the rest Illinois is so lax in their gun laws, doesn't it seem pretty interesting that they're no where near the gun problems that Chicago has? The guns aren't the problem here, the gangs are.

Okay but a spoon and chainsaw weren't created for the purpose of humans and other animals. [QUOTE=paul simon;50527738]Just a quick correction, it's [I]per 100 person[/I]. Still pretty high, ranking as the 10'th country in guns per capita.[/QUOTE] Aren't they required to be locked in a safe at all times unless obviously when being used? Or am I thinking another country here..