• Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor over gun control
    113 replies, posted
democrats hate bills republicans make even if they're a near duplicate of the other sides bill, and vice versa. two party politics at work
[QUOTE=elfbarf;50567662]They're doing it because the majority of Americans are in favor of additional gun control measures (generally dealing with background checks) yet the GOP seems to care more about the NRA backing them than the wishes of their constituents.[/QUOTE] For real. The Democrats finally stand up for something
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50567731]What the hell happened to the Democrats? Used to be they were inspiring some big changes like Weed Legalization and decriminalization and gay marriage rights. Now they're acting like fucking children?[/QUOTE] Protesting gross governmental inaction in the face of a national crisis is for children, you're right. The really important, and significantly more adult-like, issue congress should be debating right now is whether or not I should be allowed to blaze it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568775]Except the NRA directly injected their politics into it by specifically banning them from talking about firearms. How in the hell is it acceptable that the CDC is actively pressured by the NRA and has its research scrutinised before it is allowed to be published? It's fucking incredible to argue that the CDC is injecting politics into it when they are subject to massive political inference. Nobody in the scientific community thinks that the claims of it being biased are reason to defund it.[/quote] Where in what you posted did it say the NRA would prohibit them from posting the study if they didn't like it? If I recall, it said they sent the study to the NRA as a courtesy prior to publication, not as a requirement for publication. And the claim that "nobody" thinks defunding it due to politics is bad is more ridiculous, because how the hell do you know? Just because you think it's stupid doesn't mean literally every researcher on the planet does too. [quote]But it's had a massive chilling effect on the research. They have effectively no budget to use, and as such cannot actually study gun violence in any meaningful capacity. Have you even read their studies? It's just insanely hypocritical that by proclaiming to defend one freedom, another is brutally trampled upon by preventing people from talking about it. The first amendment is just as important as the second, if not moreso.[/quote] They have released some studies on the topic actually, so no, it's not like they have produced literally no studies about guns since the '90s, including one commissioned by Obama. Know what it concluded? That there is no evidence that additional gun control would benefit the US. And arguably their deliberate attempts at propaganda in the '90s are more concerning in regards to the first amendment than telling them to stop producing propaganda, because of the position of trust they were put into. [quote]You ignored the fact that I can't find the original statement by the U.S. Public Health Service which reputedly said this.[/QUOTE] Here's a citation from a study on the topic: [url]http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf[/url] [quote]In 1979 the American public health community adopted the "objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000. 3[/quote] [quote]3 LOIS A. FINGERHUT & JOEL C. KLEINMAN, U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS., FIREARM MORTALITY AMONG CHILDREN AND YOUTH, 178 ADVANCE DATA 1 (1989). Significantly, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) firearms specialist Lois Fingerhut adds: "The data presented in this report underscore these concerns." Id. at 6. Without substantial exaggeration, they could have added that CDC publications on firearms can be reviewed, as they will be herein, without ever finding analysis of data leading to any other conclusion. See also U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, HEALTHY PEOPLE:THE SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT ON HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION—BACKGROUND PAPERS 18, 64-67, 464-65 (1979).[/quote] And do not get pedantic about the fact that the Forbes article got the name of the CDC's parent agency wrong (it's the HHS, not the PHS), their point was still the same and is corroborated by this quote with source. And while this is a Second Amendment Foundation funded group, this analysis by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership cites its findings to support its claims everywhere it can that the CDC and public health advocates in general were and arguably still are pushing a deliberate agenda of gun control with no regards for objectivity in research: [url]https://drgo.us/?p=266[/url] [url]https://drgo.us/?p=285[/url]
[QUOTE=CG-105;50569332]Protesting gross governmental inaction in the face of a national crisis is for children, you're right.[/QUOTE] [I]The Democrats shot down 2 gun control bills because they did not like them, and are now complaining that no gun control bills were passed.[/I] It's very childish.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50569924][I]The Democrats shot down 2 gun control bills because they did not like them, and are now complaining that no gun control bills were passed.[/I] It's very childish.[/QUOTE] You can't look at the Republican bills and say they are substantively the same to the Democratic bills. It's not childish for bills not to pass when both sides of a two-party house of legislation don't like either. That's how the system works.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50569924][I]The Democrats shot down 2 gun control bills because they did not like them, and are now complaining that no gun control bills were passed.[/I] It's very childish.[/QUOTE] there were poison pills in each of the bills from both sides. Fundimentally the republicans argue that the justice department shouldn't handle whether someone on the "banned" lists can petition them, they believe that should be the pervue of state courts, while i can't exactly find any counter arguments about closing the background check loopholes other than it wouldn't have prevented the orlando shooting (not to say it couldn't prevent [I]other[/I] shootings though) its more that they didn't pass [I]any[/I] amendments which could have been consolidated before being ratified and the republicans voted solidly along party lines
DaCommie1 already replied with everything I was digging up, but: [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50568775]I don't see why it being the CDC should preclude it from studying the topic.[/QUOTE]What part of "there are other organizations already doing what you're proposing and actually have some relevant experience" don't you understand? I never said the CDC shouldn't, I said others are already doing it; these are not the same thing Sobotnik. Do I need to bring out CTRL+B again? [QUOTE]Nobody in the scientific community thinks that the claims of it being biased are reason to defund it.[/QUOTE]Who in the scientific community is calling out for it? Political bias is the antithesis of even the most basic application of the scientific method, so I'm going to have to call bullshit and ask for a citation. I want notable, respected scientists too, don't give me some retarded quack who thinks the planet is six thousand years old. Oh and not only that but it's [I]doctors[/I] who are asking for that and yes, there are [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2016/06/22/why-i-dont-trust-government-backed-gun-violence-research/#7706cc5d67a3]some doctors[/url] who think it's [url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/health/cdc-frieden-gun-research/]bad to have a political slant.[/url] [QUOTE]But it's had a massive chilling effect on the research. They have effectively no budget to use, and as such cannot actuallblah blah etc etc[/QUOTE]"What is 'internal policy' for $500, Alex." [QUOTE]It's just insanely hypocritical that by proclaiming to defend one freedom, another is brutally trampled upon by preventing people from talking about it. The first amendment is just as important as the second, if not moreso.[/QUOTE][I]"Hahaha in the other thread I saw you were super about the 2nd Amendment so I'm going to try and use that against you, despite the fact that I said repeatedly that gun ownership is just a hobby and it's stupid. Please don't notice that I've invalidated my own argument by drawing a parallel between these two amendments, which would also mean the 1st Amendment is equally stupid and pointless if you were to follow my own words."[/I] Ignoring the dumb "gotcha" aspect of this retarded appeal to emotion, I've got to point out that the CDC has no 1st Amendment rights. We've already talked about how the CDC is not at all banned from research, just banned from putting a political slant on it which is the de facto standard for any credible, peer-reviewed research available; nobody will take any article seriously if it has an agenda and they shouldn't. They do teach science across the pond, right? How did you not know this? [url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/gun-control-study-flawed-researchers]Here's an example of biased research being scoffed at,[/url] it's not at all a good thing to undermine your credibility [I]and the credibility of the entire government[/I] (remember, the CDC represents the federal government!) by tacking on politics to something that should be pure science. [QUOTE]You ignored the fact that I can't find the original statement by the U.S. Public Health Service which reputedly said this.[/QUOTE]I didn't ignore it, I'm well aware you're sandbagging. I just chose not to call you out on it, it's not relevant.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50570162]DaCommie1 already replied with everything I was digging up, but: "What is 'internal policy' for $500, Alex." [/QUOTE] not to nit-pick, but unfunded research is research that's not going to happen. California just established a gun-research center using their databases and a 5 mill annual budget, but even they estimate that it is simply not enough. it doesn't matter if internal policy says they won't do that research, the law says they cannot pay for that research so nobody is going to do that research
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50568048]Are you voting for people that aren't actual manchildren?[/QUOTE] Not really possible when the only options on the ballot are actual manchildren. A lot of people around here like to say 'get out and vote you can change it', but that's just not true. You can't change the system by voting if every single tickbox on that computer screen is a slightly differently colored turd shat out of the same exact asshole that shat out the fuckhead we're trying to get rid of in the first place. Incumbent is a corrupt shitlord, opponent A is a corrupt shitlord, opponent B is a corrupt shitlord, opponent C is a corrupt shitlord, opponent D is a lunatic who wears a traffic cone for a hat. GLHF trying to 'vote change in' from that ballot...and don't even think about mentioning write-ins, they only work if you can convince a mass swath of people to write the same person in. That's something you'll never do in this day and age.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50570183]not to nit-pick, but unfunded research is research that's not going to happen. California just established a gun-research center using their databases and a 5 mill annual budget, but even they estimate that it is simply not enough. it doesn't matter if internal policy says they won't do that research, the law says they cannot pay for that research so nobody is going to do that research[/QUOTE]Fair point, but there's so many political groups out there willing to fund research all it would take is for any number of them to reach out and go, "well we could cut the bullshit, let's see what science says." I can fault the NRA for not doing this too, but none of that changes the fact that the CDC is not banned from doing any research nor does it mean that nobody is doing any research. I don't know why Sobotnik has such a raging hard-on for the CDC studying this anyway. Truly if the NRA, Brady Center, and whoever the hell else got together and nicely asked Congress to earmark funds for gun violence research in the CDC budget then that's what it would take to get research to happen again. What is banned is the CDC having a gun control agenda, and I'm not even sure why the CDC having [U]any[/U] agenda is seen as a good thing by anyone. As said before: that's not science, that's propaganda.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50570215]Not really possible when the only options on the ballot are actual manchildren. A lot of people around here like to say 'get out and vote you can change it', but that's just not true. You can't change the system by voting if every single tickbox on that computer screen is a slightly differently colored turd shat out of the same exact asshole that shat out the fuckhead we're trying to get rid of in the first place. Incumbent is a corrupt shitlord, opponent A is a corrupt shitlord, opponent B is a corrupt shitlord, opponent C is a corrupt shitlord, opponent D is a lunatic who wears a traffic cone for a hat. GLHF trying to 'vote change in' from that ballot...and don't even think about mentioning write-ins, they only work if you can convince a mass swath of people to write the same person in. That's something you'll never do in this day and age.[/QUOTE] You can make change and elect the people you want elected, it's just going to be really hard to get your man in 2016 if you realize by late 2015 that he is your man. Get invested in the system, support local progressives, work on electing Congressional representatives in the house and senate, then maybe next time you have a bigger base to work with. That Sanders got as much support as he did is a testament to the popularity of his message but you aren't going to achieve the victories you want by waiting until the proverbial last second then burying your head in the sand complaining about corruption for the next four years.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50570296]Fair point, but there's so many political groups out there willing to fund research all it would take is for any number of them to reach out and go, "well we could cut the bullshit, let's see what science says." I can fault the NRA for not doing this too, but none of that changes the fact that the CDC is not banned from doing any research nor does it mean that nobody is doing any research. I don't know why Sobotnik has such a raging hard-on for the CDC studying this anyway. Truly if the NRA, Brady Center, and whoever the hell else got together and nicely asked Congress to earmark funds for gun violence research in the CDC budget then that's what it would take to get research to happen again. What is banned is the CDC having a gun control agenda, and I'm not even sure why the CDC having [U]any[/U] agenda is seen as a good thing by anyone. As said before: that's not science, that's propaganda.[/QUOTE] No, political groups do fund research it's just statistics are a goddamn mess for guns (I wonder why...) only the CDC would have the actual authority to clear up the confusion in reporting data. Basically right now the only requirement is to report a number from each state every incident where a gun was present, regardless of self defense, assault, murder, or suicide and many states refuse to do more than that, so we get a pointless number now. CDC research grants would fund local research and so on to get more differentiated data and such, but they are also barred from taking outside funds by law
[QUOTE=Sableye;50570383]No, political groups do fund research it's just statistics are a goddamn mess for guns (I wonder why...) only the CDC would have the actual authority to clear up the confusion in reporting data.[/QUOTE]There's nothing preventing them from doing that aside from internal policy, they're just banned from [I]specifically[/I] having an anti-gun agenda. Statistics are fine, the only confusion is deliberate misinformation and skewing of results (Mother Jones, VPC, etc) which is easily combated with proper citing and research. Personally I find it easier to convince people to at least giving up about all of it because the numbers are almost always on my side, which is why constant appeals to emotion and other dirty tricks are par for the course when dealing with gun control advocates. I have my own of course, arguing for individual rights is itself an appeal to emotion, but I've gone around this bush so many times that when I see some bullshit figure thrown out I can figure out where it came from. I've noticed that the dialogue of gun control has shifted far away from arguing with numbers in the past few years, I think that's interesting.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50570456]There's nothing preventing them from doing that aside from internal policy, they're just banned from [I]specifically[/I] having an anti-gun agenda. Statistics are fine, the only confusion is deliberate misinformation and skewing of results (Mother Jones, VPC, etc) which is easily combated with proper citing and research. Personally I find it easier to convince people to at least giving up about all of it because the numbers are almost always on my side, which is why constant appeals to emotion and other dirty tricks are par for the course when dealing with gun control advocates. I have my own of course, arguing for individual rights is itself an appeal to emotion, but I've gone around this bush so many times that when I see some bullshit figure thrown out I can figure out where it came from. I've noticed that the dialogue of gun control has shifted far away from arguing with numbers in the past few years, I think that's interesting.[/QUOTE] Again you're making the internal policy thing out to be the issue. They can't allocate funds to gun research period because if it looks like it runs afoul of the exact language (which is very vague) then there will be a congressional investigation and more, so the policy is because they can't garuntee safety of their researchers they won't fund any research and even then the language is so vague that you can rightfully argue any research by the CDC will have an anti-gun agenda because the cold statistics from Europe, Australia and elsewhere show less guns does equal less gun related deaths in those countries
[QUOTE=Rep, John Lewis (D-Georgia)]"We have been too quiet for too long. There comes a time when you have to say something. You have to make a little noise. You have to move your feet. This is the time. Now is the time to get in the way."[/QUOTE] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013[/URL]
[QUOTE=Chonch;50571703][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013[/URL][/QUOTE] This is quite a bit different, as in the whole government isn't shut down just the house
Bullshit. These people are holding the legislative branch of our government hostage in order to push their partisan agenda. Save for its working effect on the average citizen, it is exactly the same. The intent is exactly the same. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] At least the Republicans had the decency to [I]actively [/I]stall the political process. These old fucks are just sitting around.
Sitting around on your ass doing nothing and getting tax payer money in the process. Sounds like Democrats.
Are you actually watching the stream? They are not doing nothing. It is a very active and energetic protest. I can't stop watching. The speeches of each of the Democrats are bright and inspiring and emotional. All they want is a vote that will certainly fail. Why not let them? I just teared up at Debbie Dingell's speech, holy shit. It's not even remotely close to "sitting around on your ass doing nothing" [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] It is WAY too easy to block bills in Congress. There is no good reason this bill should not be voted on. The fact the Republicans have a majority should be enough of a firewall for them. Why not let them vote?
[QUOTE=Chonch;50571884]Bullshit. These people are holding the legislative branch of our government hostage in order to push their partisan agenda. Save for its working effect on the average citizen, it is exactly the same. The intent is exactly the same. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] At least the Republicans had the decency to [I]actively [/I]stall the political process. These old fucks are just sitting around.[/QUOTE] Except the federal government is in absolutely no danger of being shut down over this. So no they're not actually comparable at all.
[QUOTE=person11;50572173]Are you actually watching the stream? They are not doing nothing. It is a very active and energetic protest. I can't stop watching. The speeches of each of the Democrats are bright and inspiring and emotional. All they want is a vote that will certainly fail. Why not let them? I just teared up at Debbie Dingell's speech, holy shit. It's not even remotely close to "sitting around on your ass doing nothing" [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] It is WAY too easy to block bills in Congress. There is no good reason this bill should not be voted on. The fact the Republicans have a majority should be enough of a firewall for them. Why not let them vote?[/QUOTE] Because they're being fueled by emotion of recent events rather than rationality.
[url]https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/745805917501874176[/url] Not sure how to embed, but this sums it up. Note: there is no chance of any bill passing. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50572211]Because they're being fueled by emotion of recent events rather than rationality.[/QUOTE] they have a rational argument behind why gun control works (in their opinions) you may disagree with them, but they are not irrational emotional people who refuse to look at facts at this point both modes of thought are backed up by endless contradictory research i could say that conservatives are being irrational in protecting guns in not allowing a vote, and it would be just as true/untrue as what you are saying
lol 'civil rights heroes'
John Lewis, yeah [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] although I am not sure he is there anymore i suppose the fact he Started it matters though [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] It's of huge symbolic importance that Lewis started a sit-in, since it was by staging sit-ins that he began his long political career.
[QUOTE=person11;50572213] they have a rational argument behind why gun control works (in their opinions) you may disagree with them, but they are not irrational emotional people who refuse to look at facts at this point both modes of thought are backed up by endless contradictory research[/quote] They want to pass laws damning people on suspicion alone from buying weapons that statistically do not commit the majority of crimes in the US. There is no rationality in that. [QUOTE=person11;50572213]i could say that conservatives are being irrational in protecting guns in not allowing a vote, and it would be just as true/untrue as what you are saying[/QUOTE] There was a vote. For 4 bills. They ALL were shot down. By BOTH parties.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50572198]Except the federal government is in absolutely no danger of being shut down over this. So no they're not actually comparable at all.[/QUOTE] Read the post at more than a superficial level and try again. These people have effectively shut down the legislative branch of the government. Just because a million people don't lose their jobs over an act doesn't mean it isn't morally reprehensible. These two scenarios are absolutely comparable because the intent is the same: impairing the democratic foundations of our government in order to get a cheap shot at a hot issue. If Republicans had pulled this same shit over the Affordable Care Act, liberals would be foaming at the mouth.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50572238]Read the post at more than a superficial level and try again. These people have effectively shut down the legislative branch of the government. This is on-par if not worse than any gridlock the Republicans have caused. It is absolutely comparable because the intent is the same: impairing the democratic foundations of our government in order to get a cheap shot at a hot issue. If Republicans had pulled this same shit over the Affordable Care Act, liberals would be foaming at the mouth.[/QUOTE] Except the Speaker of the House as the ability to forceably remove them from the floor if needed, thus ending this charade at any time.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50572228]They want to pass laws damning people on suspicion alone from buying weapons that statistically do not commit the majority of crimes in the US. There is no rationality in that. There was a vote. For 4 bills. They ALL were shot down. By BOTH parties.[/QUOTE] 1. a lot of Democrats mentioned that they want to add a due process system to the watch list while including the no purchasing guns provision. this is in the interests of democrats, as anyone could argue that being put on the watch list and getting your purchasing ability for guns taken away would effectively take their second amendment away without due process. the supreme court would have a field day with that. and im not sure if the statistic of which weapons are used most in crimes is relevant. a Democrat would probably argue that absolute numbers of gun crimes matters more than percent of all weapons used in crimes. they may also argue that crime rates with guns between countries is a good indicator. 2. that was in the senate, the house wants a vote too, even with the result predetermined it's an important step, because it allows individuals to record their ideological preferences and to openly debate the bill on the floor ** I am not trying to have a direct argument with you here, as I am not informed enough about gun control research to counter your points. I am just arguing that a lot of arguments used in this forum thread could easily be reversed and used by the opposite side, resulting in the echo chamber of useless yelling that is our gun control debate today. Also arguing that this protest is not the worst thing in the world, and that a vote would do no harm. I know the Republicans did something similar over offshore oil drilling. I don't like offshore oil drilling, but I would have said to Pelosi back then what I am saying to Ryan now: just let the vote happen as the results are predictable and further protest may work in protesters favor.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50572245]Except the Speaker of the House as the ability to forceably remove them from the floor if needed, thus ending this charade at any time.[/QUOTE] How is that any manner of exception? The possibility of punishment does not immediately free them of wrongdoing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.