Democrats are staging a sit-in on the House floor over gun control
113 replies, posted
[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]
It looks like Republicans are attempting a parliamentary procedure to adjourn until July 5th.
[editline]22nd June 2016[/editline]
House cameras are back on.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50572308]How is that any manner of exception? The possibility of punishment does not immediately free them of wrongdoing.[/QUOTE]
I was responding to them possibly "shutting down the government" with this sit-in.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=person11;50572288]
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. [/quote]
They want to ban "assault weapons" while pistols are what are used in majority of gun related crimes.
[QUOTE=person11;50572288]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
[/QUOTE]
Just because they're in the House and not the Senate doesn't mean they're not part of the party that helped shoot down 2 bills in Congress.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50572356]I was responding to them possibly "shutting down the government" with this sit-in.[/QUOTE]
If the bill at stake were some sort of budget or spending bill, then yes, it just might. However, that wasn't the type of comparison I was trying to make. Sorry for misunderstanding you.
1. ah sorry for the misunderstanding. since their sit-in does not mention an assault weapons ban (per your quotes, i agree with you that that term needs to be better defined than a list of specific guns, I would say any gun that is not a shotgun or a hunting rifle, but that is my own opinion based on no data at all), assumed you meant guns vs other weapons for crimes and tried to reason that out. if there were to be a ban, handguns would logically have to be considered, yes.
2. they wanted to personally vote on it, regardless of how it went down in the Senate. they are not doing this with hopes of winning any votes, they just want a vote to happen
[QUOTE=person11;50572419] they are not doing this with hopes of winning any votes, they just want a vote to happen[/QUOTE]
This is called wasting taxpayer money and time.
In case nobody has seen it yet, here is the impassioned speech Rep. Lewis (D-Georgia) gave immediately preceding the start of the sit-in.
[video=youtube;EZq2F9LcUrI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZq2F9LcUrI[/video]
The man is a rather persuasive speaker, that's for sure.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50571562]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[/QUOTE]Uh, the language is pretty clear and the best way to avoid this is to not come up with conjecture with the data and stick to the facts. Saying "well guns are good because x crime dropped" or "gun control would have helped here because of y reasons" are examples of that, stating the facts plainly using the available data wouldn't run them afoul of even the most vague language.
[QUOTE]so the policy is because they can't garuntee safety of their researchers they won't fund any research[/QUOTE]"The internal policy isn't the issue for a lack of research, but there's a lack of research because of internal policy."
Uh?
[QUOTE]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]Oh so we're including other countries into this. Why doesn't Switzerland count? Canada? France? Austria? Finland? Hell, all of Scandinavia? I just shot down your argument by listing off countries with high per capita gun ownership and none of the associated problems we supposedly face. Really it seems like a fucking retarded argument to make that "more guns = more problems" when that's clearly not the case for many countries, or are you trying to say there's a gun violence problem in Canada, Sweden, and Switzerland as well?
If this is the kind of bullshit research you're expecting me to swallow then no thanks, it can stay "banned."
[QUOTE=person11;50572288]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. [/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm just not in the right circles but I haven't heard any Democrats acknowledge that the no-fly list violates due process. In fact, the Republican proposal which suspends a gun purchase by someone on the list for three days, during which the Attorney General can extend that indefinitely by filing a court order and providing a system for appeal, was shot down by something like all but one Democrats.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50573681]Maybe I'm just not in the right circles but I haven't heard any Democrats acknowledge that the no-fly list violates due process. In fact, the Republican proposal which suspends a gun purchase by someone on the list for three days, during which the Attorney General can extend that indefinitely by filing a court order and providing a system for appeal, was shot down by something like all but one Democrats.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why they wouldn't like this...All it's doing is stopping someone on the lists from buying guns , but first making sure you actually belong on the list in the first place before making the ban permanent.
[QUOTE=person11;50567750]When did sit-ins and protests suddenly become childish? A lot of good has been accomplished by stunts like this.
I guess they only look good in retrospect, especially if it's successful.[/QUOTE]
Protesting in general is rarely loved unless it happened in the past, and was successful.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50573681]Maybe I'm just not in the right circles but I haven't heard any Democrats acknowledge that the no-fly list violates due process. In fact, the Republican proposal which suspends a gun purchase by someone on the list for three days, during which the Attorney General can extend that indefinitely by filing a court order and providing a system for appeal, was shot down by something like all but one Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Some of the Democrats said in their speeches that they were willing to work with Republicans to fix the no fly list if it meant also banning gun purchases for those on the list. They then said this could only happen if they allowed the vote.
I'm completely sure the rest of the Democrats who didn't mention this would agree. To disagree would be to doom all of their efforts.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50572525]This is called wasting taxpayer money and time.[/QUOTE]
Getting a vote is an important procedural step despite the predetermined result. It allows open debate and discussion and a few other perks.
Also, almost all effective protests can be framed the way you frame it. If you regulate protests to the point of not wasting or damaging anything, it gets to a point where they can be easily ignored, by which point it's useless.
It's tough to acknowledge. I was stuck in traffic for hours in Paris because of a general strike once, and it was hard to not get angry. When I look back on it though, I saw that it was a successful gambit and the protesters ended up getting consessions from the government.
[editline]23rd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Levithan;50574432]Protesting in general is rarely loved unless it happened in the past, and was successful.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Nobody loved the MLK protests until recently. They definitely said the same negative things about those sit ins at the time.
I thought Democrats were initially against the No fly list based on the fact that the criteria were unknown and questionable. Why is it now acceptable when it suits their needs?
[QUOTE=person11;50574582]Some of the Democrats said in their speeches that they were willing to work with Republicans to fix the no fly list if it meant also banning gun purchases for those on the list. They then said this could only happen if they allowed the vote.
I'm completely sure the rest of the Democrats who didn't mention this would agree. To disagree would be to doom all of their efforts.[/QUOTE]
But they voted that bill down... That bill was one of the 4 proposals, and none of them made it through because the Democrats were being too harsh, but refused to settle for anything less. So now we have nothing instead of at least the 2 Republican proposals, which would have at least made the system more strict than currently.
Our representatives are an embarrassment. Sitting on the floor cross legged and Tweeting about change, incredible. These idiots already got to vote on 4 bills and they failed. Give it up, nobody wants your knee jerk bullshit.
[QUOTE=person11;50574582]Some of the Democrats said in their speeches that they were willing to work with Republicans to fix the no fly list if it meant also banning gun purchases for those on the list. They then said this could only happen if they allowed the vote. [/QUOTE]
'Agree with us to disregard due process and perhaps we'll start talking about getting due process back' isn't the way these things should work. If they want to use the No-Fly list to restrict rights, then first they need to figure out how they're going to fix the No-Fly list and put that on the bill too. Even if it's as simple as stipulating an appeals process, there has to be in documentation a legal guarantee that due process will be respected, not just a promise to do it in the future. They rejected the Republican proposals that included due process, and pushed Feinstein's which made no effort to address that issue.
I agree they need to talk more about reforming the No Fly List. It's kinda bullshit.
This is really unfortunate.
[QUOTE=person11;50574582]
Getting a vote is an important procedural step despite the predetermined result. It allows open debate and discussion and a few other perks.
Also, almost all effective protests can be framed the way you frame it. If you regulate protests to the point of not wasting or damaging anything, it gets to a point where they can be easily ignored, by which point it's useless.
It's tough to acknowledge. I was stuck in traffic for hours in Paris because of a general strike once, and it was hard to not get angry. When I look back on it though, I saw that it was a successful gambit and the protesters ended up getting consessions from the government.
[/QUOTE]
A mass of people outside of the capital protesting is fine.
But when you're actually in the government, actually in Congress and have the actual ability to create laws and change and then do this, you're wasting time and money.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50575213]A mass of people outside of the capital protesting is fine.
But when you're actually in the government, actually in Congress and have the actual ability to create laws and change and then do this, you're wasting time and money.[/QUOTE]
...not really. If the processes INSIDE the government are causing zero progress to be made (which it clearly is, very little of worth gets passed because neither party can actually agree on anything and the Republicans currently have a majority in both House and Senate, so there's entirely a deadlock). Then protesting is the only real option left.
What are you gonna do? Pass legislation to prevent constant deadlocks in a system using that currently deadlocked system? I mean, you're happy to try. But it's fucking deadlocked so gg.
They are still citizens of your country, they just happen to be in the job of legislating law. They are still allowed to protest wherever the fuck they want or see fit.
I'm surprised they got a bipartisan amendment proposal so fast.
edit: oh god Susan Collins just called the no fly list carefully crafted
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50575463]...not really. If the processes INSIDE the government are causing zero progress to be made (which it clearly is, very little of worth gets passed because neither party can actually agree on anything and the Republicans currently have a majority in both House and Senate, so there's entirely a deadlock). Then protesting is the only real option left.[/QUOTE]Or maybe don't shoot down four proposed bills? Especially if one is something even a lot of pro-gun people can agree with?
These retards have nothing to do with what goes on in the Senate anyway, they do actually have power to do something in their own assembly though but instead they sat down in a huff.
not to dump the election on this, but with the democrats basically showing how the republicans have been the obstructionists for too long, this will undoubtedly affect their turnout in the coming election
[QUOTE=Sableye;50578146]not to dump the election on this, but with the democrats basically showing how the republicans have been the obstructionists for too long, this will undoubtedly affect their turnout in the coming election[/QUOTE]... Except they're not being "obstructionists" and the bipartisan bill comes from a Republican.
to be honest both sides are obstructionists and have been increasingly so
about fifty years ago there was a massive overlap between the two parties because they were much looser, less ideological, and generally agreed on more
now it's the case that they're drifted leftward and rightward respectively to the point that there are very few in both parties that can actually agree on anything - and as a result are basically unable to do much of the work of government since they always come to an impasse. it's a natural feature of political systems much like the american one (typically in other systems modelled off the american one once the two main political parties can't agree on anything the president either begins morphing into a dictator or one of the two parties start appealing to the army to overthrow the other)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.