Yeah, like I said - Some are calling for a vote to allow the government to use a secret blacklist to deny people constitutionally protected rights. Please read what the ACLU has said about this. It’s a terrible idea to use secret non-judicial lists to take away people’s rights. The 'no-fly" list is a capricious bit of nonsense. There are many people on the list for merely having similar name as a suspected terrorist.
8 Likes
Indeed, the whole “government shutdown” thing, while completely absurd, at least followed some sort of established procedure. But a sit-in? I can hardly deny this is an important issue, but this may only pave the way for something similar to happen with someone else’s “important issue”.
Seriously. The Democrats put forth a terrible proposal, and they accused the GOP of “selling weapons to ISIS” (Sen. Warren’s words, not mine) when the GOP refused to vote for it, and now they’re breaking procedure and acting all heroic about it. Bastards.
2 Likes
Every day, in most legislatures, there are ideas put forth by a faction of the membership that don’t come to a vote. Especially when the ideas are dodgy. Only occasionally does this prompt an emotional outburst, and it’s equally silly when my side does it as when the other side does it.
(edited to correct a glaring braino)
1 Like
Even Gawker gets it.
3 Likes
You know what would get that secret blacklist fixed? Using it to deny people the right to buy guns. I say it kills two birds with one stone.
I agree that the list is horrible and shouldn’t be used for the purpose of preventing people from purchasing guns. I also am sick of people dying in mass quantities killed by people with guns that can shoot a lot of bullets really fast. So I applaud the sit-in to bring attention to the issue, I am just disappointed that it is directed enough off topic to be as ineffective as everything else that has been tried.
3 Likes
I’m almost certain that that was the point.
1 Like
I’m a Democrat but would wholeheartedly agree that my party often proposes bills that are - shall we say - poorly thought out. That’s why we have multiple parties. The Republicans should counter with their ideas, there should be some arguing and negotiating, and some compromise bill that’s better than either partisan bill should emerge.
Unfortunately, the current Republican solution to gun violence along with a whole host of other topics is to shrug their shoulders. When they do occasionally propose solutions, they’re just crippled versions of the Democrats’ solutions. So we’re forced to choose between a flawed plan and no plan.
6 Likes
Personally, “watch lists” of any kind roil my bowels.
Probable cause presented to a judge, for a limited time, and dropped if there is not enough evidence to either deport or go to trial.
If this attempt to tie gun rights to a bad list causes the whole list system to be questioned, I’m for it.
6 Likes
I agree that the secret list is a bad idea and they should be ended. However, I don’t think that pushing for a vote is bad. The republicans have spent their time in congress being nothing but obstructionists. They refuse to work across the aisle, to take anything the president says seriously, or treat their colleagues with anything approaching respect. While I dislike the one bill which includes the watchlist and I agree it needs to go down in flames, the current stalemate needs to end. I’m sick of nothing getting done, considering everything that needs to get done. The GOP won’t even TALK about this stuff.
When you can’t get shit done by the normal means, this works (just go look at history) - sometimes forms of protest are literally all you have. Have you not seen congress for the past 8 years? The GOP treats those who don’t agree with them with less than contempt and they refuse to allow the Dems access to the PROCESS to which they’ve been elected.
This is frustration from 8 years of obstructionism. 8 years that they’ve been screaming about and praying for the death of the black president.
4 Likes
2 of the 4 Senate gun control bills that failed to get 60 votes on Monday were sponsored by Republicans.
2 Likes
FWIW, Pelosi wants a vote on two bills. One is the watch list, which I agree is crap. The other is expanding background checks. Were the watch list to pass (which it couldn’t), it would be struck down by the courts quickly. Expanded background checks could have stopped some past mass shooters from getting guns the way they did. Getting hung up on one of the bills is fine if that’s your biggest concern, but in the end it’s all political theater since the bills already died in the Senate, and the concern over the watch lists is not really that strong an argument over them pressing the issue in a protest IMO. YMMV.
I’m not going to complain too loudly about the Dems. pressing for expanded background checks, even if they also want a dumb watchlist that would be struck quickly if passed.
5 Likes
I, a gun owner, might actually support this if they were doing it about something sensible and legal. But their action is idiotic and blatantly unConstitional.
They’re pissed off because they didn’t get action on an amendment that would make it illegal for someone on the no-fly list to buy a gun. So the people who make our laws are pissed because they couldn’t pass an unConstitutional law that is based on an unConstitutional security list. They want to be able to deprive American citizens of their rights based on a measure which deprives them of their rights without due process. They want to be able to subject American citizens to a punishment which is usually part of being convicted of a felony, and they want to be able to do that based on a measure which categorizes people WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. They want to be able to hand out felony-level punishments to American citizens WITH NO COURT ACTION OF ANY KIND AT ANY LEVEL.
I would rather live in a world where I’m at risk from random nut shooters than to live in a world where Congress can get away with passing laws that say I can be handed a felony-level punishment with no trial, hell - with no indictment, based entirely on some faceless, nameless DHS clerk’s reading my name wrong. I can take measures to protect myself from random nut shooters. Other than moving to a desert island, I can’t take measures to protect myself from the malice or incompetence of Civil Service goons.
2 Likes
I think we all need to step back and realize they aren’t conducting the sit-in to pass a bill, they are doing it to have a symbolic vote counted. Just as the R’s in the House voted scores of times to repeal Obama-care to say to their districts, “Hey Look, I voted against that.” This would be a vote for the Dems to say “Look I tried to control guns!” and also, "The Republicans voted against ‘common-sense’ gun control."
As a mostly moderate independent It makes me sick to see the blatant tribalism on both sides.
2 Likes
Yes, watered down versions of the two Democrat bills.
1 Like
The Senate police would have no power in the House of Representatives.
1 Like
Marshals: Innocent People Placed On ‘Watch List’ To Meet Quota
Air Marshals Say They Must File One Surveillance Detection Report, Or SDR, Per Month
1 Like
The problem is that each party is playing to its base.
Republicans will never propose a solution that doesn’t hassle black youths in Chicago. Democrats will never propose a solution that doesn’t hassle old white guys in Iowa.
Repeating that, because Duckworth totally is.
3 Likes
I think there’s value in rallying the opposition, framing the issue and pushing coverage of the racist GOP nominee’s speech out of the news.
1 Like
