Watch live: Senate Democrats filibustering for gun control


#1

[Read the post]


#2

If this means that the fedgov will pass fewer bits of legislation, I’m all for filibuster 24x7.


#3

Go, dems! Roll 'em!!


#4

well, awesome. where were all these senators BEFORE now??


#5

I’m waiting for the Repubs to start whining that the Dems are breaking the law and that they can’t do that and that the rules need to be changed to stop things from happening like this again (the filibuster, not gun control. We already know where the GOP stands with that).


#6

I think that’s the exact opposite of the point. Having had eight years of do-nothing, obstructionist, pointless Congresses, I applaud the Dems here for holding the floor to get something passed.


#7

If this goes on for a few more hours they’ll have to pause for another post-mass shooting moment of silence.


#8

Typical Democrat party, trying to shred the Constitution that was handed down to us by the Founding Fathers of Our Great Nation, the Founding Fathers, while defiantly and treasonously standing against the Will of the People to do nothing in the face of gun violence!


#9

No need for a children’s book. Just read the list of Americans killed by guns this year.


#10

Too bad the something they’re trying to pass doesn’t work, addresses a tiny portion of gun crimes, is centered around the racist, error-filled, unconstitutional terror watchlistand, and isn’t even a priority for gun control groups.


#11

They are trying to do two things:

  1. Expand background checks to include people who are or have been on the terrorist watchlist
  2. Prevent private dealers and gun shows from selling guns to people without a permit or background check

The former would have, in theory, prevented Omar Mateen from obtaining an assault rifle at a licensed gun store. And it is in no way ‘unconstitutional’ to do so.


#12

I suppose they were waiting for a favorible political climate. That one-mass-shooting-too-many, in other words.


#13

Given the history of legislation, taking an inch is still a win.


#14

Do you honestly believe that a law restricting the rights of a citizen whose only disqualifier is having once been included on a “watch list” (to which anybody can be nominated, with no formal process or oversight) will stand up to constitutional scrutiny?

Omar Mateen was temporarily nominated for the list, then the FBI closed the case and removed him from the list. Wouldn’t any new law include a provision that when your name is removed from the list, your rights are fully restored?


#15

I just saw this, and as I checked the live stream, Elizabeth Warren was pulling her shift.
God I love her.


#16

Yes, absolutely. If someone has historically been a criminal with suspected terrorist ties, I think preventing them from purchasing weapons specifically meant to murder large groups of people is rather a no-brainer. I mean, ideally, we’d prevent anyone from purchasing assault weapons, across the board, because fuck that. But making them a bit more difficult to get ahold of is a baby step in the right direction. You can ask the 50 dead people at Pulse if they agree, but they’re corpses.


#17

It depends on your goal. If you want the guns out of everyone’s hands and there is an opening to get guns out of part of that pie then you should go for it. If you want gun control that is well thought out and researched, then you’re forced to deal with the NRA forever. The politics of the situation is to use any tool that you can to climb to your goal and not say it’s all or nothing.


#18

I’m entirely in favor of an replacement for the “Terrorist Watch List”, the “Selectee list” and the “No fly list”, a system which includes a formal mechanism for inclusion along with immediate notification of citizens when they are targeted by the government to have their travel and other rights restricted.

I’d hope such as system would include an appeal process which doesn’t put the burden of time and expense on the citizen, as well as a robust protection against groups being added to the list wholesale (e.g. for political reasons).

So you’d be fine if such a list had existed, Omar Mateen had been included, then removed when the FBI found nothing to charge him with?


#19

Well thought out, like the NRA’s position on watch lists?

The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be
removed.

Seems reasonable and nuanced to me, and not very different from the ACLU’s position.


#20

That’s an odd straw man argument; I’m aware you’re trying to make me say something you want me to say.

Under the existing provisions of the terrorist watch list, Omar Mateen would not have been on it when he purchased an assault rifle. However, this is also someone who professed to be a part of three separate terrorist groups on social media, whose father has terrorist ties, and was known to have a violent past; ideally, our criteria for determining who should own high powered weaponry should include several of those things.