Senator Chris Murphy Filibusters Senate

[Cthulhu 2020]

Conservatives care about all of the above more than progressive leftists, frankly.

It's funny how much the left actually pushes for legislation that would actually help people, and conservatives think it's pretending. Then the conservatives do incredibly selfish things, tell the victims and the down and out and the poor and the hungry that they need to suck it up and think that it's "helping" and say they're the caring ones. Lol.

- - - Updated - - -

How about a fuckin' psychological exam required? Don't get me wrong, it'll be a hassle, but most people won't have anything to worry about for taking one.

Anything that blocks NRA sales/profits guns for everyone is unconstitutional.

[Eviscero]

Wouldn't your argument rely on people being armed first, in order to create a militia. E.g. The militia is dependent on the state of the people being armed. In other words, the people have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia that is well regulated.

Exactly, which is different than the guaranteeing of individual's rights. That is what I believe is Justice Stevens' point.

[Goonygoon]

Currently a felon can purchase a gun online and not have to worry about anything stopping them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-l...r-578880067504

Yeah, he can buy it, and then it is sent to an FFL so that that felon gets to fill out a 4473.. you know, a background check.

[Kapadons]

So my main argument is this ;

What the fuck does anything this jackass senator is rambling about do about the some 327 million (estimated) guns that are already in circulation in America ? Absolute shit.

I had the same problem when you people were arguing about this after sandy hook. "Ban assault rifles" universal background checks" no guns for mentally ill" none of that would have stopped what happened.

Same thing here- did they walk up to Omar and say - " hey your on the Terror watch list?" Obviously not, cause that causes all kinds of issues. What happens when he goes to buy a gun and they say "can't sell, your on the terror watch list " just blew lid off that. And if he is in a watch list but didn't watch him case places the month before or watch him walk into a store and buy a gun and a semi auto rifle ? Sounds like the terror watch list means jack shit cause they weren't watching this nutjob at all.

[satimy]

Those are gangs using illegaly acquired guns doing drivebys. Thats a CPD issue.

Handguns went through the "common sense" regulations, are you saying its not working?

[Mormolyce]

What he's talking about isn't even gun control. It's just closing loopholes in America's existing pissweak laws.

And the gun lobby will still probably fight it till their dying breath. That's level of pigheaded obstinacy that's halting any progress on the issue.

Those are gangs using illegaly acquired guns doing drivebys. Thats a CPD issue.

And by "illegally acquired" you mean straw purchases, loopholes etc, the kind of thing the filibuster is aimed at.

[Kapadons]

The only way you will get people to trade in guns is if you buy them back from them for an extreme profit. And even then you will have holdouts that won't take the quick cash grab. But it is something I've thought they should do for a while in major urban areas with gun and drug problems. Bust crack dealers and confiscate the crack. Advertise that you will give a bag of crack to anyone that turns in a hand gun. So many guns would be off the streets in a matter of weeks. Crackheads would even steal guns just to turn em in. Doesn't cost any money because you stole the crack from crack dealers and crack heads. Kind of a win/win.

[Torgent]

Okay. Stepping back.

Why do politicians only seem to only get loud about guns when a large amount of people die to guns simultaneously? Why not whenever people die to guns, as that shit is a problem at any volume.

But, on topic: The provisions put forward look sensible and I hope this can pass despite expected opposition. I am super cynical because, just like I expect the Orlando Strong signs I'm seeing to start vanishing in a month, I don't think any politician will give a shit about this once enough time passes.

Or maybe I'm wrong and the signs will stay up. North Florida is a strange place.

If they spoke up about it whenever people die to guns, they would literally never say anything else. Gun deaths are obscenely common. But when there is a mass shooting, everyone is paying attention. This attention allows them to reach people or at least show that they are putting forth effort.

[Kapadons]

What he's talking about isn't even gun control. It's just closing loopholes in America's existing pissweak laws.

And the gun lobby will still probably fight it till their dying breath. That's level of pigheaded obstinacy that's halting any progress on the issue.



And by "illegally acquired" you mean straw purchases, loopholes etc, the kind of thing the filibuster is aimed at.

Didn't someone already destroy this argument on the first page. There are already laws on the books for nearly everything he is arguing about.

[Mormolyce]

Handguns went through the "common sense" regulations, are you saying its not working?

One look at America's homicide and mass shooting stats is enough to show anyone that the wishy washy regulations aren't working.

[Kapadons]

If they spoke up about it whenever people die to guns, they would literally never say anything else. Gun deaths are obscenely common. But when there is a mass shooting, everyone is paying attention. This attention allows them to reach people or at least show that they are putting forth effort.

If by obscenely common you mean they happen to a minescule % of the population, then yeah. Lots of people dying from guns but you know..... Not really.

[Torgent]

If by obscenely common you mean they happen to a minescule % of the population, then yeah. Lots of people dying from guns but you know..... Not really.

Common =/= happens to everyone. Common is in terms of the frequency, AKA nearly every single day.

[Mormolyce]

Didn't someone already destroy this argument on the first page. There are already laws on the books for nearly everything he is arguing about.

Laws on the books aren't the full picture though, are they? This guy in Orlando had been on a watch list but he came off because they didn't find anything they could make stick.

If you're asking me if these changes would be effective, probably not very. Not on the overall homicide rate level anyway, might prevent a few mass shootings. What he's proposing isn't actual gun control, like I said. You have almost as many guns as people in the US, if you want to solve that problem you can't talk about pansy half-measures.

But obviously America has to take some baby steps first.

[Darththeo]

No, you can't. The notice & hearing requirement is fulfilled under TRO requests, and putting them in place in advance of the determination is why they are, after all, temporary. A list that you can get put on without notice and can demand no hearing on any known timetable to be removed from cannot, by law, satisfy the requirements of due process.

You are notified of the restraining TRO after it has been signed by a judge and you can be jailed for violating it. You don't even need to have a pending case to request a TRO. Essentially, there is no due process for TROs at all. The only difference is they are temporary while the list has no time frame.

[Slant]

Anyone got a link that works?

[TwoNineMarine]

Lol. These threads crack me up.

[caervek]

Felons cannot legally purchase a gun period much less online.

One of the terrorists who shot up Paris used an assault rifle he had purchased from a Florida gun store, IIRC it was bought online.

[Sinyc]

Its been tried, it either ends in Republicans outright vetoing it, or playing fun time with it and entirely changing it.

Senator Murphy has noted multiple times that all he wants is the Republicans in the senate to agree to sit down and actually discuss this, but they wont.

I guess it's all in the way Murphy phrases the legislation he would like discussed. Also, maybe if he brought it up when there wasn't just a mass shooting the day before it would help. IDK. In my opinion certain issues should be forced to be reviewed and discussed. Otherwise, what are these people doing in Washington if they aren't representing us?

[Orlong]

And he gave up hours ago. This was just a political stunt. If he was truly believed in what he was trying to achieve, he would still be filibustering. He wouldve stayed on the floor for days like Ted Cruz did. Not only is the filibuster over but he couldnt even be bothered to conduct the whole thing himself. He brought in others to do it because aparantly talking for more than hour is too much for him

[Reeve]

Not sure this is a good move in an election year. Seems like a great way to turn out the opposition in large numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

If they spoke up about it whenever people die to guns, they would literally never say anything else. Gun deaths are obscenely common. But when there is a mass shooting, everyone is paying attention. This attention allows them to reach people or at least show that they are putting forth effort.

I think the reason mass shootings get so much attention while day to day shootings don't is that most people feel they can avoid day to day shootings by just avoiding associating with the wrong people. Mass shootings don't care who you hang out with.