Is the sit-in going to redound to the democrats' benefit? And the answer is: Foxnews is not

[Gabi Hayes]

covering it.

surprised? they're showing some disfigured failed lawyer doing her best to spread propaganda about myriad liberal ''misdeeds.''

you know if they thought Ryan/Trump/NRA would be positively affected by this realtime drama, they'd they be on it like (choose your own simile).

[lancer78]

1. probably not

Too much gerrymandering in the house. This will probably help the republicans with their base.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. I agree with that point. I was thinking in more general terms, like:

non-gun loons actually seeing a real person like Debbie Dingell showing the fear and anguish of someone who thought she was going to DIE at the hands of some maniac....that sort of thing, if shown by the M$M, might have some sort of effect in the eventual enforcement of the 'well-regulated' part of the bill of rights that all the delusionists, from the NRA to right here at DU, seem to forget, are the most salient two words in the entire second amendment.

that said, what is going to be done about the 300+ million guns that are already out there is another thing. as has been absolutely ASSURED by those resident NRA absolutists here on DU, nothing less than a civil war will result when maniacs like Phil Gramm (more guns than I need, but less than I want) are some day forced to give up some of their hardware. there aren't any easy answers to this, obviously, but my guess is that, with increased enforcement/government intrusion into every aspect into the daily lives of all americans (via the terra/drug-war and resultant PATRIOT ACT laws) we're going to end up as a police state.
glad I'm not going to be around when it all hits the fan. it won't happen in the very near future, but with each act like Orlando, the day is getting closer, if today's Washington imbroglio has an effect on the public consciousness.

[lancer78]

5. gun deaths

Have decreased a lot from the early 80's. When I have the same chance of being beaten to death as to get murdered by a rifle, I think things are headed in the right direction.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. yep.....lots less mass beating deaths....like, oh say, 49 at a time? 26 at a time?

I'll take your less gun deaths since the 80s as fact, but how can you seriously equate your scenario with what's become a regular occurrence?

meanwhile, while checking your assertion, I found this, which doesn't have a listing of deaths by year. the one I cite is the one about gun deaths from 2001-2013, which is ~406,000 to 3400, and you know what the gigantic proportion of that 3400 was:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/

[lancer78]

10. doesnt matter how many at

A time. 400 or so people are beaten to death each year and 400 or so are killed by rifles each year.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. wow. wow. wow.

thanks for your respectful input

after seeing your post downthread I don't know whether to compliment you on your satirical skill, or to empathize with your own issues.

not joking here: my mom suffered from bi polar disorder, and my father had Pick's Disease, often confused with Alzheimer's

[lancer78]

15. you are the one

Stating that 49 deaths at once have more weight than 49 deaths over the course of say a month or so.

[Gabi Hayes]

17. no....I checked my post, and I guess I wasn't very clear in my intent.

somebody else here said it less ineptly than I, when they said something on the order of the relative difficulty of beating 49 people to death at a crack vs. snapping off several hundred rounds, be it from a pistol or a rifle

I respectfully agree with you that no murder is less significant than another; it's just infinitely more efficient to do it when you have a clip/drum that can fire 15 to a HUNDRED rounds without reloading

[Skittles]

9. OOH OOH

got any more NRA talking points?

[lancer78]

11. never been to

The nra website or anything. I am prevented from owning any firearms due to mental health issues. In my opinion, gun control laws are working as I am a good example.

[Skittles]

12. doesn't matter how many?

as if one guy could beat to death 49 people in a couple of hours

DONE HERE

[lancer78]

14. so, according to you

49 deaths at once are more important than 49 over the course of a month?

[TipTok]

35. Are 49 people beaten, stabbed and individually shot over a period of time...

... more or less dead than 49 at once?

[Gabi Hayes]

37. jesus, did you read the responses to the other person who tried that approach?

thanks for your participation, though

edit: I see you did. words fail. obviously no grounds for further discussion on this is there?

have good karma

[TipTok]

39. The point remains...

... And no logical response was forthcoming.

Don't get in a tizzy because multiple people point out flaws in your logic.

[malaise]

38. LOL

Of course they do - over and over - the right to kill supersedes the right to life.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. looks like you're right on your stats, my friend:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

Despite these trends, most U.S. adults think gun crimes have increased. In our 2013 survey, more than half (56%) of Americans said the number of gun crimes had gone up compared with 20 years ago. Another 26% said the number of gun crimes had remained the same, and just 12% said gun crimes had declined

despite the apparent accuracy of the numbers at the above link, it doesn't appear to deal with the recent trend of high volume per incident killings, like the ones we've experienced in the last couple of years. no one can know if this trend will continue

[ZombieHorde]

21. You're using statistics.

Generally speaking, liberals and conservatives don't care for math or science. My fellow liberals like to think we like math and science, but we don't. We like emotions and identities. Conservatives are the same. Many people identify with being either anti or pro gun. Math and logic are irrelevant once identities come into play. I really appreciate your efforts though, and I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to use math and science in a policy debate, but this is the current state of US politics as I see it.

[Warpy]

2. All I got from the big 3 networks when I looked at their sites

was a type of understated, genteel disapproval, with words like "chaotic" disguising the very real, organized activity that is happening and embarrassing the shit out of the Republicans who are still kissing NRA assholes.

It's about what I expected from the corporate cowards.

ETA: I Tweeted my support to Rep. Lujan-Grisham (D-NM), first time I've uttered a word on that format in about four years.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. yeah....nothing on big three. my CBS outlet is showing one of those dreadful

cop/medical shows (dunno which it is...they're ALL ridiculously, implausibly horrible), instead of their usual overnight news

that's interesting in itself, as the sit in would obviously be the ONLY news story worth covering in the wee hours. I'm very curious what their reasoning is behind this

[Just reading posts]

3. Almost certainly not.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. care to elaborate? the fact that Fox is resolutely ignoring this.....they're showing that horrid

'humor' show Redeye as I type....speaks volumes to me as to the perception of the hard right's perception of the response of typical news consumers to this situation

you can be assured if they thought this was a good thing for their masters, Fox would be slobbering over the chance to do in the dirty, cowardly, anti-gun peace creeps illegally infesting the hallowed chambers formerly graced by truly heroic leaders like Gingrich, Livingston, Cunninghame, and Hastert, just to name a few of the most glorious.

[TeamPooka]

6. nothing to see here sheep. these are not the droids you're looking for. Move along. Move along.

[pnwmom]

19. The major networks ARE covering it. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

20. not on my cable...ABC>>>general hospital, instead of their overnight news

CBS>>>>horrid drama, instead of their overnight news....NBC>>>>just started, after showing showing steve Harvey til 330. not covering it now that would be five minutes on the sit-in....on to trump lies about Hillary, then weather

that said, we had a storm (lots of weather coverage on abc/nbc; not cbs, though), and maybe they delayed regular news to show their hideous garbage programming instead. guess that makes more money than news....or.......what

[pnwmom]

22. They're not 24 hour news shows. But they're not ignoring it like Fox. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

23. morning joe is about to cover it, after a twenty minute lavage, mostly, of

trump's bs speech yesterday, barely touching on the massive, serial lies he told, focusing on how much money he's going to raise, and how he's even with Hillary in the rust belt, and how much the people distrust her, compared to him. the plagiarist did say, at least, that people don't want to see him with his hand on the button, basically

scarborough has reinserted his tongue securely up trump's bung

guess he wants to be invited to vacay with him again

[Gabi Hayes]

25. showing John Lewis' impassioned speech, briefly

then describing the unfolding events, resulting in ryan calling for adjournment

then ryan calling it a publicity stunt

hot reporter relating how it was rank and file dems who led the sit in, not following usual house protocol of following pelosi

[malaise]

24. Moring Joe Scum sure is covering it

All these dead Americans and Ryan bawls about a publicity stunt. Shame, shame shame indeed

[Gabi Hayes]

26. of course, they had to get that in there. now

the reporter talks about how the dems want to shine a light on repub intransigence

joe himself is calling it a "damn good publicity stunt," citing the 90 percent of americans who are in favor of some sort of gun oversight

got to give him credit so far, much as I loathe the man

just wait, though

[Gabi Hayes]

27. wow...even pug shill Nicole Wallace calls ryan to task for his tin ear for public

response to all the bloodshed

you know this could be a bad thing

joe chiming in on the 85% of pugs who want background check tightening; he's said that twice

perhaps my OP will prove correct.

Joe even said to pugs, "do your job!" am I dreaming?

can't bring myself to see a Fox discussion

[malaise]

28. That was a pleasant surprise

This is a major victory for Dems because Americans are fed up of this do nothing Congress and people cannot take the way in which their children can't even enjoy their childhood with all these foolish drills rather than gun regulations.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. let's hope. next step, start pulicizing the FFFFF about those venal cretins who bathe in NRA blood

money, like the guy from Tennessee who's taken over four MILLION, and the (literal) pig fucker senator from Iowa, who's gotten well over a million herself

there are at least nine who've taken over a million

dunno how many of the senators are up for re-election, but I know Ayotte is in some deep shit over it, and my lying coward Mark Kirk has already announced for stiffer controls

[Gabi Hayes]

30. doocy decries chaos, saying they almost came to blows

guess who they have on:

the biggest idiot on the hill

louie the gopher

that's enough

click

[malaise]

32. I'm back on CSpan

Let me go over to JoeScum

[malaise]

31. And the leader of the pack

is John McCain.

I just noticed that they have adjourned until July 5.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. if you're talking about the money pack, I think the guy from Tennessee is Tillis, and he's

taken, IIRC 4.4 million over the years....top of the list

[malaise]

34. McCain received over 7M over the years

and I heard a discussion where they said he tops the list. Indeed after that discussion he attacked Obama and blamed him for Orlando.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. here:

https://mic.com/articles/129724/the-senators-who-voted-against-background-checks-have-received-27-million-from-the-nra#.SaxITDyxV

On Thursday evening, the Senate voted down two gun control proposals introduced by Democrats as legislative response to multiple mass shootings across the United States this week. The measures, put forward as amendments to an Obamacare repeal package, would have banned the purchase of firearms by individuals on the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database and expanded background checks for firearm purchases to include weapons purchased at gun shows and online.

On its surface, the proposals' failure is the latest installment of the political stalemate between Democrats, who favor expansion of gun control legislation, and Republicans, who support the expansion of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. But beyond the stated philosophical differences between the parties — the votes fell almost entirely along party lines — the staunch opposition to the measures also highlight an important component of the battle over firearms in Congress: the influence of the National Rifle Association, particularly when it comes to financial support of candidates and their campaigns.



According to a Mic analysis of political spending data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA, —often cited as the most influential lobbying organization in the country — has spent a total of $27,205,245 in support of the 50 senators who voted against background check expansion on Thursday. That amount includes direct donations to their campaign committees, outside spending in support of the candidate — that is, political expenditures made independently of candidates' committees — and outside spending against their opponents, spread across their entire political careers.

Nine senators have received more than $1 million in total support — many during the 2014 midterm election cycle:

lots of charts and lists at link



if any of these monsters are running this year, here's the petard upon which to hoist them

GET AFTER IT, DNC!!! none of them are listed as vulnerable, AFAIK, but things can always change, non?