Breaking: Democrats Halt The Senate, Launch Filibuster For Gun Control
Source: Daily Buzz
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut stood up in front of the Senate just before noon and began what is going to be a filibuster-style blockade.
They have promised to not stop speaking until the government does something meaningful in regards to gun control.
Senator Murphy said: Newtown is still putting itself back together, probably will be for a long time. This is a different moment today than it was at the end of last week.
There is a newfound imperative for this body to find a way to come together and take action, to try to do our part to stem this epidemic of gun violence and in particular this epidemic of mass shootings.
There is a fundamental disconnect with the American people when these tragedies continue to occur and we just move forward with business as usual. So Im going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful bipartisan way.
These measures include: preventing suspected terrorists from legally acquiring guns, closing legal loopholes for gun sales at gun shows and on the internet, and increasing the level and depth of background checks for those interested in buying firearms.
To watch the filibuster live, visit NBC News.
Read more: http://the-daily.buzz/democrats-senate-gun-control/?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_9cbf38d0331b11e69519013b248da655
It's about time they grew some balls.
democrank
(11,093 posts)Stand up
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)One party filibusters to benefit the wealthy and corporations and to obstruct the machinery of gov. out of spite, because they hate the prez.
The other party filibusters to save lives.
PJMcK
(22,031 posts)There are such profound differences between Republicans and Democrats that I always scratch my head in disbelief when I hear someone equate them or their candidates.
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)Most people I hear trying to say they're the same are usually libertarians, lol.
MisterFred
(525 posts)NoMoreRepugs
(9,412 posts)same observation and that it becomes a TV ad somewhere down the line
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)Maybe we here at DU should bring it to their attention.
rickford66
(5,523 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)livetohike
(22,140 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)You know, to go along with the new president we'll have next year.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)Bah dum bum.
But it will be Mme Clinton, thank goodness.
meow2u3
(24,761 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Metaphorically is how you meant it, and it's how I meant it.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Really, of all the parts of the anatomy of both sexes.. They pick the one part that seems to make one of the 2 sexes the most vulnerable and weakest.
Let's be honest here, the expression is supposed to represent toughness, but it's the one part of the male anatomy all but guaranteed, when struck, to bring the person down to their knees very quickly.
Anyway.. There's my digression and tangent for the day.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)"Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding."
I don't know if she really said it, but I wouldn't put it past her. I have loved her since I had a teenage crush on her during Mary Tyler Moore days.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)SpankMe
(2,957 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)No serious votes were going to take place this election year. But I admire their new backbone.
groundloop
(11,518 posts)And I have to wholeheartedly agree with the previous comment comparing the 2 parties.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Mexican artist melts 1,527 guns, makes shovels to plant trees
by Amanda Froelich on December 11, 2015
villager
(26,001 posts)nt
Chemisse
(30,809 posts)And they need to be voted out in November.
So I applaud the Dems for making a big, noisy deal out of this.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)And shuffles them off to some place where they'll be more appreciated, like Disgustionist. Or Red State. Or Stormfront.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.
Bertrand Russell
This is the same way we all stood in silence while the republicans rammed down the Patriot act bill. I for one understand that a lot of people are scared and just want to see something done even if said thing will further destroy the liberties we now have in this country.
A secret list made by the FBI will soon be used to limit the right to bear arms and we have people on this website cheering for it. God help us all.
askeptic
(478 posts)...and if the FBI's precog program works so well, why does this happen?
I realize we are starting to get used to the idea of subverting people's due process rights, but the Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the herd mentality... Secret programs like these are incompatible with a democratic society
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)law you must wear a seatbelt - liberty lost
law you must have a driver's licence to drive a car - liberty lost
law you can't smoke on a plane - liberty lost
At the end of the day, it's a balance between freedom and what's best for the general populace, and what the populace wants to happen. fact is, gun nuts are out of control. If it hadn't reached this point, you'd have a leg to stand on.
JustinL
(722 posts)PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)No fly lists - loss of freedom
Sex offenders register - loss of freedom
probably other but late and tired
JustinL
(722 posts)There are a lot of problems with various sex offender registries as well.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)can we use less gender-specific terms like "spine" or "guts" or "backbone" ?
As a guy, I know men definitely don't have the market cornered on toughness.
orwell
(7,771 posts)Loves me some Betty White.
Thanks for the laugh.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)where was this courage 7 and a half years ago?
Friend or Foe
(195 posts)Get up, Stand up; Stand up for your rights.
The lyrics are so appropriate to this fight:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobmarley/getupstandup.html
bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)Hallelujah! The Obstructionist Dam is weakening
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That would prevent "suspected terrorists" from exercising a constitutional right based on a secret government list without any sort of due process. Very "progressive." Are we also going to take away their right to vote and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
I support the other proposals, even though they will have little impact on gun violence. In fact, I can't recall any recent shooting these changes would have prevented, although I haven't seen the details on the "expanded" background checks.
OnDoutside
(19,953 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And even Hillary stated today that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Which by the way is consistent with the Democratic Party's official platform.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I don't disagree with the general proposition. But (for example) government pretty clearly cannot ban the possession of handguns for self-defense. The exact limits on magazine capacity is undecided -- a few courts have upheld a 10 round limit, and one court shot down a 7 round limit. I think that a 10 round limit would be constitutional in most instances, though I'm not sure there's the political will to pass that type of law.
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)Target shooting and competitive tournaments are enjoyed by many. That has nothing to do with manners/civility. It's just a hobby or sport.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Anyone can go in and borrow/rent a gun for target shooting, hunting, whatever, and then turn it in after they are done using it. It would be registered in their name and tracked like most rentals. Seems reasonable.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Because the Second Amendment prevents government from banning handguns in the home.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I really don't understand this need for firearms that people have.
OnDoutside
(19,953 posts)It was a law "of its time".
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Our police department closes overnight.
If we call 911, the dispatcher will wake the police chief at home. We will then get out of bed, and respond. Eventually. Lets just say its not a quick response time.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Looting and pillaging? Its the lawless frontier that requires you to be armed?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Then they will get around to calling the police.
Everybody where I live owns a gun. Honestly bears are a bigger threat than humans. But crime is almost non existant, largely due to high rates of gun ownership.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Wouldn't it be more likely to be less population density and economic reasons?
ON EDIT: If your claim had any value, the United States would have the lowest crime rate compared to every developed nation in the world.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)In fact, most shooting ranges are in rural places, its kind of a good idea. At night other than a now trespassing sign, there is nothing to keep people out. Storing a bunch of guns there is not a great idea.
Also, i have gone before when I am the only person there. Not sure how a rental is going to work. I guess its on the honor system to return the gun.
24601
(3,959 posts)freely, worship, assemble peacefully, vote, receive due process, not be a slave, etc.
That's what distinguishes rights from privileges. One may disagree with Heller v. DC, but not accepting it as settled law is to say neither are Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, nor Miranda v. Arizona.
OnDoutside
(19,953 posts)and had easy access to buy guns ?
24601
(3,959 posts)that blow someone's head off - just like its a small percentage of impaired drivers that kill others.
I was thinking about this earlier - I want responsible owners smart and as well trained as a seal team. I want
irresponsinle owners or criminal possessors to unskilled and a be as stupid as a bag of rocks.
OnDoutside
(19,953 posts)I'm sure most do. However, the bar should be set a lot higher than it currently is, and semi automatic guns/rifles should be banned.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)because Second Amendment, gunz and stuff. (Even though this is actually a Fifth Amendment issue)
NickB79
(19,233 posts)I'd bet $50 that if such a proposal became law, the ACLU and other civil liberty organizations would sue to the Supreme Court and win, though.
The ONLY way such a proposal would pass legal muster is if the list were completely transparent (good luck there) and had a way for one on the list to challenge his or her listing to a panel of judges, where the onus is on the government to prove why said individual should be denied their legal rights.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)such fans of secret government lists that take away constitutional rights if the Republicans were in charge?
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)This should show the voting public the vast differences between the parties. Anyone who says it makes no difference who wins the presidency or the Congress is batshit crazy.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)ISeeA BrightFuture
(22 posts)See the fillibuster live and chat about it here:
SIGN A PETITION TO DEMAND STRONGER GUN LAWS HERE:
http://go.boldpac.com/page/s/filibuster?source=MS_EM_PET_2016.06.15_B2_filibuster_X__F1_S1_C1__all
Send him a "I stand with you note" and thank you note at his office:
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/contact
CALL CONGRESS TODAY AND TELL THEM TO ACT HERE:
http://act.everytown.org/call/disarm-hate-calls/?akid=3649.4207961.1YoGC4&rd=1&source=emne_orlando-calls&t=2&utm_campaign=orlando-calls&utm_medium=_e&utm_source=em_n_
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Thanks for the links!
LS_Editor
(893 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Murphy began speaking at about 11:20, and the filibuster was continuing just before 2 p.m. Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had joined Murphy in speaking.
The Senate is currently considering the Commerce, Justice and Science spending bill. Though no votes are currently scheduled, the senators are blocking other senators from making any amendments to the bill pendingthe first step to getting a vote -
Then we have Sasse - Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the first Republican senator to come join Murphy and other Democrats, asking a question about the terror watchlist.
"I'm familiar with the terrorist screening database. There are a series of lists that fall from the database, but I don't think there's any such thing as 'the terrorist watchlist,' and I certainly don't understand what due process rights would apply," Sasse said.
And then we have Cornyn - Sasses comments hit at a key GOP critique of Sen. Dianne Feinsteins proposal to give the attorney general broad authority to block individuals on the terror watchlist from being able to buy a gun or explosive.
Republicans argue that it would negatively impact Americans who arent tied to terrorism and violate their constitutional rights by stopping them from buying a gun without court approval.
- If they are on the no fly list - they shouldn't be able to BUY!!!! I seriously question whether these republiklans even have a thought process.. or any comprehension of NO FLY - NO BUY!!!!!
Instead Sasse and most Republicans are supporting an alternative proposal Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to allow the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm. -
That's what we can do - look folks we got some repubs with a plan - 72 hour wait for suspected terrorists to buy weapons.....pathetic!!!!! disgusting -
my fellow Americans - lets be sure we all have our voting registrations up to date....you know someone who needs help with voter registration - then help - and know when and where you can vote - EVERYWHERE _ IN EVERY STATE - JUST DO IT!
Paper Roses
(7,473 posts)Change in the outdated 2nd amendment is long overdue. We need to abolish this 'right to bear arms". Guns kill---'nuff said.
bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)Seriously, saw it on the Guardian.com
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)CanonRay
(14,101 posts)halting a broken down cement truck. But kudos to them anyway.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)ailsagirl
(22,896 posts)Or C-SPAN2
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)The people would still 100% have the right to bear arms.
So I'm only just now thinking this through, but it seems a strict reading of the constitution, which Republicans claim to prefer (when it suits them), would still allow for some regulation. And I don't mean that to be in reference to the phrase "well-regulated militia."
The amendment doesn't say "every individual" has the right; it says "the people" -- collectively -- have the right. So stopping terrorists from purchasing (e.g. bearing) arms does not infringe the right. As I understand it, felons can't purchase or own guns, either, so it's not without precedent, and it does not infringe on the right of "the people." Most nearly all Americans, as the People, will still be able to individually exercise the right.
The amendment also doesn't say "any/every kind of armament"; it says "arms." Banning the sale of assault weapons does not infringe on the right to bear arms. If assault weapons were banned, the people would still 100% have the right to bear arms. Not "assault arms," but nearly all other arms nonetheless.
As to that phrase "well-regulated militia" -- and this is important. Someone posted here at DU an explanation that in the 18th century "well-regulated" meant something like "functioning as intended." If that's the case, I think an argument could be made that, since the intent of the amendment was clearly that the people, bearing arms, would be a well-regulated militia for the "security of a free state," then an interpretation or implementation of the amendment that leads to a DECREASE in the security of that state (e.g. thousands of citizen deaths) would mean that the envisioned militia -- gun owners, collectively -- is NOT "functioning as intended."
========================