Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

NRA is encouraging members to "act now" and email/text/tweet about today's supposed vote. Everyone who supports reasonable gun controls need to do the same. TODAY. Call. Email. Text. Tweet. Go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if this stuff squeaks through the senate it won't make it through the house

Which speaks volumes about the assholes currently elected to congress

You can't even close a loophole to keep a terrorist from obtaining a gun? Are you fucking kidding me?

Fix the list if you're so worried about people being put on it in error. But seriously? Doing absolutely nothing after yet another mass shooting (which, according to Marco Rubio, is about taking turns now ;p), is being complicit in mass murder.

+1. I just don't understand this at all! It seriously makes me want to cry that we can't even get something this small and logical passed. If the no-fly list is so dysfunctional then f-ing fix it! It's like it's ok to prevent people from moving around but god forbid you prevent them from buying a gun. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NRA is encouraging members to "act now" and email/text/tweet about today's supposed vote. Everyone who supports reasonable gun controls need to do the same. TODAY. Call. Email. Text. Tweet. Go!

This may be a dumb question but rep and senator are already on board (MD resident). What else can I do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NRA is encouraging members to "act now" and email/text/tweet about today's supposed vote. Everyone who supports reasonable gun controls need to do the same. TODAY. Call. Email. Text. Tweet. Go!

This may be a dumb question but rep and senator are already on board (MD resident). What else can I do?

One campaign that I follow is:

http://momsdemandaction.org/
Moms for sensible Gun Laws - last year they did Orange walks on the 3rd Anniversary of Sandy hook and has a great resource to get started - including links, petitions etc.

[Anonymous]

So there are 4 proposals out there

Take a long hard look

The R proposals fix the very minor issues with the D proposals while still basically doing the same thing

Partisan politics is killing commonsense again

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand this at all! It seriously makes me want to cry that we can't even get something this small and logical passed

Because if this "small and logical" bill is passed, it is only another "small and logical" step to ban another weapon type say any rifle over 30 caliber, then the number of bullets you can have and then eventually all weapons to disarm the law-abiding population.

Taking away the rights of the citizenry rarely starts with one big sweep of legislation, it is small steps during a "crisis" where these freedoms and rights are chipped away.

We have the right to bear arms, any arms, and as many and of whatever type we want. Period. End of discussion. No one, no matter how pompous and big mouthed does not get to filibuster away our constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

Remember you need 60 people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NRA is encouraging members to "act now" and email/text/tweet about today's supposed vote. Everyone who supports reasonable gun controls need to do the same. TODAY. Call. Email. Text. Tweet. Go!

This may be a dumb question but rep and senator are already on board (MD resident). What else can I do?

I'm a MD resident also and called my senators last night and left messages in support of their joining senator Murphy's filibuster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I just don't understand this at all! It seriously makes me want to cry that we can't even get something this small and logical passed

Because if this "small and logical" bill is passed, it is only another "small and logical" step to ban another weapon type say any rifle over 30 caliber, then the number of bullets you can have and then eventually all weapons to disarm the law-abiding population.

Taking away the rights of the citizenry rarely starts with one big sweep of legislation, it is small steps during a "crisis" where these freedoms and rights are chipped away.

We have the right to bear arms, any arms, and as many and of whatever type we want. Period. End of discussion. No one, no matter how pompous and big mouthed does not get to filibuster away our constitutional rights.

I hope you are not one of the people who are saying we need to lock up terrorists and dismantle radical mosques...cuz if you are, you're hypocrisy is showing.

And no, we do not have the right to bear "any arms". Last I checked, I'm not allowed to buy a nuclear weapon. We already accept limitations to the rights provided in the Second Amendment...heck, we accept limitations to our First Amendment rights as well as many others. Almost no one thinks that disallowing people from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is a slippery slope to censorship across the board. Similarly, when there is overwhelming agreement that there is a strong public interest in putting some limitations on the exercise of the Second Amendment, it should be considered and we can continue to be vigilant about the Constitutional issues as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, just because controls or regulation of gun ownership won't solve every crime, it is a step in the right direction. Baby steps is how sanity will prevail, not in a wholesale change in one swoop.

Is gun control the only answer here? No. We need better mental health treatment and reporting, for example. But, in my view there is absolutely no way any law abiding citizen should oppose:
-strict background checks with a waiting period;
-your on the watch list? Sorry, no gun until you go through process to show you should.
-criminal background (at some threshold TBD)- no gun
-gun related injuries should be studied, per the position of the AMA.
-there should be a complete ban on military style assault rifles and similar guns. Do not quibble with me on the technical differences between semi-automatic v. assault rifles, etc. We all knwo the guns we are talking about here. The ones you can fire off many rounds in a short period of time, at high forces, and are meant to kill. That's their purpose.
-All gun owners should be required to go through a training course, including safety, and be licensed.

No one is TAKING all your guns. So that boogeyman argument is bullshit. And, yes, there will be an illegal market (for now) in large part b/c of all the guns in circulation due to the lack of controls. That will gradually change.

The NRA and its supporters have had a stranglehold on this argument long enough. I'm sick of it. If I need to be a single issue voter to ensure that their hold on policymakers ends, so fucking be it.

Great Post! I agree with everything above! To those that say regulating guns won't stop a mass shooting, that could be the case in some instances but not in others. Of course we need to work on mental health, terrorism etc, but we ASLO need to regulate the guns. It's not an either/or, it's a BOTH.

[Anonymous]

Bernie couldn't be bothered to join the fillibuster. He's at home in Burlington getting ready to address his faithful supporters, instead of doing his job in the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/16/why-bernie-sanders-missed-the-senate-democrats-14-hour-gun-filibuster/?postshare=5841466091361992&tid=ss_tw-bottom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I just don't understand this at all! It seriously makes me want to cry that we can't even get something this small and logical passed

Because if this "small and logical" bill is passed, it is only another "small and logical" step to ban another weapon type say any rifle over 30 caliber, then the number of bullets you can have and then eventually all weapons to disarm the law-abiding population.

Taking away the rights of the citizenry rarely starts with one big sweep of legislation, it is small steps during a "crisis" where these freedoms and rights are chipped away.

We have the right to bear arms, any arms, and as many and of whatever type we want. Period. End of discussion. No one, no matter how pompous and big mouthed does not get to filibuster away our constitutional rights.

You mean regulating the rights of citizenry in ways that are sensible and will PROTECT the citizenry . . . because you know as well as I do that no one is taking away your rights. Asking to show that you're a law abiding, sane person before having guns is NOT asking a lot. And the only ones being targeted for "banning", and rightfully so, are the military style assault rifle which have no place in civil society. If you don't see that, there is not a shred of sense in you.

And as to the second bold, that just shows you don't understand constitutional law. Becuase that is NOT what it means. Even constitutional rights like free speech and assembly and religion can be and are regulated. Go yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater and see what happens . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just don't understand this at all! It seriously makes me want to cry that we can't even get something this small and logical passed

Because if this "small and logical" bill is passed, it is only another "small and logical" step to ban another weapon type say any rifle over 30 caliber, then the number of bullets you can have and then eventually all weapons to disarm the law-abiding population.

Taking away the rights of the citizenry rarely starts with one big sweep of legislation, it is small steps during a "crisis" where these freedoms and rights are chipped away.
We have the right to bear arms, any arms, and as many and of whatever type we want. Period. End of discussion. No one, no matter how pompous and big mouthed does not get to filibuster away our constitutional rights.

You mean regulating the rights of citizenry in ways that are sensible and will PROTECT the citizenry . . . because you know as well as I do that no one is taking away your rights. Asking to show that you're a law abiding, sane person before having guns is NOT asking a lot. And the only ones being targeted for "banning", and rightfully so, are the military style assault rifle which have no place in civil society. If you don't see that, there is not a shred of sense in you.

And as to the second bold, that just shows you don't understand constitutional law. Becuase that is NOT what it means. Even constitutional rights like free speech and assembly and religion can be and are regulated. Go yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater and see what happens . . . .

Here is the problem with having to prove to the government that I am sane: it is an affront to my sensibilities that I am guilty (of insanity) by default until I can prove otherwise.

That is obnoxious. Criminals certainly are not going to abide by any such limitatoins but we law-abiding citizens will have to just as they have to in Chicago and DC where the criminals can pretty much gun down anyone they want with impunity because the attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment make it difficult to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I know there are limitations on the right to bear arms just as there are with freedom of speech but the two are not comparable: a person should be able to have as many and of any type of arm for self defence, collecting, or just to feel safe.

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government: you try to mess with us and you see Orlando? Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

A government that has a healthy fear of its citizens is a good thing because it prevents evil leaders from acting with impunity like it has so many times with the kings of Europe and the communist dictators of the world

[Anonymous]

How many times have you used your gun to protect yourself from the tyranny of English kings or communist dictators?

[Anonymous]

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government: you try to mess with us and you see Orlando? Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

Are you part of the David Koresh clan or something?

the only tyrannical leader that I think the US needs to be wary of is Trump. In the history of our country, when has the public needed to rise up with weapons against our gov't other than during the revolutionary and civil war, one of which was to fight tyranny and the other to fight slavery and to keep the country together?

You say if a tyrannical leader of the US attempted to mess with you (like maybe rounding up you and your people and putting them in detention centers), then you'd take up arms? Well, one such prospective leader may try to do just that - Muslims, so then maybe they should rise up against the tyrant according to you?