Are there examples, in this modern era, of popular, Republican-backed legislation that won't get passed anyway being denied a chance to even be voted on, ostensibly because the Democrats don't want to be caught on record voting against it? I admit that I would suffer a perception bias on this matter and it's possibly something that does happen.
There is almost certainly some stuff from the Senate.
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
+1
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
In this one situation we have some mass and energy distributed across spacetime and in this other situation we also have some mass and energy distributed across spacetime, so you have to have the same opinion about both, you Hippocrates.
I do wish that, given the near universal popularity of some form of additional gun control, the more anti-regulation crowd had put together some sensible proposals rather than endlessly rejecting them.
I stand by my belief that as a result of this obstinacy gun control, when we get it, will be far more broad and restrictive than e.g.: a gun registry, prohibiting unlicensed sales/transfers, mandatory training/storage procedures, waiting periods, background checks, restricting characteristics like fire rate and magazine size, regulating how manufacturers can advertise their products, permitting the CDC or other agencies to actually do research, etc.
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
If you're going to be for something then be about it, and don't couch it in misleading language, or outright mislead (Anyone can by guns off the internet without a background check!).
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
What is the defining aspect of a private sale?
Is it a transfer between two people not in the business of selling firearms? If so, how does requiring background checks ban private sales? I believe you would need to fund the system and make it easy to perform them, obviously, but private sales could still exist.
Or is it transferring guns for money without a background check? If so, why would anybody support their existence?
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
If you're going to be for something then be about it, and don't couch it in misleading language, or outright mislead (Anyone can by guns off the internet without a background check!).
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
If you're going to be for something then be about it, and don't couch it in misleading language, or outright mislead (Anyone can by guns off the internet without a background check!).
It's not misleading in any way
The phrase "gun show loophole" implies that anyone at a "gun show" can sell firearms without a NICS check, like some kind of law free zone. And you explicitly stated that the situation is the same for internet sales. Both are wrong. In the former FFLs are still required to perform a NICS check, in the latter online retailers are required to ship only to valid FFL holders (after receiving a faxed copy of FFL information) who then perform a NICS check before transfer.
I identify as politically progressive and vote Democrat. Just for the record:
If the situation were truly reversed in all but the particular legislation, that would mean:
The Democrats are in the majority.
The Democrats are refusing to allow a vote on a particular bill.
Said bill is incredibly popular with an overwhelming majority of US citizens.
The Republicans do not expect to win the vote.
Voting against said bill would make Dem representatives look bad.
If all of that were true, then hell yes I would support the Republicans calling them out on it like this. If nothing else, it would provide me with valuable information for the next time I'm in a voting booth.
Like, even if Ryan just came out and said "yo this bill is likely super unconstitutional so we're not gonna hear it I don't care how popular it is it won't past the courts. Bring me a better bill." Then yeah, okay, that's doing your job, whether or not I agree with his opinion, that's a valid reason to block a bill.
But right now the GOP is going full Liar, Liar "it's damaging to our side!" And fuuuuuuck. That. Noise.
Like, even if Ryan just came out and said "yo this bill is likely super unconstitutional so we're not gonna hear it I don't care how popular it is it won't past the courts. Bring me a better bill." Then yeah, okay, that's doing your job, whether or not I agree with his opinion, that's a valid reason to block a bill.
But right now the GOP is going full Liar, Liar "it's damaging to our side!" And fuuuuuuck. That. Noise.
I would actually applaud that as I feel that it sets a really bad precedent. But what is happening is just anti-government assholes making government useless, as is usual.
I identify as politically progressive and vote Democrat. Just for the record:
If the situation were truly reversed in all but the particular legislation, that would mean:
The Democrats are in the majority.
The Democrats are refusing to allow a vote on a particular bill.
Said bill is incredibly popular with an overwhelming majority of US citizens.
The Republicans do not expect to win the vote.
Voting against said bill would make Dem representatives look bad.
If all of that were true, then hell yes I would support the Republicans calling them out on it like this. If nothing else, it would provide me with valuable information for the next time I'm in a voting booth.
Honestly. Even if your constituents are all LaPierre sock puppets, I can't imagine they'd see your hiding behind Ryan's skirt as preferable to your standing up and saying "Nay. Fuck nay." on a bill in a house the NRA controls.
I guess I just kinda feel like leaders have an obligation to be good leaders, to all of the people they lead. If Ryan says a bill proposed by an elected official isn't going to be seen by the House, he should, by House Rule, be required to issue that person a formal response explaining why, and what if anything could he done to grant the bill an audience with the House.
I just don't get why people are afraid of having a vote on a bill. It's ridiculous that its seen as some bridge too far for a minority party in our country to have a vote on something that will lose. What's to fear? How much time is really wasted in a body that already works less often than every other profession in our country. Even baseball players have to show up for work more often than congress people.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I just don't get why people are afraid of having a vote on a bill. It's ridiculous that its seen as some bridge too far for a minority party in our country to have a vote on something that will lose. What's to fear? How much time is really wasted in a body that already works less often than every other profession in our country. Even baseball players have to show up for work more often than congress people.
Because a vote is a tangible, recordable thing. And those tangible, recordable things can be used against them come election time.
I just don't get why people are afraid of having a vote on a bill. It's ridiculous that its seen as some bridge too far for a minority party in our country to have a vote on something that will lose. What's to fear? How much time is really wasted in a body that already works less often than every other profession in our country. Even baseball players have to show up for work more often than congress people.
Because a vote is a tangible, recordable thing. And those tangible, recordable things can be used against them come election time.
And that's what pisses me off, they are all fine taking a brave stand on gun rights in a speech, but when it comes time to show that liberty is paramount they won't even bring it up to defeat it. Bunch of brave men in congress.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Like, even if Ryan just came out and said "yo this bill is likely super unconstitutional so we're not gonna hear it I don't care how popular it is it won't past the courts. Bring me a better bill." Then yeah, okay, that's doing your job, whether or not I agree with his opinion, that's a valid reason to block a bill.
But right now the GOP is going full Liar, Liar "it's damaging to our side!" And fuuuuuuck. That. Noise.
Seriously, this is politics. If protesting the fact that something with huge, broad, bipartisan support isn't even being brought up for a vote isn't something the minority party is allowed to do, why are they even there? It isn't like Republicans are reaching across the aisle on virtually anything to get shit done. If voting isn't allowed, and protesting isn't allowed, why even have a minority party in Congress?
well, obviously, they are supposed to make use of the procedural rules available to enact their agenda / prevent agendas they oppose from being enacted
the thing is the procedural rules enable shenanigans to block legislation but not shenanigans to enact legislation, and democrats are going to generally be the party of 'wanting to enact legislation' whereas republicans are going to generally be the party of 'wanting to block legislation' so :rotate:
There is a long and storied tradition of using protests, publicity stunts, and civil disobedience in American politics to move the needle on issues where following ordinary procedural rules has consistently failed to budge it.
I fundamentally disagree with any argument that a politician's only job is to follow procedure. Why they are using those other tools is important, though, and plays a part in whether I think what they are doing is a good thing.
And its not like house members are appointed. Every sit in house person had their name out there, if their constituents don't like it they could be voted out in the fall. OH NOES DEMOCRACY!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think there's a big difference in trying to stop a vote of a bill you don't want to pass, and know won't pass.
And trying to stop a vote of a bill you don't want to pass, and know would.
And trying to force a vote on a bill you know won't pass.
And even then there's a big difference in what type of bill is in question.
I just can't get the outrage about the sanctity of a house that has voted 70+ times to repeal Obamacare. Like come the fuck on, it's like trying to say a dennys bathroom is a sacred hall of worship.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
And its not like house members are appointed. Every sit in house person had their name out there, if their constituents don't like it they could be voted out in the fall. OH NOES DEMOCRACY!
And if Republican House members are just faithfully representing the interests of their constituents when they shut down any attempt at enacting gun control laws, why are they afraid of putting their name on a No vote? If that's what their voters want, they should be happy to show how great of a job they're doing at representing their interests.
All else put aside, I have a really hard time trying to understand a non-shitty reason for not even having a vote.
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
And its not like house members are appointed. Every sit in house person had their name out there, if their constituents don't like it they could be voted out in the fall. OH NOES DEMOCRACY!
And if Republican House members are just faithfully representing the interests of their constituents when they shut down any attempt at enacting gun control laws, why are they afraid of putting their name on a No vote? If that's what their voters want, they should be happy to show how great of a job they're doing at representing their interests.
All else put aside, I have a really hard time trying to understand a non-shitty reason for not even having a vote.
90-97% of both Republican and Democrat voters support universal background checks. The NRA do not and it's the NRA that control the Republican sock puppets. Putting their name on a No vote would be showing the public the puppetmaster's hand jammed up their ass.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Hello, I've had a family member murdered with a private sale gun. It's a pretty fucking big deal. A cursory background check could have kept people alive.
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Emanuel Cleaver, Democratic Rep of Missouri's 5th district (My district!) and one of the participants of the sit-in, was placed on the no-fly list for a time because a cousin of his with the same initials and last name was a high-ranking member of the Black Panthers.
He was asked this morning on the local NPR station if he thought there needed to be changes to the bill to help deal with those who were wrongly placed on the no-fly list, his answer? No.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with my Rep. on that, but I thought it was very interesting that someone who has been fucked by the no-fly list is still completely OK with using it as it is today to stop possible terrorists from buying guns.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Emanuel Cleaver, Democratic Rep of Missouri's 5th district (My district!) and one of the participants of the sit-in, was placed on the no-fly list for a time because a cousin of his with the same initials and last name was a high-ranking member of the Black Panthers.
He was asked this morning on the local NPR station if he thought there needed to be changes to the bill to help deal with those who were wrongly placed on the no-fly list, his answer? No.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with my Rep. on that, but I thought it was very interesting that someone who has been fucked by the no-fly list is still completely OK with using it as it is today to stop possible terrorists from buying guns.
If it was just about guns I would agree with him, as I'm of the opinion the 2nd Amendment is pretty fucking stupid in a modern context. But I worry about the precedent it sets for other rights.
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
@spool32 if you're against John Lewis' current sit-in, are you also against the unlawful sit-ins he participated in as a civil rights leader in the 60s?
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
Society has also determined and overwhelmingly agreed to some pretty fucking awesome things, so this is a really silly rebuttal to the point at hand.
+3
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
You.....you know how democracy works, though, right?
Like, I get that a government is supposed to stop tyranny of the majority and all that, but this is a far cry from that. 'Gun owners' aren't some poor, downtrodden abused class of people. Your purchases don't make you special. The vast majority of Americans support increasing regulatory oversight for how guns are distributed. The Republican refusal to even acknowledge that defeats the purpose of government representation.
Because the Dems are absolutely representing their constituents on this.
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
They are absolute nightmares, and people on the No Fly List have extensively documented how the procedure to get off it is basically fictional, and if anything causes you to get hassled more.
There is no way to "reform" a secret list of names of citizens who do not have the same rights as other citizens. It is not a system in which false positives are generated as a side effect of a functional mechanism. It is a system for generating false positives.
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited June 2016
It's not the job of the House to pass any bill that's popular with the public at large, and it's not the Speaker's job to bring forward any bill that would, under reasonable speculation, pass the house were it to be considered (trivial proof: sometimes multiple incompatible versions of the same bill would all pass—perhaps on the basis of different votes—but they are, by stipulation, incompatible, ergo at least some bill that would pass cannot be brought to the floor). Controlling the proceedings is one of the powers of the speakership, and it has varied over time how concessive speakers have been to the minority party in that regard. I recall back and forth fights over the ability of the minority party to offer amendments under both parties speakerships, with that conflict just being the same as this but in microcosm.
I think the American system is pretty flawed. A better system would be less malapportioned. And the "free proposal" period that Friendishrabbit mentions, where anyone can bring a bill, sounds just fine to me. So, I would support institutional reform. Nonetheless, we currently have the system we do, and in that system nothing stands against Ryan refusing to consider a bill he doesn't want to. It might be distasteful, but it's no kind of violation of his duties. I don't think the same can be said of the house members sitting in and singing and chanting over Ryan when he tried to bring the house to order.
Of course, it's rather minor. In terms of the immediate effect of wasting some floor time on the house, it's not a big deal. I don't much like it, though, because of what it stands for as sign and symptom. Anywhere you look these days you can read stories about the historic breakdown of Congressional function. Partisan polarization is up and legislative norms are dissolving. Think of it this way: when you read a headline in isolation that says "the minority party has begun a physical occupation of the legislative floor in protest of the actions of the majority leader," are you more confident that you're reading about a quasi-stable third-world democracy, or about the USA? For me, it's the former; or, it would have been. So, even though I doubt the sit in really did anything particularly bad, I still find it disquieting. I'm glad they ended it after a day.
When it comes to the bill itself, I don't really share the sense of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. Part of the reason is that I don't like the bill that much, for basically the reasons outlined by Pareene, (and quoted approvingly by djw at lawyers guns and money):
The no-fly list is a civil rights disaster by every conceivable standard. It is secret, it disproportionately affects Arab-Americans, it is error-prone, there is no due process or effective recourse for people placed on the list, and it constantly and relentlessly expands. As of 2014, the government had a master watchlist of 680,000 people, forty percent of whom had “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” This is both an absurdly large number of people to arbitrarily target in gun control legislation, and far, far too few to have any meaningful effect on actual gun ownership, let alone gun violence.
…Almost any popular and previously debated gun control measure would have made a better symbolic lost cause. Democrats could be staging a sit-in in support of universal background checks* and waiting periods, nationally standard gun licensing and training requirements, and tougher restrictions on where and how guns are sold. All of those, or even any one of those, would have been more defensible both politically and morally. Instead House Democrats are going to the mat for a shitty, racist, useless bill.
So however extraordinary our times might be, this doesn't seem like a particularly attractive measure. But even bracketing the bill itself, I don't think the times are really that extraordinary in the first place: that is, I don't think the current rates of gun violence present any kind of existential crisis in government. Gun violence in general and mass shootings in particular are certainly nationally visible and very horrifying. But they are not, in the final balance, a particularly large risk factor for Americans. I mean, we can begin by noting that an American selected at random is more likely to have shot themselves than to have been shot by someone else, which at the very least suggests that suicide is a bigger public health problem than gun violence (perhaps a sit in for better mental health service at free clinics?).
Now, one might object that this statistic ignores a racial reality to gun violence. Once you specify that the American you have selected at random is black, then the odds flip; that is to say, a white American is more likely to have shot themselves than to have been shot by someone else, whereas a black American is more likely to be shot by someone else than to have shot themselves. Yet even among the group most often killed by gun violence—black men—it's unclear, as far as I can tell, that gun violence is a uniquely bad risk factor. So, in another comparison: a black American man is more likely to die from medical complications due to diabetes than they are from gun violence (38 per 100,000 as against 34 per 100,000).
So that's gun violence in general. Once we confine our attention to mass shootings, though, the numbers really do become relatively miniscule. So, again, to frame things: around 475 Americans per year die in a mass shootings, as opposed to the ~13,000 a year dying in gun violence and the ~30,000 a year dying to suicide. Not only is gun violence a significantly less common cause of death than suicide, but mass shootings make up a tiny portion of gun deaths. Hence, measures targeted specifically at preventing mass shootings (as 'no fly no buy' appears to be) seem, even within the world of preventing gun violence, to be likely to have a minuscule effect on the total.
This is not to say that gun violence isn't a problem, or one that we should solve: I believe that it is and we should. I support gun control. But "blood on our hands" and all strikes me as lacking perspective. Gun violence is one public health problem among many. I don't think it's special in a way that would uniquely justify, for instance, attempting to continue the sit in and shut down the house until they really did get a vote—if that were the end game, I would be fully on board with Ryan having the sergeant at arms or whoever clear them out.
tl;dr: don't love the sit in, but don't think it's that big a deal either—definitely wouldn't have liked it if it went on longer though
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Emanuel Cleaver, Democratic Rep of Missouri's 5th district (My district!) and one of the participants of the sit-in, was placed on the no-fly list for a time because a cousin of his with the same initials and last name was a high-ranking member of the Black Panthers.
He was asked this morning on the local NPR station if he thought there needed to be changes to the bill to help deal with those who were wrongly placed on the no-fly list, his answer? No.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with my Rep. on that, but I thought it was very interesting that someone who has been fucked by the no-fly list is still completely OK with using it as it is today to stop possible terrorists from buying guns.
I'm sure the process for getting your name removed from the no fly list as a private citizen(which is what again exactly?) and getting it removed as a sitting member of congress are very comparable.
I mean it only took Ted Kennedy, one of the longest serving senators at the time a few months to be removed from it. With such minor advantages as personal contact with the director of DHS.
I got on the watch list last April. I was taking a plane to Boston and I get out to the USAIR and I come up to the counter and I said I want my ticket.
They said we can’t give it to you. I say, well, wait a minute, here is a Visa. There must have been a mix-up. And the person behind the gate said, “I can’t sell it to you. You can’t buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.” I said well, why not. We just — we can’t tell you. Well, I said, let me talk to the supervisor on that. This is at five of seven. The plane is about to leave and finally, the supervisor said okay.
And I thought it was a mix-up in my office, which it wasn’t. And I got to Boston and said there’s been a mix-up on this thing to Boston. What in the world has ever happened? Is this what happened? Tried to get on the plane back to Washington. You can’t get on the plane. I went up to the desk. I said I’ve been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years and why can’t I get on the plane back to Boston — back to Washington. And they said you can’t get on the plane back to Washington.
So my administrative assistant talked to the Department of Homeland Security and they said there’s some mistake. It happened three more times and finally Secretary Ridge called to apologize on it. It happened even after he called to apologize because they couldn’t — my name was on the list at the airports and with the airlines and the Homeland Security. He couldn’t get my name off the list for a period of weeks.
Now, if they had that kind of difficulty for a member of Congress, they’d have it — my office has a number of instances where we’ve had the leader of a distinguished medical school in New England and the list goes on. How in the world are average Americans who are going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they going to be able to get treated fairly and not have their rights abused?
Like I really really cannot emphasize enough how stupid it is that it's a literal list of names. Names, as though no one in the world has the same name as any other person.
And it takes months to get resolved if they know you're right. And the process of protesting your inclusion is a sign that you're suspicious so hey maybe instead of erasing you we just put you on the "allow them to fly but keep an eye on them at all times and also fuck with them at airport security" list.
And it's secret, so you've already been fucked if you actually needed to be someplace at a time.
It's one of the dumbest things we came up with in our terror-haze, and it absolutely needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
Society has also determined and overwhelmingly agreed to some pretty fucking awesome things, so this is a really silly rebuttal to the point at hand.
Also that's pretty much how society works.
Until we find some actual moral particles floating around, we are stuck either trying to come to consensus about shit, or anarchy.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Like I really really cannot emphasize enough how stupid it is that it's a literal list of names. Names, as though no one in the world has the same name as any other person.
And it takes months to get resolved if they know you're right. And the process of protesting your inclusion is a sign that you're suspicious so hey maybe instead of erasing you we just put you on the "allow them to fly but keep an eye on them at all times and also fuck with them at airport security" list.
And it's secret, so you've already been fucked if you actually needed to be someplace at a time.
It's one of the dumbest things we came up with in our terror-haze, and it absolutely needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
God forbid you find out that you're on it while in a foreign country
Posts
There is almost certainly some stuff from the Senate.
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
I do wish that, given the near universal popularity of some form of additional gun control, the more anti-regulation crowd had put together some sensible proposals rather than endlessly rejecting them.
I stand by my belief that as a result of this obstinacy gun control, when we get it, will be far more broad and restrictive than e.g.: a gun registry, prohibiting unlicensed sales/transfers, mandatory training/storage procedures, waiting periods, background checks, restricting characteristics like fire rate and magazine size, regulating how manufacturers can advertise their products, permitting the CDC or other agencies to actually do research, etc.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If you're going to be for something then be about it, and don't couch it in misleading language, or outright mislead (Anyone can by guns off the internet without a background check!).
What is the defining aspect of a private sale?
Is it a transfer between two people not in the business of selling firearms? If so, how does requiring background checks ban private sales? I believe you would need to fund the system and make it easy to perform them, obviously, but private sales could still exist.
Or is it transferring guns for money without a background check? If so, why would anybody support their existence?
It's not misleading in any way
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The phrase "gun show loophole" implies that anyone at a "gun show" can sell firearms without a NICS check, like some kind of law free zone. And you explicitly stated that the situation is the same for internet sales. Both are wrong. In the former FFLs are still required to perform a NICS check, in the latter online retailers are required to ship only to valid FFL holders (after receiving a faxed copy of FFL information) who then perform a NICS check before transfer.
If the situation were truly reversed in all but the particular legislation, that would mean:
If all of that were true, then hell yes I would support the Republicans calling them out on it like this. If nothing else, it would provide me with valuable information for the next time I'm in a voting booth.
But right now the GOP is going full Liar, Liar "it's damaging to our side!" And fuuuuuuck. That. Noise.
I would actually applaud that as I feel that it sets a really bad precedent. But what is happening is just anti-government assholes making government useless, as is usual.
Honestly. Even if your constituents are all LaPierre sock puppets, I can't imagine they'd see your hiding behind Ryan's skirt as preferable to your standing up and saying "Nay. Fuck nay." on a bill in a house the NRA controls.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because a vote is a tangible, recordable thing. And those tangible, recordable things can be used against them come election time.
And that's what pisses me off, they are all fine taking a brave stand on gun rights in a speech, but when it comes time to show that liberty is paramount they won't even bring it up to defeat it. Bunch of brave men in congress.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Seriously, this is politics. If protesting the fact that something with huge, broad, bipartisan support isn't even being brought up for a vote isn't something the minority party is allowed to do, why are they even there? It isn't like Republicans are reaching across the aisle on virtually anything to get shit done. If voting isn't allowed, and protesting isn't allowed, why even have a minority party in Congress?
the thing is the procedural rules enable shenanigans to block legislation but not shenanigans to enact legislation, and democrats are going to generally be the party of 'wanting to enact legislation' whereas republicans are going to generally be the party of 'wanting to block legislation' so :rotate:
I fundamentally disagree with any argument that a politician's only job is to follow procedure. Why they are using those other tools is important, though, and plays a part in whether I think what they are doing is a good thing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And trying to stop a vote of a bill you don't want to pass, and know would.
And trying to force a vote on a bill you know won't pass.
And even then there's a big difference in what type of bill is in question.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And if Republican House members are just faithfully representing the interests of their constituents when they shut down any attempt at enacting gun control laws, why are they afraid of putting their name on a No vote? If that's what their voters want, they should be happy to show how great of a job they're doing at representing their interests.
All else put aside, I have a really hard time trying to understand a non-shitty reason for not even having a vote.
90-97% of both Republican and Democrat voters support universal background checks. The NRA do not and it's the NRA that control the Republican sock puppets. Putting their name on a No vote would be showing the public the puppetmaster's hand jammed up their ass.
Hello, I've had a family member murdered with a private sale gun. It's a pretty fucking big deal. A cursory background check could have kept people alive.
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Emanuel Cleaver, Democratic Rep of Missouri's 5th district (My district!) and one of the participants of the sit-in, was placed on the no-fly list for a time because a cousin of his with the same initials and last name was a high-ranking member of the Black Panthers.
He was asked this morning on the local NPR station if he thought there needed to be changes to the bill to help deal with those who were wrongly placed on the no-fly list, his answer? No.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with my Rep. on that, but I thought it was very interesting that someone who has been fucked by the no-fly list is still completely OK with using it as it is today to stop possible terrorists from buying guns.
If it was just about guns I would agree with him, as I'm of the opinion the 2nd Amendment is pretty fucking stupid in a modern context. But I worry about the precedent it sets for other rights.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
Society has also determined and overwhelmingly agreed to some pretty fucking awesome things, so this is a really silly rebuttal to the point at hand.
You.....you know how democracy works, though, right?
Like, I get that a government is supposed to stop tyranny of the majority and all that, but this is a far cry from that. 'Gun owners' aren't some poor, downtrodden abused class of people. Your purchases don't make you special. The vast majority of Americans support increasing regulatory oversight for how guns are distributed. The Republican refusal to even acknowledge that defeats the purpose of government representation.
Because the Dems are absolutely representing their constituents on this.
They are absolute nightmares, and people on the No Fly List have extensively documented how the procedure to get off it is basically fictional, and if anything causes you to get hassled more.
There is no way to "reform" a secret list of names of citizens who do not have the same rights as other citizens. It is not a system in which false positives are generated as a side effect of a functional mechanism. It is a system for generating false positives.
I think the American system is pretty flawed. A better system would be less malapportioned. And the "free proposal" period that Friendishrabbit mentions, where anyone can bring a bill, sounds just fine to me. So, I would support institutional reform. Nonetheless, we currently have the system we do, and in that system nothing stands against Ryan refusing to consider a bill he doesn't want to. It might be distasteful, but it's no kind of violation of his duties. I don't think the same can be said of the house members sitting in and singing and chanting over Ryan when he tried to bring the house to order.
Of course, it's rather minor. In terms of the immediate effect of wasting some floor time on the house, it's not a big deal. I don't much like it, though, because of what it stands for as sign and symptom. Anywhere you look these days you can read stories about the historic breakdown of Congressional function. Partisan polarization is up and legislative norms are dissolving. Think of it this way: when you read a headline in isolation that says "the minority party has begun a physical occupation of the legislative floor in protest of the actions of the majority leader," are you more confident that you're reading about a quasi-stable third-world democracy, or about the USA? For me, it's the former; or, it would have been. So, even though I doubt the sit in really did anything particularly bad, I still find it disquieting. I'm glad they ended it after a day.
When it comes to the bill itself, I don't really share the sense of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. Part of the reason is that I don't like the bill that much, for basically the reasons outlined by Pareene, (and quoted approvingly by djw at lawyers guns and money):
…Almost any popular and previously debated gun control measure would have made a better symbolic lost cause. Democrats could be staging a sit-in in support of universal background checks* and waiting periods, nationally standard gun licensing and training requirements, and tougher restrictions on where and how guns are sold. All of those, or even any one of those, would have been more defensible both politically and morally. Instead House Democrats are going to the mat for a shitty, racist, useless bill.
So however extraordinary our times might be, this doesn't seem like a particularly attractive measure. But even bracketing the bill itself, I don't think the times are really that extraordinary in the first place: that is, I don't think the current rates of gun violence present any kind of existential crisis in government. Gun violence in general and mass shootings in particular are certainly nationally visible and very horrifying. But they are not, in the final balance, a particularly large risk factor for Americans. I mean, we can begin by noting that an American selected at random is more likely to have shot themselves than to have been shot by someone else, which at the very least suggests that suicide is a bigger public health problem than gun violence (perhaps a sit in for better mental health service at free clinics?).
Now, one might object that this statistic ignores a racial reality to gun violence. Once you specify that the American you have selected at random is black, then the odds flip; that is to say, a white American is more likely to have shot themselves than to have been shot by someone else, whereas a black American is more likely to be shot by someone else than to have shot themselves. Yet even among the group most often killed by gun violence—black men—it's unclear, as far as I can tell, that gun violence is a uniquely bad risk factor. So, in another comparison: a black American man is more likely to die from medical complications due to diabetes than they are from gun violence (38 per 100,000 as against 34 per 100,000).
So that's gun violence in general. Once we confine our attention to mass shootings, though, the numbers really do become relatively miniscule. So, again, to frame things: around 475 Americans per year die in a mass shootings, as opposed to the ~13,000 a year dying in gun violence and the ~30,000 a year dying to suicide. Not only is gun violence a significantly less common cause of death than suicide, but mass shootings make up a tiny portion of gun deaths. Hence, measures targeted specifically at preventing mass shootings (as 'no fly no buy' appears to be) seem, even within the world of preventing gun violence, to be likely to have a minuscule effect on the total.
This is not to say that gun violence isn't a problem, or one that we should solve: I believe that it is and we should. I support gun control. But "blood on our hands" and all strikes me as lacking perspective. Gun violence is one public health problem among many. I don't think it's special in a way that would uniquely justify, for instance, attempting to continue the sit in and shut down the house until they really did get a vote—if that were the end game, I would be fully on board with Ryan having the sergeant at arms or whoever clear them out.
tl;dr: don't love the sit in, but don't think it's that big a deal either—definitely wouldn't have liked it if it went on longer though
I'm sure the process for getting your name removed from the no fly list as a private citizen(which is what again exactly?) and getting it removed as a sitting member of congress are very comparable.
I mean it only took Ted Kennedy, one of the longest serving senators at the time a few months to be removed from it. With such minor advantages as personal contact with the director of DHS.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/ted-kennedy-and-the-no-fly-list-myth/
And it takes months to get resolved if they know you're right. And the process of protesting your inclusion is a sign that you're suspicious so hey maybe instead of erasing you we just put you on the "allow them to fly but keep an eye on them at all times and also fuck with them at airport security" list.
And it's secret, so you've already been fucked if you actually needed to be someplace at a time.
It's one of the dumbest things we came up with in our terror-haze, and it absolutely needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Until we find some actual moral particles floating around, we are stuck either trying to come to consensus about shit, or anarchy.
God forbid you find out that you're on it while in a foreign country