Be careful. Someone might come along and chastise you for focusing on conservative hypocrisy.
So when the Republicans “block” legislation, it’s obstruction, but when Democrats take over the House floor that’s what, exactly? Righteousness?
Notice the winky face? It’s a clue that I’m not being 100% serious at that point. I recognize the difference between the Secret Service and random joes.
But “security personnel” can be a pretty broad net. Mall cops and the like have hardly any firearms training at all, if any. Soldiers have to qualify their marksmanship with their weapon twice a year, but we only had a few actual safety and ethical talks about their use in my five years in the Army. Perhaps to your surprise, most people off the street aren’t fatally ignorant nor criminally violent, and extensive training is not necessary.
I have no problem with training our nation’s gun owners, and I’d even be okay with making it mandatory. So long as the poor and disenfranchised (including, for example, illiterate or elderly people, along with minorities and people who unfortunately share a name with a guy who once talked to a terrorist) aren’t therefore locked out of their rights.
Hell, they could run a gun safety campaign the way they do PSAs against drugs. Just put a few billboards up and run commercials and you’d get most of the effect of mandatory classes, but you’d probably have to divert some drug war money.
But something tells me you don’t want an educated populace well trained in firearm safety and use, you’d rather disarm everyone so you don’t have to trust anyone except the government. As if banning (all or particular) guns is the same as disarmament, or that either will result in you being able to ignore threats posed by others.
That’s a good point. Will the Democrats suffer for shamelessly using this traditional protest technique, historically used to secure rights, in order to take away a right? Probably not. No one is going to remember this anymore than they remember the last time there was some blatant showmanship exhibited by Congress. I want Hillary to win in November, not Trump, so I sure hope she doesn’t do something stupid like to run on gun control. Time and place, folks. Time and place.
How is this different from today? That’s a serious question because I don’t know. Here is an article that details what a background check currently looks into. A person can already be turned down for a gun because of being on any variety of lists. And there is a three-day delay built in that seems exactly like what is being included in some of the disputed bills.
What astonishes me is that both parties in the House agree that this is a desirable thing; both presidential candidates advocate for it; and the public is polling 80-90% approval of some version of the bill. I can’t think of any issue with that level of support that hasn’t been passed into law. Nor one in which the Supreme Court hasn’t figured out some way of allowing it.
Whether it is a good idea is irrelevant. Whether it is constitutional is irrelevant. What is important right this moment is that the constant march toward the absolutism of the second amendment is being halted through the only possible mechanism: politicians heeding a change in public opinion. That’s as monumental as gay marriage - if it lasts. Go into your arguments elsewhere. This is news!
“Well trained in gun safety and use” doesn’t actually seem to matter. Several times in the last year people who were instructors or preached safety non stop still got ‘accidently’ killed by their own guns. Sometimes by small children.
I’m just saying it’s not all about training. It’s about sheer numbers too!
Here is information about appealing a NICS denial. How do you appeal being placed on a terrorist watch list or a no-fly list?
Here is who is considered a prohibited person. What are the criteria used to be placed on a terrorist watch list or a no-fly list?
Being on a list or the existence of lists aren’t the problem. The problem is the lack of due process and lack of clear guidelines which makes the setup ripe for abuse and poor execution.
The easiest way forward is to reform the no-fly list, which has been begging for it for years. And has similar public support, AFAIK. Then there are no rights issues. Which, as I keep saying, are by far the least interesting thing happening here.
Your link doesn’t say where this federal law exists. But, if it is federal law, then we voted for it. We are good to go.
(emphasis in original)
John? Found one.
In addition, the timing of this could not be more fortuitous, given that it occurred at the exact same time as Donald Trump speech. Also, from the “control the news cycle” angle, the sit-in had the salutary effect of knocking Trump off the top of the TV news shows.
A no-fly list worth having is inherently a rights issue. To remove the due process problem, you’d have to (a) make the list public; (b) make the reasons for placing someone on the list public; (c) make sure the reasons are sufficiently strong to warrant taking away someone’s ability to fly (or buy a gun); and (d) give the person an opportunity to challenge the designation before a neutral decision-maker. But if you do all those things, then you make the tool pretty much completely ineffective.
And as much as you’re enamored with the political moment and think it’s much more important than discussion of the merits, they are inextricably intertwined. This isn’t some kind of politically courageous act to break the NRA logjam. And it’s not groundbreaking. It’s an attempt to move from difficult political terrain (actual gun violence policy that would make a difference) to something politically more convenient (ineffective policy that fucks over Muslims, South Asians, and Arab Americans).
Even if the lists were fixed, which is unlikley, you seem to think that an enumerated fundamental constitutional right should or could be treated the same as these lists.
I doubt anything much will happen, so no exclamation points necessary for me.
I disagree. It’s completely ineffective in its present state. Banning two-year-olds because they have a similar name is ineffective. Having thousands of duplicate, false, or incomplete names is ineffective. We have no evidence that any terror incidents have been prevented by the no-fly list as it stands. We can and should reform it, if not throw it away and build a new and better one from scratch.
This is not just something I disagree with, it is shortsighted nonsense. Gun policy is this country is far more broken than the no-fly list. Breaking the NRA control over Congress - heck, just sticking a toe into a crack in the door - is monumental. People want this; the country needs this. This is as important, as utterly critical, as the civil rights movement John Lewis is identified with. The details of the moment is exactly what do not matter. Break the NRA and the results are guaranteed to net out to be excellent for the country, even if they aren’t perfect. And it can be done, to the last clause and attachment, without scratching the Second Amendment.
Nope. Besides the fact that the post you quoted came after your post, I already established in earlier posts that the issue is more complicated than just that. Don’t need to repeat it every time I post going forward. Of course if you edit someone’s posting history in a thread to a few words, you can edit out the important details. To wit:
Of course it is. Only Republican votes matter, when they want to schedule them.
Perhaps it can be done. But none of the proposed bills does that. Fix the list first, then figure out how to use it as part of reasonable gun control legislation.
Always with the excuses, right? :rolleyes:
The main point they’re making is to try to break through the obstructionism, of which excusemaking is a central part.
Well, the point is that you cannot build a newer better one because secret no-oversight lists are inherently flawed policy. But it seems like you agree, so I’ll move to where we disagree.
It’s not breaking the NRA to redefine the battle to be an ineffectual change targeting a politically powerless group. Just like it wouldn’t be breaking the NRA to pass a law requiring that all AR-15s be painted pink.
And it’s certainly not breaking them to try such craven demagoguery and fail. On the contrary, it is empowering the NRA, who can now stand proudly with the ACLU fighting against the unreasonable Democrats. It shows that the only group politically powerful enough to force members of Congress to withstand terrorism-based demagoguery is NRA.
You’re also completely wrong about the causes of and solutions to gun violence, but that’s another thread altogether. 