What other work is being stopped? 
Nothing in the Constitution, but people might ask why the House intends to go for three months without voting or debating any legislation during an election year. The House is sleazy scheduled to be out of session from mid-July to early September, come back to DC for like two weeks, and then be out of session for another two months before and after th election.
If Mr. Ryan wants to continue being Speaker, it’s hard to make that case having worked only ten or fifteen days in the five months before an election.
Yes.
Hilarious.
But in my reality the NRA are the demagogues. They are so transparently demagogic that Donald Trump has said he wants to talk to them to drop their opposition to this issue. That should make your head spin.
The parallel to civil rights is exact. It happened on a piece of bad law, in fact. “With all deliberate speed” in Brown v Board of Education was a nonsense phrase that dragged the change out to horrifying effect. The racists demagogued the issue for decades, yet they were doomed. They were doomed because people all over the country found their own ways of battling the evil, one little victory at a time until the laws had to change and the government had to find the courage to enforce them and the courts had to back their efforts.
We’re now hearing that the LBGT community, so good with changing laws and opinions, is gearing up to battle guns. Maybe with them as a major constituency, the Democratic Party will grow an inch of spine. Maybe the Supreme Court letting stand assault rifle bans in NY and Connecticut will persuade more states to join them. I don’t know. It would have been hard to say in 1954 what paths the future would take. All I can is that I think that an important door has been opened. That’s the one and only issue to take from this.
Of course they are. So what? How does that affect the question of whether trying to out-demagogue them (and failing) is an effective strategy?
What door has been opened? Even if they succeed, all they prove is that you can take rights away from people unilaterally declared terrorists. I think that one was already pretty well-established.
What makes my head spin is people thinking it must be good to have Donald Trump on your side.
Yeah, all we’ve got here is people of two parties ganging up on a common enemy: one side because they hate guns, the other side because they hate Muslims.
What’s ironic is that Republican voters line up behind Donald saying, “He’ll get things done!” When in fact, their party has dedicated it’s every moment to making certain nothing gets done. As was seen yet again today.
I’m 100% for being tough on Radical Islamic Terrorism; but on this one, the Democrats are right. The GOP look like idiots not restricting would-be terrorists from guns; their arguments are no different than those the Michael Moore crowd made against the Patriot Act back in the 2000s.
This post speaks for itself.
Here is the schedule when Ms. Pelosi was in charge. It’s hardly any better.
I anxiously await the quotes of the Republicans who decried the lack of due process and the concerns about the rights of those on the no-fly list back when it was enacted. Not that the Democrats are blameless, of course; both parties collectively lost their Constitutionally endowed minds back when they voted in the Patriot Act.
I just find it very interesting that the GOP appears to suddenly find their concern about due process and individual rights only when it comes to buying guns. Flying? Privacy? Rights to assemble or practice religion? Naw, national security comes first. Guns? WE MUST PROTECT DUE PROCESS FOR GUN BUYERS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I agree that the GOP members are being completely disingenuous here. If someone called for deporting all non-citizens on the watchlist, every elected member of the GOP would vote for it. But that doesn’t mean the arguments they are insincerely adopting aren’t true.
D’Anconia, you seem to be a bit confused about what “obstructionism” means. The Democrats are not obstructing on this issue. They want it to just come to a simple vote. If you think that the bill is a bad idea, then just vote against it. But the Republicans aren’t satisfied with that. They want to obstruct it, by preventing it from coming to a vote. It’s precisely that obstructionism that the Democrats are fighting against.
It’s the Republicans blocking a vote on gun legislation. The Democrats would stop their sit in as soon as the legislation is brought up.
OK, you don’t get it or else your worldwide depends on your not getting it. I get it.
I’ll make it blunt, then. You’re on the wrong side, even if like the segregationists you cite the Bible and insist that’s it’s God’s will and opponents are Satan. None of your spin will matter in the end. People will look back in wonderment at the way we treat guns in the way they look at two drinking fountains and ask, how could they think that way?
Opposing that is not demagoguery, but more spin. There’s no more demagoguery being against the current gun laws than there was at the Woolworth’s lunch counter.
You’re the Jim Crow South. And you’re feeling good about it as you haul those agitators off to jail.
Is that direct enough? When the majority got disgusted by the images on their televisions, the law had to change. You can try to make this about the technical issue of a bad process (introduced, ironically, by the Republicans) that also needs changing. That will be forgotten by history when it too is swept aside by the larger changes. There will be both a Martin Luther King and a Malcolm X of guns. Mistakes will be made, murky moral decisions are inevitable. But you’re on the wrong side of history and morality. I will gloat. It won’t be tomorrow or November or next year. But I will.
It’s very direct. It just has no basis in reality. Your preferred strategy makes it harder, not easier, to reduce gun violence.
What you perceive as shining moral clarity is actually the blinding light of uninformed self-righteousness.
And yours isn’t?
I have no idea what you imagine my preferred strategy to be. Other than breaking the power of the NRA I haven’t said a word about my preferences. You’re doing all the assuming.
I will give you a piece of strategy, though.
If we wait until the no-fly list is fixed, nothing will ever happen. If a bill to stop people on the list from buying guns is passed, then the pressure to fix the no-fly list will be unstoppable. That’s the way Washington works.
I thought the bill included an avenue for appeal if you were on the no-fly list? (including costs awarded if your appeal prevailed)
Which is something that should have been done long ago anyway.
And in a related question -
What is the long term end game here if the Democrats refuse to vacate and the Republicans refuse to vote? Can the chamber be vacated under force of trespass? disturbing the peace? Can the republicans convene in a different location and ignore the protest?
Your preferred strategy is to try to break the power of the NRA by proposing a bill that is so useless and opposed by such a politically weak constituency that it will pass and therefore–in some entirely unspecified way–start to chip away at their lock on GOP politicians.
The most likely outcome of your approach is that they simply fail to pass the bill, in no small part because it’s a bad bill and so the GOP will get plenty of political cover from groups like the ACLU. And, in failing to pass it by using demagoguery about terrorism, they further entrench all the destructive, reactionary anti-terrorism rhetoric that the GOP regularly uses to beat Democrats over the head. This result strengthens the GOP and strengthens the NRA.
But even if they beat the odds and pass it, there is no mechanism for how this leads to actually useful gun policies. They will have used up their political capital on a bill that does nothing to prevent gun violence. It likely will not stop a single murder. It will have re-directed national focus away from policies that have some hope of stemming the tide of death and onto complete trivialities.