visionary Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) http://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-chris-murphy-presses-gun-issues-in-senate-filibuster-1466021668 Senators Negotiate Over Possible Gun Curbs After Orlando Shooting The Orlando mass shooting sparked a new push in the Senate Wednesday to reconcile measures from Democrats and Republicans aimed at restricting suspected terrorists’ access to weapons. Senate Democrats, frustrated by congressional inaction in the face of a string of recent shootings, intensified pressure on Republicans to pass new restrictions. The impasse over how to respond to gun violence has bled into battleground Senate races and left House Democrats so incensed Monday evening that some refused to... https://twitter.com/adamwinkler/status/743240646798938113 Toomey will introduce a bill tomorrow proposing to use the FISA court for no buy list, as in my @nytimes oped 8:35 PM Edited June 16, 2016 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 https://twitter.com/adamwinkler/status/743240646798938113 Toomey will introduce a bill tomorrow proposing to use the FISA court for no buy list, as in my @nytimes oped Got to admit I'm conflicted on that one. I kinda like the idea of getting the Judicial Branch involved in this thing. (Although I'm not 100% certain about even that.) And I could see the reasoning that maybe this decision will have to be made, based on classified information. But a different part of me really doesn't want to be giving more power to secret courts, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 But a different part of me really doesn't want to be giving more power to secret courts, either. An important thing to come from the Snowden leaks was that the FISA court really attempted to hold the NSA accountable. They issued orders to stop doing certain things, then followed up, then ridiculed them in their court for not listening. The problem was the FISA court didn't have any teeth, they couldn't actually stop the NSA. So... from what little we have to go on, I'm actually OK with the FISA courts. It's a small sample... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 An important thing to come from the Snowden leaks was that the FISA court really attempted to hold the NSA accountable. They issued orders to stop doing certain things, then followed up, then ridiculed them in their court for not listening. The problem was the FISA court didn't have any teeth, they couldn't actually stop the NSA. So... from what little we have to go on, I'm actually OK with the FISA courts. It's a small sample... Funny, I've read exactly the opposite. That, for example, when W, and then Obama, wanted to vacuum all the phone records of everybody in the US, the FISA court didn't just issue blanket warrants for everything in the world, they actually wrote legal opinions (not their designated job, and opinions that can't be appealed, because they're classified) that warrants weren't needed, anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Filibuster into the 12 hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-guns-blood-224400 Warren: We 'will have blood on our hands' if we don't act on guns Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Congress “will have blood on its hands” if it fails to act in the wake of last weekend’s massacre at an Orlando nightclub, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. “If we fail to act, the next time someone uses a gun to kill one of us, a gun that we could have kept out of the hands of a terrorist, the members of this Congress will have blood on our hands,” Warren (D-Mass.) said on the Senate floor Wednesday. The Massachusetts senator spoke as part of a day-long Senate floor filibuster on gun violence launched by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). The Senate is currently debating a spending bill to which Democrats hope to attach gun control amendments. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are working to find compromise on legislation that would bar suspected terrorists from legally purchasing firearms as well as a means for individuals who feel they’ve been wrongly put on a terror watch list to petition to have themselves removed. Edited June 16, 2016 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I spent about 30 minutes on what one might call "Conservative Twitter" last night. And prefacing this, I'm not saying this applies to all or even most conservatives. My god they are on par with the homeless people you see rambling about conspiracy theories. Same as the 9/11 truthers. It's like they wake up every day in fear of a CNN headline that says 23rd Amendment proposed to repeal 2A. It's kind of pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I'm a little nervous to see how this plays out. I'm all for smart gun reform, I just don't have the faith in Congress to think whatever they try to do will actually be smart. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I like that they're talking about finding recourse to getting off a watch list too - shows they (or some) are looking at both sides of the issue. Really hope the GOP steps up on this one. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 So... from what little we have to go on, I'm actually OK with the FISA courts. It's a small sample... I'm okay with the FISA courts too, but from what I remember they approved 93% of requests made and were fine with requests being made after the fact (which I'm probably okay with too). I do think that in terms of intelligence and security that a wide degree of latitude is needed, but the FISA Court often seemed like a rubber stamp outfit. Even so, I remember reading that CIA and the like found it stifling. I don't think that FISA acts as a diligent check and balancer, but do think that it acts as a tap on the brakes. I like that they're talking about finding recourse to getting off a watch list too - shows they (or some) are looking at both sides of the issue. Really hope the GOP steps up on this one. Agreed on both counts. Mistakes can happen and need to be fixable, but for fear of a mistake we shouldn't become paralyzed in attempting to reduce risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I hate that it takes massacres to get the baby steps. When I woke up and saw that article that a middle ground might be found, it was the closest I felt to "faith restored" in that branch of government in a long time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I hate that it takes massacres to get the baby steps. When I woke up and saw that article that a middle ground might be found, it was the closest I felt to "faith restored" in that branch of government in a long time. It's going to take massacres PLUS a strong pressure from polling. Democrats have lacked balls on this issue for a long time. The fact that they are standing up now is good, but it suggests that their data shows it is a winner at the polls. If the data continues to show that then Rs will concede too. Congressional Ds lack a spine without massive public support. Hopefully, this time they've found some gumption. I hope some Rs can come on board too. You can see in this thread how even our very conservative "gun nuts" find room for debate and compromise. There is definitely room to work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 So with this filibuster, how long is it supposed to last? When she we expect to hear some details of a compromise? I don't really know much of how all this works so I'm just looking for the 30 second brief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 So with this filibuster, how long is it supposed to last? When she we expect to hear some details of a compromise? I don't really know much of how all this works so I'm just looking for the 30 second brief. The idea of a filibuster is that it lasts until the other side gives in. Basically, it's a siege tactic. You allow the other side to do nothing. Eventually, you hope they fly the white flag and talk before winter comes and your troop starves to death. Otherwise, it's a game of chicken. The Republicans are deciding if they can outlast and break the nerves of the Democrats. The Democrats have to keep the floor occupied and keep talking. If the Dems pause the filibuster ends. Last one we had was led by Cruz who wound up reading Dr. Sues on the House floor. Ironically, he misunderstood the messages in the books he was reading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I spent about 30 minutes on what one might call "Conservative Twitter" last night. And prefacing this, I'm not saying this applies to all or even most conservatives. My god they are on par with the homeless people you see rambling about conspiracy theories. Same as the 9/11 truthers. It's like they wake up every day in fear of a CNN headline that says 23rd Amendment proposed to repeal 2A. It's kind of pathetic. The reaction to the Jade Helm 15 exercises was similarly alarming. Even more alarming was the way that certain officials legitimized the conspiracy theorists (and by certain officials I mean Greg Abbott, who we might remember as the moron who posted the tweet about reaping what you sow a couple days ago). Heck, and then in the aftermath of JH15, after it was done and nothing happened, I saw some out there declaring victory, that JH15 was totally a plan to take guns and impose martial law in Texas, but it was stopped because of national attention the theorists brought to it. And they've already started on Jade Helm 16 theories! http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/03/30/jade-helm-16-is-training-to-withhold-food-from-the-american-people/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) It's going to take massacres PLUS a strong pressure from polling. Democrats have lacked balls on this issue for a long time. The fact that they are standing up now is good, but it suggests that their data shows it is a winner at the polls. If the data continues to show that then Rs will concede too. Congressional Ds lack a spine without massive public support. Hopefully, this time they've found some gumption. I hope some Rs can come on board too. You can see in this thread how even our very conservative "gun nuts" find room for debate and compromise. There is definitely room to work. Latest CBS polls showed overwhelming support for gun control reform. Americans have had enough. The problem is the NRA and the loud vocal minority that buys its nonsense conspiracy theories. But I think even they find themselves on the losing end of the debate now. Edited June 16, 2016 by No Excuses 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 The idea of a filibuster is that it lasts until the other side gives in. Basically, it's a siege tactic. You allow the other side to do nothing. Eventually, you hope they fly the white flag and talk before winter comes and your troop starves to death. Otherwise, it's a game of chicken. The Republicans are deciding if they can outlast and break the nerves of the Democrats. The Democrats have to keep the floor occupied and keep talking. If the Dems pause the filibuster ends. Last one we had was led by Cruz who wound up reading Dr. Sues on the House floor. Ironically, he misunderstood the messages in the books he was reading. So are the Dems still talking and holding the floor? How do you track that? And are they then negotiating in a side room? Any way to find out what is being discussed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 So are the Dems still talking and holding the floor? How do you track that? And are they then negotiating in a side room? Any way to find out what is being discussed? The filibuster ended at 15 hours and there will be a vote on gun control by Republicans in the Senate according to Senator Murphy from Connecticut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Well that didn't last long. How do we get the details on what they are going to vote on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) Otherwise, it's a game of chicken. The Republicans are deciding if they can outlast and break the nerves of the Democrats. The Democrats have to keep the floor occupied and keep talking. If the Dems pause the filibuster ends. Last one we had was led by Cruz who wound up reading Dr. Sues on the House floor. Ironically, he misunderstood the messages in the books he was reading. If it works*, then I have a hunch who the next Dem nominee for President will be. * Meaning, if we actually get some meaningful reform out of the thing. Something that doesn't have NRA-planted loopholes designed to keep the thing from working. A scenario which I don't really put very good odds on. Edited June 16, 2016 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just654 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 So I have really stayed out of this topic here. It is hard to keep up. I will say I believe in the 2A. I just wrote this on facebook. I would like to get everyone's thoughts on this. I have been thinking over the past few days what I would consider something that might work. I am sure that this something that both sides will not like. But I think it is a start to a middle ground. But personally I am not sure how these ideas will stop crime or what happened. But lets talk. 1. Education on guns. We need gun safety classes in schools again. One thing I have noticed is it seems a lot of people are scared of guns. There is nothing to be scared of, if you use the gun a safe way. 2. A registration on guns. So here is the thing on that every time I buy a gun, the State and Feds are notified. Lets just turn that into a registration. We can even make jobs with that. Have people sitting at a computer in putting the information into a database. 3. Going to back to the using guns safely. I do not have problem taking a gun safety class before my first purchase. This would also have a back ground check and mental heath check. But this class should be free and paid either by the states or at the federal level. 4. After taking this class. I would get a license. Lets just say this license is good for 5 years. I know a lot can change in 5 years. But the details can be hammered out later. Every 5 years, I would have to go a range. Do 30 mins to 1 hour range time. To show I can still use a gun safely. During my range time, a new back ground check and mental check is being done. I would be willing to pay a very small fee at this time. Lets say $35. But this fee will go to fund school educational gun safety classes and only that. 5. This is were I think I will lose liberals. So with this license, since this is a federal law. I should be able to walk into any gun shop in any state pay and walk out with any gun I want. Of course not fully auto. But that includes handguns, rifles, shotguns. Any legal gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) I'd rather we not try to create another government databased that will surely fail and just allow people on terrorist watch lists to be barred. Is that such a hard compromise? At least as a first step? Edited June 16, 2016 by Sticksboi05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just654 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 So the databse I am talking about is gun owners, not a no-buy list. When you buy a gun. You have to fill out paperwork and a federal background is run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I'd rather we not try to create another government databased that will surely fail and just allow people on terrorist watch lists to be barred. Is that such a hard compromise? At least as a first step? With the way the terrorist watch list currently works, yes. Improve the way that system works and speed up the process for someone to get off it that shouldn't be there (3 year olds for example) and then we can talk about using that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts