7 ms·

But in this case exactly what they are protesting is that the leadership of the Republican party will not bring the measure up for debate and vote.

Cyph0n 10y ago
I'm astounded at how adamant many Americans are when it comes to even discussing gun control.
- brightball 10y ago
  That's because the US homocide rate is at a 51 year low according to the FBI while gun ownership is dramatically higher. We've had 2 terrorism incidents and we need to be addressing what could have prevented them. Every time an incident happens that gets on the news we see this song and dance about implementing gun control policies that wouldn't have stopped the incident being used to push them. That means that Democrats aren't trying to solve a problem. They are simply waiting to use national tragedies to push an agenda. Solving a problem looks like "here is how this happened and here is a policy that will make sure it doesn't again." Democrats have not proposed anything along those lines in the last 8 years.
  - whatok 10y ago
    Agree with this 100%. No gun control law would have prevented this from happening in America solely because we have quite a few guns here. If not procured legally, he easily could buy a gun illegally. Constitution aside, if there was a way to magically disappear every gun in America and then enact complete gun bans I might be willing to entertain to the notion. Otherwise it's just a bunch of posturing to me.
    - pigpaws 10y ago
      the problem then would be that only the 'important' people would have guns. I don't see any politicians giving up their security details. I don't see Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer giving up their 'concealed carry' licenses. Its a classic "Do as I say, not as I do." If they can carry in their overly restrictive states, why can't the electorate? don't they have the same rights? No? because political elitism. Even in that bastion of fascism, NJ: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/lawmaker_let_nj_legislators_judges_carry_handguns.html http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/lawmaker_let_nj...
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    The Orlando shooting was not a terrorist attack in the commonly used sense, as I assume you're referring to that. The fact that the homicide rate is lower than it was doesn't mean it's at an acceptable level. Now I don't know whether or not gun control is the solution, but the issue needs to be discussed and not dismissed because with "because history".
    - brightball 10y ago
      An easy way to start a discussion is with the words, "How could this have been prevented?" That has not happened.
    - whatok 10y ago
      Assuming all the background on him is factual, it absolutely was a terrorist attack on the gay community. Don't know how you can spin that one.
      - Cyph0n 10y ago
        I assume he was using the word "terrorist" as it has been used by the media over the years, not in the correct sense. Going with the latter, yes it was clearly a terrorist attack. Going by the former, it was not - the attack was basically homophobic in nature, perpetrated by a closet homosexual who frequented that same gay bar and had no contact whatsoever with the Muslim community.
        ende 10y ago
        You have to be muslim to be a terrorist?
        Cyph0n 10y ago
        Of course not, but I'm talking about the Orlando shooting which was initially thought to be perpetrated in the name of Islam. I'm a Muslim myself btw.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
  - ende 10y ago
    Let's add to that the song and dance focused specifically around "assault rifles", which kill less people per year than knives, blunt objects, or bare hands. (The vast majority of gun deaths are by handgun, and are either suicides or gang violence.)
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  That's OK. I will say that the GOP blocking these proposals is one of the very few times I've felt like anyone in the legislature is actually representing my beliefs.
onion2k 10y ago
I didn't realise that. I thought that there had already been some discussion. My more general point about how government works, and what representatives should and should not be able to do to subvert it, still stands though.
grondilu 10y ago
If the Republican party prevented that vote inside the constraints of laws, procedures and whatnot, there is nothing to protest about. In fact I agree with OP : politicians should never have to protest for anything. There are procedures to follow, and in politics who is right is not supposed to be whoever whines the most spectacularly. If for one reason or an other the Democrats think the Republicans have used unlawful methods to prevent this vote, then they should file a complaint and be done with it. Not make some kind of a circus.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Are you really saying that the law cannot be protested?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - grondilu 10y ago
    Politicians should never have to protest the Law since they make it.
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
  I mostly agree with you. But I see no problem with a little civil disobedience. And I don't see why politicians can't engage in some of it occasionally.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- locopati 10y ago
  The Republicans may be acting within the law, but they're certainly not acting ethically or morally.
bilbo0s 10y ago
I realize this may sound like an ignorant question but I really don't know the rules in Congress. Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ? Like the original comment said, the purpose of a body like the congress is to "...debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote..." At least, I thought that was how things worked. Is it the case that congress doesn't even consider debating certain issues ?
- masklinn 10y ago
  > Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ? It is legal yes. Each house of Congress gets to decide their own rules (by law), in the House of Representatives that is done by and through the Rules Committee. Initially it would just propose general rules at the start of the session then dissolve, but in the late 19th some realised it could propose bill-specific "special rules" (requiring a simple majority vote) giving it significantly more power and control over House proceeedings, and that's basically what it has been since. As a result, by controlling the Rules Committee the majority can decide which bills get to the floor (and when) regardless of their order on the Calendar of the House, can decide whether the bills can or can not be amended and can decide how much debate time will be available and who gets to talk.
- jimhefferon 10y ago
  Hardly an expert myself but as I understand it the Speaker (the leader of the majority party) schedules what comes up for a vote. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule.
- ericcumbee 10y ago
  The issue is they wanted a vote. The Speaker will not give them one because it is pretty clear it would fail. The process of bringing something to a vote against the decision of the speaker is you have to get 218 member's signatures on a petition (in the case of getting a bill out of committee it is called a discharge petition.Not sure if that is what it is called in this case though).

Cyph0n 10y ago

I'm astounded at how adamant many Americans are when it comes to even discussing gun control.

brightball 10y ago
That's because the US homocide rate is at a 51 year low according to the FBI while gun ownership is dramatically higher. We've had 2 terrorism incidents and we need to be addressing what could have prevented them. Every time an incident happens that gets on the news we see this song and dance about implementing gun control policies that wouldn't have stopped the incident being used to push them. That means that Democrats aren't trying to solve a problem. They are simply waiting to use national tragedies to push an agenda. Solving a problem looks like "here is how this happened and here is a policy that will make sure it doesn't again." Democrats have not proposed anything along those lines in the last 8 years.
- whatok 10y ago
  Agree with this 100%. No gun control law would have prevented this from happening in America solely because we have quite a few guns here. If not procured legally, he easily could buy a gun illegally. Constitution aside, if there was a way to magically disappear every gun in America and then enact complete gun bans I might be willing to entertain to the notion. Otherwise it's just a bunch of posturing to me.
  - pigpaws 10y ago
    the problem then would be that only the 'important' people would have guns. I don't see any politicians giving up their security details. I don't see Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer giving up their 'concealed carry' licenses. Its a classic "Do as I say, not as I do." If they can carry in their overly restrictive states, why can't the electorate? don't they have the same rights? No? because political elitism. Even in that bastion of fascism, NJ: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/lawmaker_let_nj_legislators_judges_carry_handguns.html http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/lawmaker_let_nj...
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  The Orlando shooting was not a terrorist attack in the commonly used sense, as I assume you're referring to that. The fact that the homicide rate is lower than it was doesn't mean it's at an acceptable level. Now I don't know whether or not gun control is the solution, but the issue needs to be discussed and not dismissed because with "because history".
  - brightball 10y ago
    An easy way to start a discussion is with the words, "How could this have been prevented?" That has not happened.
  - whatok 10y ago
    Assuming all the background on him is factual, it absolutely was a terrorist attack on the gay community. Don't know how you can spin that one.
    - Cyph0n 10y ago
      I assume he was using the word "terrorist" as it has been used by the media over the years, not in the correct sense. Going with the latter, yes it was clearly a terrorist attack. Going by the former, it was not - the attack was basically homophobic in nature, perpetrated by a closet homosexual who frequented that same gay bar and had no contact whatsoever with the Muslim community.
      - ende 10y ago
        You have to be muslim to be a terrorist?
        Cyph0n 10y ago
        Of course not, but I'm talking about the Orlando shooting which was initially thought to be perpetrated in the name of Islam. I'm a Muslim myself btw.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
- ende 10y ago
  Let's add to that the song and dance focused specifically around "assault rifles", which kill less people per year than knives, blunt objects, or bare hands. (The vast majority of gun deaths are by handgun, and are either suicides or gang violence.)
LyndsySimon 10y ago
That's OK. I will say that the GOP blocking these proposals is one of the very few times I've felt like anyone in the legislature is actually representing my beliefs.

onion2k 10y ago

I didn't realise that. I thought that there had already been some discussion. My more general point about how government works, and what representatives should and should not be able to do to subvert it, still stands though.

grondilu 10y ago

If the Republican party prevented that vote inside the constraints of laws, procedures and whatnot, there is nothing to protest about. In fact I agree with OP : politicians should never have to protest for anything. There are procedures to follow, and in politics who is right is not supposed to be whoever whines the most spectacularly. If for one reason or an other the Democrats think the Republicans have used unlawful methods to prevent this vote, then they should file a complaint and be done with it. Not make some kind of a circus.

scrollaway 10y ago
Are you really saying that the law cannot be protested?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- grondilu 10y ago
  Politicians should never have to protest the Law since they make it.
2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
I mostly agree with you. But I see no problem with a little civil disobedience. And I don't see why politicians can't engage in some of it occasionally.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
locopati 10y ago
The Republicans may be acting within the law, but they're certainly not acting ethically or morally.

bilbo0s 10y ago

I realize this may sound like an ignorant question but I really don't know the rules in Congress. Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ? Like the original comment said, the purpose of a body like the congress is to "...debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote..." At least, I thought that was how things worked. Is it the case that congress doesn't even consider debating certain issues ?

masklinn 10y ago
> Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ? It is legal yes. Each house of Congress gets to decide their own rules (by law), in the House of Representatives that is done by and through the Rules Committee. Initially it would just propose general rules at the start of the session then dissolve, but in the late 19th some realised it could propose bill-specific "special rules" (requiring a simple majority vote) giving it significantly more power and control over House proceeedings, and that's basically what it has been since. As a result, by controlling the Rules Committee the majority can decide which bills get to the floor (and when) regardless of their order on the Calendar of the House, can decide whether the bills can or can not be amended and can decide how much debate time will be available and who gets to talk.
jimhefferon 10y ago
Hardly an expert myself but as I understand it the Speaker (the leader of the majority party) schedules what comes up for a vote. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule.
ericcumbee 10y ago
The issue is they wanted a vote. The Speaker will not give them one because it is pretty clear it would fail. The process of bringing something to a vote against the decision of the speaker is you have to get 218 member's signatures on a petition (in the case of getting a bill out of committee it is called a discharge petition.Not sure if that is what it is called in this case though).