Fix the terrorist/no-fly watchlist first, and then we'll talk. Other than that, I am in the camp of favoring much stronger gun control. But secret lists and a further weakening of due process in the U.S. is not the answer.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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".
Banning guns has had next-to-zero influence on the overall homicide rate of the U.K or Australia post-handgun bans/buybacks. [0] [1] [2] People continue to kill other people using other methods. Homicides with firearms goes down, homicides in general remains more or less the same, with the same downward trend that has been happening in all developed nations since the early 2000's/late 1990's.
IMO, America has a mental health problem. Nobody seeks help because help likely means loss of job/income which is disastrous for most everyone. I think there are other contributing factors (income inequality, mainstream/mass media fanning the flames for racial tensions, increasing distrust of the police) but none as large as mental health.
[0] http://i.imgur.com/HZ15hNX.png - Australia
[1] http://i.imgur.com/VxQ0fUN.png - England/Wales
[2] http://i.imgur.com/yabFAFf.png - U.K
> Omar Mateen: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [said in Arabic]
> OD: What?
> OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [said in Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
> OD: What’s your name?
> OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
How is the above "not a terrorist attack in the commonly used sense"? He's using violence against civilians as a means of demanding political action.
I know it's hard to swallow, but Muslims can commit heinous acts for completely personal reasons - a jealous closet gay in this case.
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.
I'm a Muslim myself btw.
That has not happened.
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.
Otherwise we're just out in the streets beating each other with clubs.
In this case, however, it's political theater during an election year. The right folks cheer, the right folks get angry, and the two-party system keeps humming along. The House has the ability to direct the Sergeant at Arms to bring order to the chamber. That's their job. Been done before.
So this goes on for a bit, the ruling party brings down the hammer, and everybody gets to be angry. I disagree with this cause, but even if I agreed I don't see much utility coming out of this aside from energizing the base in an election year where one party desperately needs an energized base. (The other party has gone off the playbook and is not appealing to its base at all. It'll be interesting what happens to their base.)
The GOP used the same tactic on expanded oil & gas drilling http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-was-last-sit-in-longest-c...
I'm very conflicted on the bill the Dems want voted on but gun control needs open debate & voting.
This is pretty blatantly wrong in regards to how the US senate works and has worked for a long time. Filibustering is a normal thing for the senate and has an important, valuable role historically. Today, unfortunately, it's mostly a cosmetic thing senators will do for good press. What the House members are doing is essentially the House equivalent of filibustering, which doesn't exist in an official capacity. Regardless, it's not really interrupting much and it's definitely not doing anything other than generating press.
Also, it's funny see a British person asking for rational behavior from foreign lawmakers considering the wigs, heckling, and jeering of UK parliament.
Quite frankly I'm increasingly of the opinion that the whole political process is broken and only favours those with the deepest pockets and loudest voices rather than the needs of the majority.
But...
The point of a democratic government is to debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote. Representatives should weigh the information available, the points raised in debates, and their own consciences, and come to a conclusion of their own. Direct action like a sit-down protest undermines and subverts the process of democracy by saying "Do what we want or we'll make life intolerably difficult for you." That is not how government should work. Government shouldn't be held to ransom.
In this case it's easy to agree with the protest, but what happens if, say, the Republicans lose a debate on reducing income tax for millionaires to zero and organise a sit-in to try to get their own way?