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.