U.S. Politics: The Bipartisan Dismemberment of the VA

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I messaged her with this:

 

Good on you. 

[Starkess]

I don't like the idea of the terrorist watch list in theory or in practice. But I get why it's the target here. It's easy to rile people up with the idea that someone can be on the no-fly list and yet go buy a gun whenever they want. Republicans are big fans of the list (to my understanding), so if they aren't going to get rid of it, Democrats are going to try to co-opt it. Like I said, I get it. Still not sure if I agree with that, though.

[Shryke]

This issue/bill is not as simple as y'all are implying here. I'm trying to find a good rundown of how this all works, but a few points in the meantime that I think would help:

1) There is not "list". There are like a dozen lists. Of varying uses and by various agencies and this is a big part of why the whole thing is a kafkaesque clusterfuck. Still trying to figure out what list they are talking about here. It seems like it may be more then one.

2) What the bill in question does is give the FBI additional abilities to investigate and block purchases during a background check. It is not a blanket "You are on this list, you can't buy a gun". It's just additional scrutiny and the ability for the government to block the purchase based on grounds they can't currently (essentially, that the person is engaging in terrorist activities I believe)

 

Basically the Democrats, as part of their shifted strategy on gun-control of attacking purchases instead of specific gun types (like they did in the 90s), they are asking for additional powers for the FBI to scrutinise and deny purchases of firearms based on criteria the government is not currently allowed to use. And that criteria is not, I repeat, simply "this guy is on a list".

[Shryke]

Ooh, found a Vox rundown that seems pretty decent:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11953074/gun-bill-senate-democrats-murphy/in/11676003

The relevant bit as to by second point above:

Quote

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposal, backed by Murphy and the overwhelming majority of Democratic senators, would give the government broad authority to block gun sales to those who had been investigated in connection with terrorism.

It would do this by making two significant changes to the current system: one change that would put more people under additional scrutiny, and one that would give the government the power not just to scrutinize them but to block their gun purchase.

Under current law, the FBI is already notified whenever someone on a "known or suspected terrorist" list (drawn from existing terrorism databases) tries to purchase a gun. Under Feinstein’s legislation, they would also be notified of a gun purchase attempt by anyone who’s under investigation for terroristic activity — or who has been investigated anytime in the past five years.

Now, just because the name is flagged doesn't mean that the government would then automatically prevent that person from buying a gun, Ashley Schapitl, Feinstein's press secretary, says. "It merely refers them for additional scrutiny."

Once someone was flagged, the government would then have the power to veto gun purchases on terrorism grounds — a power it doesn't have right now. But to block the sale, the government would have to have reasonable suspicion that the person represented "a threat to public safety" and was considering or engaging in terrorist activities. (Here’s the exact wording from the amendment on what a "threat to public safety" would entail.)

That way, at least in theory, the government could block terrorists from getting weapons while also making sure it wasn’t blocking anyone who’d ever ended up on a terror watch list.

 

 

[snake]

Apparently State department officials are taking exception to the Obama administrations handling of the Syrian conflict and are calling for more direct military involvement to oust Assad.  As the article points out it is not likely the Obama WH will do anything different but a more hawkish Clinton administration could very well decide that direct military involvement is the way to go.  The timing of this is interesting to say the least.

 

WSJ article

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, snake said:

Apparently State department officials are taking exception to the Obama administrations handling of the Syrian conflict and are calling for more direct military involvement to oust Assad.  As the article points out it is not likely the Obama WH will do anything different but a more hawkish Clinton administration could very well decide that direct military involvement is the way to go.  The timing of this is interesting to say the least.

 

WSJ article

All indications are that Obama has been a steady hand on the breaks in alot of foreign policy matters. There's many in the State Department and Think Tanks and the military and other places connected to DC that are much more eager to get down to business.

[BloodRider]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, you can't. There is nothing to get you off of the terrorist watchlist other than someone saying 'okay' arbitrarily. You have no way to remove your name. You can request it, but that's all. And there's nothing you get afterwards. 

Again, this is a horrible idea. I'm ashamed that Clinton is pushing it, because it is so horrible. It is far better to simply ban all assault weapons, period. 

Well that is problematic.

[DireWolfSpirit]

19 hours ago, snake said:

Apparently State department officials are taking exception to the Obama administrations handling of the Syrian conflict and are calling for more direct military involvement to oust Assad.  As the article points out it is not likely the Obama WH will do anything different but a more hawkish Clinton administration could very well decide that direct military involvement is the way to go.  The timing of this is interesting to say the least.

 

WSJ article

I havent been a staunch fan of Obama's foreign policy over the 2 terms but Ive fealt he finally moved closer to my views with his efforts to not escalate in Syria. There's no evidence that another intervention will be beneficial to the American people and the past track record of our most recent interventions has me seriously doubting the wisdom of trying to overthrow Assad. 

President Obama should immediately fire each and every one of these bastards at the State Dept. If they want to get in on some Syrian groundwar, ship each and every one of them to the frontlines for one of these extended tours of action that they are advocating for.

FIRE THEM ALL NOW!

[snake]

Seems like the majority of Democrats are supporting restricting the right to by firearms to anyone who is under suspicion of being a terrorist, whatever the hell that means.  I guess if you are on the FBI watch list then Democratic lawmakers want your rights, as they are right now, diminished.  Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren are accusing the Republicans of selling arms to ISIS because they didn't support their bill.  And Dianne Feinstein seems to believe that you can be guilty until proven innocent. 

Someone quoted an answer by Ed Meese during the Reagan years that Democrats seem to have now embraced in a rather Cheney-esque  fashion. 

U.S. News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect. 

Disgraceful!!

[BloodRider]

9 hours ago, snake said:

Seems like the majority of Democrats are supporting restricting the right to by firearms to anyone who is under suspicion of being a terrorist, whatever the hell that means.  I guess if you are on the FBI watch list then Democratic lawmakers want your rights, as they are right now, diminished.  Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren are accusing the Republicans of selling arms to ISIS because they didn't support their bill.  And Dianne Feinstein seems to believe that you can be guilty until proven innocent. 

Someone quoted an answer by Ed Meese during the Reagan years that Democrats seem to have now embraced in a rather Cheney-esque  fashion. 

U.S. News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect. 

Disgraceful!!

So you quote Meese and say that is the Democrats opinion?  That is literally putting someone else's words into their mouth.  Sod off with that crap.

As pointed out elsewhere, the police regularly suspend people's rights based on probable cause.  You may disagree with that, but this is NOT an exceptional case for that reason.  What makes it an exceptional case is that it involves guns.  Republicans villainize the ACLU all the damn time for fighting for these very rights.  Not ignore, but actively oppose.  So now they want to get right with the Bill of Rights.  Get the fuck in line.  Lets start with unreasonable search and seizure.

[Kalbear]

Interesting to me. Apparently the Congressional Black Caucus opposes any and all changes to remove superdelegates or turn primaries into independent and open primaries. And the reasoning is fairly sound - which is that they are given more representation with this system, and fear losing it. 

Quote

 

Retaining some kind of superdelegate system has been a high priority for CBC members, said Democratic strategist Doug Thornell, formerly the group’s communications director.

"Sanders did a lot of things right in this campaign, he did a lot better than expected. At the same time he seemed to have a lack of understanding or lack of relationships with black leaders that you saw ultimately hurt him in South Carolina and other states with big black electorates," Thornell said. "And this is something that the CBC is going to be very passionate and push back against. This is a way that African-American officials can represent their district and have a say in the process. They're not going to go along with this at all."

 

 

[MerenthaClone]

All you need to say about it re: sides is that this is what gets some Republicans to look like they might break their stance on guns.  Not a school of murdered children, but the chance to stick it to more minorities.  Are the Democrats wrong to push gun control in this manner?  Yes.  Is it also bad that this is the only thing that seems like it'll even bring Republicans to a negotiating table?  Fuck yes.  

[drawkcabi]

Anyone paying attention to what's going on in the House of Representatives?

House Democrats Stage Sit In

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/house-democrats-sit-in-over-gun-legislation-triggers-chaotic-showdown/ar-AAhtdIZ?ocid=spartanntp

Looks like they're prepared to be there all night long and even longer.

They're singing "We Shall Overcome"

They're disrupting House procedure, practicing civil disobedience.

With all the craziness in politics that just seem to keep getting crazier, this still is surprising, unexpected, and fascinating for me to witness happening.

[Dr. Pepper]

Yes, it is fascinating and completely unexpected.  I'm still shocked that it's been an attack on the queer community that has sparked these protests.  I'm not really in support of the legislation they want to vote on (I'm more radical, I think 2A should be eliminated altogether), but I'm so moved that the Dems are giving the finger to fucking stupid prayers and moments of silences.

[SkynJay]

I can't believe they got together on this.  I really can't believe CSPAN's live feed was done with a cell phone when the camera was cut.

 

[Commodore]

a sit-in to deny citizens their constitutional right to due process and arms is the ultimate irony

Quote

They're disrupting House procedure, practicing civil disobedience.

There's nothing inherently virtuous about disruption and disobedience.

If they want to control the House, they should try winning elections rather than coercion.

This is like the toddler who sits down in the middle of the mall and wails till he gets his ice cream. Quite disruptive, and disobedient.

[Kalbear]

I don't know about irony - protests have often been about denying people rights as much as giving them - but Democrats dying on this specific hill for this specific set of bills sucks a lot of ass. 

[Commodore]

the left doesn't want to explicitly call for abolishing the 2nd and 5th Amendments (well, a few honest ones will admit the former), so they propose legislation to achieve the same effect

This is textbook Alinsky, be disruptive (use volume and/or numbers to obstruct the free will of others), then if anyone tries to stop you, claim to be the victim of their violence. Either way you come out a winner. The best outcome they can hope for is to ignore you until you give up.

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Commodore said:

the left doesn't want to explicitly call for abolishing the 2nd and 5th Amendments (well, a few honest ones will admit the former), so they propose legislation to achieve the same effect

The right is fine with abolishment too, so long as it's dirty muslims. Let's not pretend either party is particularly caring about Constitutional rights in anything but lip service. 

That being said, SCOTUS has stated already that banning specific types of weapons or even having a whitelist is not necessarily unconstitutional, nor is banning certain features of guns. 

That also being said, given the massive correlation between gun ownership and gun death/harm, chances are pretty good that the only truly effective thing to cut gun deaths is to massively reduce gun ownership in the home. 

In the time I wrote this post, 3 more people died due to gun related injury. 

[Commodore]

why are they sitting on the floor when there are seats?