The Senate will vote on a couple of gun safety amendments today that were offered by Democratic senators. The Feinstein amendment is to close the so-called “terror gap,” i.e., to make sure people who are suspected of being terrorists or having ties to terrorism can’t go buy assault rifles. The Murphy amendment expands mandatory background checks to all gun sales and improves information in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
If you support these commonsense gun safety measures, please call your US senator and let him or her know that. If you think suspected terrorists should be able to buy assault rifles and believe it’s okay to exempt gun shows, etc., from background checks, please don’t call anyone, and don’t leave your home until your mom or caregiver pins a note to your shirt with your address and phone number so you can be returned if you wander into traffic.
aimai
I hate to brag but MY SENATOR IS ELIZABETH WARREN and, oh, that other guy Markey. But they are both reliable.
dedc79
I am a resident of the District of Columbia and therefore unworthy of voting representation in Congress.
MattMinus
I guess that eliminating due process in favor of arbitrary punishment imposed by anonymous bureaucrats using secret evidence is a kind of common sense.
F
One of mine was named in the post, so I think I’m good too.
maurinsky
My U.S. Senators are Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, so….I think I’m good.
? Martin
And Sotomayor I believe demonstrates why diversity on the court is so important.
Not saying this couldn’t have been written by anybody, but it was far more likely to not be written by someone who would be excused from such treatment.
Mathguy
I’ll try, but mine are Sasse (smart, but nuts) and Fischer (dumb and completely awful).
WaterGirl
I was sure this was going to be a Tim F post!
I called Dick Durbin about an hour ago and said I was sure he was voting YES but I wanted to add a number to the FOR column to help balance out all the people who would call to urge him to vote NO.
I called Mark Kirk and reminded them that Kirk is up for reelection and that he is being watched closely. I don’t have high hopes, but I called anyway. How I loathe that man. The fellow who answered the phone was kind of surly; I was not impressed.
WaterGirl
I love you, Betty.
Betty Cracker
One of my senators, Bill Nelson, will support the amendments, and the other, Lil’ Marco Rubio (gag) will vote how the NRA tells him to vote. But I’m calling both. I think one reason the NRA is able to flip off the vast majority of people (including gun-owning Republicans) who favor these measures is that their howler monkeys are louder.
WaterGirl
@Mathguy: That’s how I feel about Mark Kirk. I have to remind myself that the nut cases call him.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
One of my senators is the #1 recipient of NRA money in the USofA, good ole Roy Blunt of Misery. Yeah, he’ll be receptive to my entreaties.
It’ll be interesting to see how Senator “I Feel Strongly Both Ways” McCaskill votes on these things. Nothing scares her more than taking an actual stance on something.
Brachiator
@? Martin:
But, but, Paul Ryan tells us that “diversity” is just bad identity politics. We just need pure Supreme Court justices who will read the Constitution exactly as it is written, or based on a President Trump’s enemies list.
kent
IMO Kevin Drum is right that being “suspected of being a terrorist” with no proof or even evidence being offered should never be enough to lose any constitutional right.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/eliminating-one-constitutional-right-does-not-make-all-rest-fair-game
and
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/democrats-finally-agree-worst-gun-bill-ever
Tim F.
Thanks Betty! I just called Pat Toomey. It was painless and polite. Frankly I doubt the interns are handling a very large volume.
Tim F.
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage: Quit being fatalistic. Assholes need to know that constituents think they’re assholes, and Claire McCaskill really needs some tangible support.
Rosalita
I am fortunate enough to have Murphy and Blumenthal!
Brachiator
A good start. Next we need to do something about ammunition.
Shell
Mine’s Cory Booker. I have a feeling how hell vote.
celticdragonchick
The Feinstein amandment will go down in flames in any NRA sponsored lawsuit unless they fix the Terror watchlist problems. I think most of us here remember how Democratic congressmen, lawyers and academics kept “mysteriously” appearing on the no-fly list.
Step one is to actually have due process and a judge involved if you are going to deny a person the ability to travel or purchase an otherwise legal item.
We have this one chance to keep some terrorist wannabes from buying assault weapons. Get it right the first time and make sure that the due process problems are taken care of before this ends up being declared unconstitutional.
nonynony
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
Call his office anyway. Get your friends in the state who are on the same page as you to do it it. Write his office a few letters too.
Even if he isn’t receptive to it, make his office staff work at answering phones today. Put them on the spot and ask them if Blunt is in favor of having terrorists get guns in the US and if not what he proposes to do about it if he’s not voting for this measure. Be polite but firm because if we only call sympathetic senators we’re not doing it right.
(It’s very likely that if the office gets enough angry callers asking why he won’t vote for these measures, they’ll take the phone off the hook. Even that I count as a win because at least the message has been sent that not all of his constituents think that it should be easy for criminals to get guns).
hedgehog mobile
Done. Bennet will do the right thing. Gardner (spit) not so much.
nonynony
@celticdragonchick:
I think this is a good reason to get it passed because it will force some judicial review onto the whole terror watch list process. Get that in front of the right judge and it’s possible that the entire no-fly list gets shredded as a side effect.
It’s not as good as getting guns off the street, but if we can use the gun nuts to get more judicial review into the terror watch list process then we should do it. And hey – if it does survive judicial review we might be stuck with a no fly list but we’ll have fewer guns on the street so its a win/win in that case.
celticdragonchick
@Brachiator:
Like what? Tax it into oblivion? Denying what the SCOTUS has already affirmed as a right through confiscatory taxation is a non starter.
You may as well bring back property requirements and poll taxes for voting. Want to vote? Yo better be in the top 10%!!!
People love to haul out the old chestnut about a 10,000% tax on ammo and they never seem to understand that even in the nigh impossible chance it ever happened, you invite similar retaliation (How about a $1,000,000 fee, non payable by insurance, on every abortion in Texas?)
tmflibrarian
Both David Perdue (R-GA-Idiot) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA-NotQuiteAsTerribleAsPerdueOrChambliss) have phone calls to their offices going straight to voice mail, where I was able to leave a message.
Isakson’s office said it was because all other lines are busy. I’m guessing Perdue is just too chickenshit to answer the phones.
Calouste
@celticdragonchick: Wouldn’t that lawsuit take down the no-fly list with it? I don’t see that as a problem. Besides, the NRA suing for the rights of terrorist suspects to have access to assault weapons isn’t particularly good optics for them. I can’t really see a downside to preventing people on the no-fly list from buying assault weapons.
Punchy
If you think phone calls will flip either of KS’s Senators, I’ve got a 5-year lease on a Greenlandic glacier to sell ya. Dead gays are a feature, not a bug, of the 2nd Amendy according to them.
bystander
For once, I’m happy Schumer is one of my Senators. Since Gillibrand is the other one, I’m usually pretty happy.
Roger Moore
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
Of course those are the ones who need pressure in the form of phone calls to get them to vote the right way. That’s a contrast to my Senators, Feinstein and Boxer, who are going to vote the right way without much prodding. There are a lot of issues where I’m not happy with Feinstein, but I will never question her commitment on gun control.
celticdragonchick
@Calouste: IANAL so…beats me. I do know that the due process thing would almost certainly be fatal when you actually deprive a person of a constitutional right by executive fiat. I could see that being an 8-0 SCOTUS ruling.
Now, sure, that brings some welcome scrutiny to the no fly list debacle, but we have this one freaking chance to get meaningful gun control that might save lives, and I would rather be sure it was done smart and right.
tmflibrarian
@Punchy: I know calling won’t flip my senators. But I also know they should hear that they aren’t representing everyone in their state when they think there should be no background checks.
Of course, my calls went to voice mail, so who knows if they’ll bother listening at all. My suspicion is that is a way to keep their fat heads in sand.
D58826
Last week after both Obama and Hillary uttered the magical incantation – radical Islam – and the terroristsa didn’t turn into pillars of salt; everyone wondered what the next incantation would be. Well now we know. The GOP is having a fit because the FBI redacted the phrase ISIS from the transcript that they released today. The rational was that they didn’t want to give them free publicity. I don’t know if that is really a good reason but it isn’t important, unless your a gooper. They are also in a tizzy because they used the word GOD rather than ALLAH in the transcript. The plot apparently is to convince people that the shooter was a Christian. The GOP is made up of really really disgusting people and they seem to get more disgusting by the day.e
Hal
I was doing a little back and forth with a friend of friend on Facebook who’s starting point argument was that any waiting period, or what he referred to as arbitrary rules on something like mental health screening, was a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. If this is your belief, then where else is there to go? What I fundamentally do not understand is how waiting several days for a back ground check, for instance, can be viewed as a massive violation of someone’s constitutional rights. You’re not being denied anything, you will still get your hands on your guns, you just have to wait a few days.
This is why I think you really cannot have a conversation with some people about guns. Certain numbers of gun advocates are never going to budge, and they are never going to compromise. There is no point in engaging in a long, drawn out debate with people who’s viewpoint is essentially that any restrictions at all are wrong.
Villago Delenda Est
Fortunately, I live in a sane state, with two sane senators, who I know will vote to support this. Betty, of course, is not so fortunate.
celticdragonchick
Weird…I tried replying to Brachinator twice and everything went down the hole so to speak.
Villago Delenda Est
@D58826: What I want to know his how many Rethuglicans are directly on the Daesh payroll, because they certainly are doing everything Daesh wants them to do.
Haydnseek
I live in California. I do call both senators now and then, but we’re mostly in agreement. But that doesn’t mean you can’t call other senators offices in other states. Their caller ID will see your area code, but before they blow you off just tell ’em you’re on vacation, or traveling on business, or whatever. You’re so concerned about this issue that you JUST COULDN’T WAIT to get back home to call. I do it all the time.
Villago Delenda Est
@celticdragonchick: FYWP is being a total PITA, per usual. Also, too, every third or fourth refresh of the main page (or even one of the thread pages) results (Firefox, on Win 10) in format weirdness. It goes away after another refresh, sometimes, most of the time, but it’s bizarre…as if some of the data about format gets lost somewhere in the tubes or something.
Uncle Cosmo
Doubt Sens. Mikulski & Cardin have a problem supporting this, but it doesn’t hurt to call I guess.
Ridge
@celticdragonchick:
You are right about this. Like it or not, Supreme Court in Heller said firearm ownership is a right and I, for one, don’t want the Secret Security State deciding which of my rights I’m allowed to pursue in a *non-judicial* secret list. ACLU is of the same mind. Because if they can do this, then other rights can be curtailed in the same manner. Maybe someone on the watch list can’t post to Facebook, or print broadsheets. Maybe the right to privacy as put out in Roe v Wade can be removed if you are on a list. “It will never happen”. Want to bet? If that power is put into law, (and passes Fed Court review, which I doubt), then you can sure expect it to be used against 1st Amd free speech, free exercise of religion and Roe v Wade by a conservative Admin. The GOP base is on record for it now.
I saw that “assault weapons ban” were upheld for certain states in the Court today. If that is what those states want, good. A National ban or restriction could be proposed for debate.
Ridge
Villago Delenda Est
@Mathguy: Wasn’t Sasse one of a couple of Rethugs who helped with the filibuster on Friday?
Bobby Thomson
@Tim F.: Toomey will vote yes, especially if he won’t make a difference. It’s the only issue he can credibly claim as showing his moderation.
WarMunchkin
@celticdragonchick: I can’t believe we’re getting shock doctrined again into giving the natsec apparatus more power. Thought we’d at least try to the lesson of PATRIOT and stop and frisk.
Arya Eshraghi
@Hal: I’m by no means right leaning, but there is truth to this point if you consider it carefully. It’s the same reason why a lot of us on the left came out against the “no-fly list” – they don’t have clear criteria on what gets you on them, you can’t see if you’re on them, and there is no formal process to get yourself removed. Terrorism watch lists are similar in those same ways (not published, no process to verify if you’re on them, or to remove yourself from them). Pair that with the argument that flying isn’t a right, but firearm ownership is constitutionally guaranteed (@Brachiator: in addition to access to ammunition a la Heller if I recall correctly) along with due process (5th and 14th amendments) and there is a clear legal case to be made against this vote. Even if it passes, there isn’t a chance in hell it would hold up in SCotUS. Changes to this matter need to occur on a constitutional level, not just in federal laws.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Well, I’ve learned that feckless Claire is actually a co-sponsor of the Feinstein Amendment. She’s also supported legislation similar to Murphy’s amendment so it appears she’s good there. My guess is that she’s seen state polling that says something like 80% of Misery voters support “common sense” gun laws like these. That means she can sell it politically as “common sense”. Whatevs. Doesn’t matter what tortured logic she uses to get someplace “correct”, as long as she occasionally gets there.
Blunt’s office is on voicemail. There, I’ve done my duty.
To echo Punchy, a NRA bought and sold politician like Blunt will do what the NRA tells him. I’m not being fatalistic, I’m being realistic. No amount of phone calling to the contrary will ever change his opinion.
Adam L Silverman
@kent: @celticdragonchick: He is right. The requirement for a background check for all sales, commercial and private, is a minimal, reasonable regulation. It adds, depending on what the Federal Firearm Licensee who does the form 4473 and NICS check, as well as any state required checks, anywhere from $25 to $50 to the purchase price and adds a minimal amount of time.
The proposal to incorporate the information from the terrorism watch lists or the no fly lists, is, I think, much, much more problematic. And its problematic not because it has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, but because it has much to do with several others. One of the worst, fear inspired, hyper paranoiac responses to 9-11 was the creation of these watch lists. I have yet to see two or more subject matter experts explain the process for being placed on one the same way and everyone indicates that once on, it is almost impossible to get off – largely because one doesn’t no one is on to begin with (at least until one tries to fly somewhere). And the lists are full of unintended consequences, such as the flying while David Nelson syndrome:
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061903/met_12829395.shtml
I’m a National Security Professional. I understand the need to conduct both intelligence and criminal investigations, often with only sparse initial information, into potential threats. The system we have put into place, however, is a civil rights/civil liberties boondoggle and a disgrace to several amendments in the Bill of Rights, let alone what we say America stands for. The watchlist programs need serious reform and proper, transparent judicial oversight. And that’s just to have them pass Constitutional muster and be tolerable, let alone before we start using them for other things. I understand the need to do something, I also understand the desire to do something, but using the watchlists as part of the background check for firearms purchases is just creating a new bad policy on top of the existing bad policies that are the watchlist programs.
Bobby Thomson
@Ridge: SCOTUS is wrong, too. If there were an actual constitutional right being infringed I might be concerned.
MazeDancer
@nonynony:
Yes, call no matter what.
If your Senator is hopeless, call anyway. If your Senators are best pro-gun safety supporters in DC, call anyway. If your Senator is Murphy, Warren, Gillibrand, or Booker – call anyway.
They use the numbers.
The NRA will be assaulting all the offices, the staffers can use the calm, reasonable support. Every office totes up the numbers.
Call, tweet, email if that’s all you can do. But do something. Here is list of all the Senators, how to find yours, and where to contact them
Chyron HR
@Ridge:
Life’s rough, kid.
Mike R
@Mathguy: We share a pair, they almost rival Hruska and Curtis when competing in the worst tandem set of Senators from a single state.
gvg
I do think it will put the no fly list in the public eye and possibly result in that being fixed-i.e., you can know if you are on it and challenge it, which I feel is required for it to really be legal and right. Its been too secret until now and I think that means it has been filling up with garbage and isn’t really valuable. I suspect lots of workers put anyone on it that they couldn’t absolutely clear just to cover all contingencies and their own rears.
As for denying anyone their constitutional right, I don’t actually accept that this is really what that amendment was meant to cover, now do I accept that anyone really needs an assault gun who isn’t military or police so who cares if they have to wait or challenge in court. It’s only a tiny step but the first attempt to go in the right direction in a long time.
It’s not that we can’t have guns, its that they need to be highly regulated the way medicine or cars are. they are not really important to maintaining our freedom, that is mistaken mythology and the founders were just wrong there like they were about womens rights and slavery. The gun lovers just like the feeling that their hobby is more important than everyone else’s hobby. It’s not. It’s just like people who collect something or fishermen or knitter’s. A hobby, not a saver of democracy. Since they have distorted it to nonsense, I am afraid that it will have to be repealed to get sensible laws passed. We can’t do that at this time but we need to make some progress to build and get there. Repealing the 2nd would not result in immediate confiscation, just regulations, which would probably be place related. The regulations that make sense for a dense city with few shooting ranges versus the country with spread out population should be different.
The Other Chuck
I am in no mood to expand the scope of a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional blacklist, even if it’s against those whom I don’t support. Sorry, fight this one on your own.
trollhattan
@Adam L Silverman:
The local paper did a story last week comparing the number of Starbucks with federally licensed gun dealers in our California metroplex. They’re on par.
It’s hard to buy a gun?
Mary Jo
I called Senators Menedez & Booker, FWIW.
rp
I don’t understand why we can’t include a probable cause requirement for no fly and no gun lists. It’s not a high standard.
Adam L Silverman
@trollhattan: No, it isn’t. And that’s why reasonable regulations, such as universal background checks, cooling off periods, purchase limits per day – things like that aren’t really that big a deal unless one is an absolutist. We reasonably regulate almost all of our enumerated rights, so this should be no exception.
My issue is with extending the mess that arises from the watch list programs. They shouldn’t be expanded for any public policy and they should be placed under transparent, judicial oversight – as in not the FISA Court – and the programs need a good, transparent, and responsive IG set up to keep an eye on them.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
I called both of mine, Warner and Kaine. I told them my wife and I wanted them to vote for any and all gun control bills that come up. Anything is better than what we have now.
Gelfling545
Contacted Schumer & Gillinrand right after the filibuster to say good on you & keep on with it.
J.
@aimai: Well mine are Murphy and Blumenthal. So there! ;-P
Ridge
@Bobby Thomson:
Then they were wrong about Brown v Brd of Education, Roe v Wade, Affordable Health Care ruling and hundreds of others. In our society, the Court has the last word on Constitutionality. You may disagree and there are clear paths to address that. Get different Judges on the Bench, find a case, let it wind its way through the lower courts and maybe the Supreme will rule your way. Or begin a movement to amend the Constitution.
Aside from those two methods, you can sit there and say they were wrong; but if you want any type of realistic firearm legislation, you have to deal with the reality on the ground. If not, you are in the same position as the GOP whining about the cases they don’t like.
R
Major Major Major Major
Ugh, do I have to call Cory Gardner?
Brachiator
@Arya Eshraghi:
Not necessarily true. But in any event, I’m up for the challenge.
gogol's wife
Welcome to all these brand-new commenters who are so very concerned about their constitutional rights. You have the constitutional right to a musket as you serve in the militia. Go get in line for today’s drill.
Aardvark Cheeselog
@nonynony:
Heighten the contradictions much?
mali muso
Thanks for the reminder. I contacted both of mine (Warner and Kaine). Kaine’s office said he will be voting for both amendments. Warner’s office didn’t say, but I think he was part of the filibuster so I’m guessing he’s in too.
rikyrah
From Illinois. Durbin will do the right thing. And I think Kirk is scared enough to do the right thing.
Summer
I called Richard Burr’s office and Thom Tillis’s office and was told by both friendly staff members that the offices were being flooded with similar calls. So that was fun!
DCrefugee
I live in Florida {waves at Betty}…
Nelson will support all this and Lil’ Marco will skip the vote, so…
? Martin
@celticdragonchick:
Safe to say that if the Feinstein amendment passes, the no fly list will be fixed before it’s implemented because the NRA will have a sudden intense interest in American’s due process rights. Probably safe to say that many Dems are counting on this.
Calouste
@celticdragonchick: I’d like to see the Supreme Court argue that the no-fly list can’t be applied to weapon purchases, because freedom of movement is not a constitutional right, but owning a weapon is. At least we would know what we are up to.
janeform
Thanks Betty. Both of my senators (Stabenow and Peters) joined the filibuster and are voting yes, so I called to thank them. It’s important to balance out the wingnuts. Others have probably made this point but I didn’t read the whole thread!
The Ancient Randonneur
Murphy’s amendment is a good one, and a very fine first step for additional legislation. Personally, I’m in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment but that will not happen in my lifetime. Feinstein’s amendment is Federal overreach without proper judicial safeguards being put in place. I look forward to the day when anyone can actually explain what the criteria for placement on a “terrorist watchlist” entails other than being a Muslim. This bill is just a way to legitimize profiling. Then, of course, how one’s name is removed from this list is another matter. With more judicial oversight in place I can see it being a useful tool but at the moment the process is too willy nilly.
nonynony
@Aardvark Cheeselog:
How so?
Mike in NC
@Summer: All those two empty suits care about is serving the Koch brothers.
RoonieRoo
My Senators are Cruz and Cornyn. I’ve tried calling but I keep getting dumped to voice mail. I’m working on a letter but I need help. I’m too emotional about the issue and I suck at writing (I’m a bloody techie with all the writing challenges that go with that). Can I get someone to read the letter I’m writing and help me make it better?
HinTN
Not that I have very high hopes but I have let both Senator Alexander and Senator Corker’s office know that at least one of their constituents favours both amendments. Corker’s DC line was continuously busy duo I had to resort to the Nashville office. The very nice staffer assured me that my comment has been received and would be sent up sound 1530 today. Not holding my breath…
HinTN
@RoonieRoo: Keep it short. Tell them to vote FOR. That’s all they will pay attention to anyway. Plus, leave a message!
Bobby Thomson
@Ridge:we’re a couple justices away from overturning Heller, which is just as wrong as Plessy and Korematsu. Again, I don’t give a shit about your surrogate pen1s.
Semi-Western
I emailed Burr and Tillis in NC. Just can’t stand talking to staffers on the phone.
RoonieRoo
@HinTN: I think that is worse than useless when your Senators are Cruz and Cornyn. I have left that short voice mail but I think there needs to be a bigger effort from those of us that have had our lives dramatically impacted by guns such as I have. Our stories are important.
Terry chay
@gogol’s wife: they aren’t brand new. Two of them come to concern troll every time “gun rights” get argued. I don’t think they’re paid shills.
JPL
@RoonieRoo: You might mention that no amendment is absolute. We have freedom of speech and we also have disturbing the peace laws. If the second amendment is absolute, then why not have machine guns. All you are looking for, is some common sense solutions to keep firearms out of the arms of terrorists and the mentally ill.
That’s the approach I took. The response was no.
aimai
@kent: the trick is making gun ownership no longer a constitutional right. I’ve got no problem with a suspected terrorist gaining access to a free press, or making speeches, or traveling about the country, or accessing abortion. If we just eliminated the right to kill people for everyone then it would be perfectly legal to restrict that right when it comes to terrorists.
evap
@tmflibrarian: I got an actual human on the phone when I called Isakson’s office and she said, “I’ll let him know”. I left a message on Purdue’s voicemail. I tried to be as polite as possible, even though I know how they will vote.
gene108
@kent:
Since we cannot have a rational discussion on guns, we will see some less than optimal solutions.
hovercraft
@Adam L Silverman:
This is closer to where I am, the terrorist watch and no fly lists are riddled with errors, and getting those errors fixed can be a nightmare. But the starving of the ATF and the other federal agencies is a major barrier to catching people who should not have guns. Closing the loopholes is a step but not a magic bullet. The assault weapons ban would be the biggest first step. Phoenix was not as catastrophic as other shootings because it was a gun, an assault rifle would have been so more devastating. Granted given what’s already out there and that the owners will never give them up it would still be a start. Incremental change is where we have to start.
Omnes Omnibus
Tammy Baldwin’s people were nice and appreciated the support. Calls to Ron Johnson’s offices are going straight to voice and a message the mailbox is full.
hovercraft
Did you know that Donald never called for more guns at the Pulse nightclub.
Yes Donald is going to help change the conversation about guns, his conversation with the NRA will yield great results. The good guy with a gun theory is alive and well.
Linnaeus
There’s a good piece in Vox about the problems with connecting antiterrorist programs to gun control. I’m wary of using the “watch list” in the manner that Feinstein is proposing.
Mike J
@Linnaeus:
The watch list is horrible, but without connecting it to guns it won’t get fixed. Nobody wants to do away with the no fly list because the next time a plane is threatened (and it’s only a matter of time) the party that did away with ti will pay the price. If we can make the Republicans do the right thing by pointing the NRA at them, everybody comes out ahead. If the only thing that came out of this were passing a restriction on gun ownership, it would still be a victory, just in proving it can be done.
Major Major Major Major
@Mike J: I generally feel this way. This amendment is very much a sausagemaking situation for me. It is not intellectually sound to want to use the watch list for gun control but not use it to curtail other constitutional rights (again, post-Heller this is a ‘right’). But it’s not right to use it much at all, really, and if putting gun rights on the chopping block is what it takes to shred the thing, then I’ll take it. The art of the possible and all that.
Of course, that’s a little 11-dimensional-chess’y. And there’s a very real possibility that this bill will never see its day in court, and we’ve just made the no-fly list a little bit worse.
All that said, I’d vote for it, and bare my teeth about how we need to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and all that in front of the cameras, but all as part of this calculation. If I were a politician. Thank satan I’m not, I’d be terrible at it. I can barely remember not to comment on somebody’s weight.
But it is a calculation and we may well be wrong.
Betty Cracker
@hovercraft: That tweet this morning actually made me laugh out loud, it’s such a bald-faced lie. Trump is a racist, sexist, xenophobic buffoon, which are all qualities that align well with the modern Republican Party. But he’s driven primarily by narcissism, not wingnut ideology, so sometimes he gets out over his skis by taking insane wingnut stances to their logical conclusion. Same thing happened when Tweety questioned him about abortion and he said women who get abortions should be punished. He went even further than Cruz and other fetus fetishists were willing to go. Same thing here. When a blood-thirsty ghoul like Wayne LaPierre thinks your proposal is fucking nuts, well, you’ve lost the plot. So Trump walked it back the only way he could; he lied.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@gogol’s wife: Every gun thread, buncha new people I haven’t seen before. Sure it’s a coincidence.
In what is totally unrelated news, I saw some news thing the other day about how our two fine political parties have set up “paid internet advocacy posters”, i.e. paid trolls, but they were certain that nobody had used them yet. I just laughed. Come by Balloon Juice, we’ve been laughing at them for years.
Linnaeus
@Mike J:
You may be right, but I’m skeptical. There hasn’t been much desire on the part of anyone to fix the watch list and attaching it to gun control may just provide another incentive to use it in a discriminatory fashion.
Major Major Major Major
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I think we mostly get your bog-standard free trolls here.
KBS
I called both my IL senators. I’m sure Durbin will vote for it, and I doubt Kirk will, but I truly believe that calling can make a difference.
Iowa Old Lady
If the link to the watch list passes, I predict that 15 years from now, that year’s progressive purists will decry it as unforgivable. I’m inclined to accept what we can get under the circumstances, but the “under the circumstances” part tends to disappear down the memory hole.
nonynony
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
I will continue to insist that the right-wing loons that we have around here aren’t paid by anyone. I think the paid trolls are working the newspaper comment sections and other high traffic places.
(I also would not be surprised at all to find out that right-wing advocacy groups pay “internet advocates” to hang out at Red State and places like that and drive the conversation in certain directions. Especially pro-gun advocacy groups looking to make sure everyone stays in line.)
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Semi-Western: I understand and share your aversion to the phone but emailing a Senator or Congressman is literally doing nothing. You have done nothing. I’m sorry to say that but it is true. They don’t read them, they don’t count them, they empty the trash and start over.
The only three things a Senator or Congressman responds to are faxes, phone calls, and – the biggie of them all – actual letters.
Mike J
@Iowa Old Lady:
And all Hillary Clinton’s fault.
maya
Dear Damn Senator,
When are those dams coming down?
Sincerely,
A. Fish
Mnemosyne
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
For an imminent vote, faxes are best — letters will get held up in security for at least 2 or 3 days after arriving at Congress.
Iowa Old Lady
@Mike J: Yes, she probably got down there on the Senate floor and directed the vote.
Gravenstone
@Chyron HR: How the fuck did you extrapolate your faux blockquote from what the poster said? Arguing in bad faith is no way to win said argument.
Major Major Major Major
@Iowa Old Lady: In between being a paid shill for Wall Street and murdering children in, let’s say Latvia.
Betty Cracker
@Iowa Old Lady: The Hillary campaign actually did send a text urging recipients to call their senators and support the amendments. I received mine about three hours after I posted this.
Mnemosyne
For those who have qualms, you realize this has pretty much a zero chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate, right? Since that’s the case, I have no qualms about urging Democrats to support it and using Republicans’ votes against them in November. Whatever happened to strategically making your enemies vote against popular measures, FFS?
Major Major Major Major
@Mnemosyne: You can oppose/have qualms with something intellectually/philosophically while supporting it politically.
Mnemosyne
Also, it’s not about “heightening the contradictions” or whatthefuckever. It’s about forcing Republicans to explain why people on the no-fly list are too dangerous to allow on airplanes, but perfectly fine to buy semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.
Mnemosyne
@Major Major Major Major:
Sometimes in politics you have to support something imperfect to get what you ultimately want. Yes, the no-fly list is a mess, but refusing to call or fax your senator today just in case this manages to get enough votes to pass is fucking stupid.
Major Major Major Major
@Mnemosyne: Agreed.
Major Major Major Major
Feinstein, just now: “Closing this loophole was first proposed by the Bush administration… the language is directly out of the 2007 Bush justice department.”
Mnemosyne
@Major Major Major Major:
Fist bump.
Major Major Major Major
@Mnemosyne: Terrorist.
D58826
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Sorry the only thing our critters respond to is the sight of stacks of 100 dollar bills
Major Major Major Major
Cornyn just called bombs like the Tsarnaev’s used “weapons of mass destruction”.
tmflibrarian
@evap: I was polite, too. I also pointed out that I vote in every election and primary, and am involved citizen who would love for her senator to represent her.
Again, they likely don’t care, and certainly won’t vote to improve the situation, but if no one tells them otherwise, they get to live in that crazy NRA bubble. At the very least, I can start poking holes in that.
Miss Bianca
So, Michael Bennet’s office had a live human answering the phone – Sen. Bennet was one of the filibusterers – and Cory Garder’s did not. Straight to voicemail. I left a message.
Miss Bianca
@Major Major Major Major: I did! Don’t worry, it’s going to go straight to voicemail.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: So, with these concerns in mind, would you say “no” to Feinstein Amendment and “yes” to Murphy?
Yutsano
Gun show loophole overturn just got spiked.
*edited for clarity*
PaulWartenberg2016
I am cynically aware that the Senate is going to vote however the NRA orders them to vote.
The best solution is to get the damn vote out on this cycle of Senate elections, make damn sure the Democratic candidates are NOT in the NRA’s pocket, and vote for them to get all 33 seats up for vote to the Democrats.
O. Felix Culpa
Surprise! Both measures were rejected.
Denali
What is the matter with the Republican senators? (snark)
St. A
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Every time I’ve emailed a senator or representative, I’ve received a response (I live in FL).
Amaranthine RBG
@trollhattan:
Hard compared to what? I haven’t bought a gun directly from a CA dealer in 20 years. Inventory for most dealers is a joke. Easier to order online and have it shipped to FFL in CA, which is a PITA.
@Major Major Major Major:
That, alone, isn’t enough to give you pause?
Ridge
@Bobby Thomson:
Easy words that require no effort or dealing with the law as it exists. Join the club that think Roe v Wade is wrong, child labor rulings are wrong, EPA rulings are wrong and howl at the wind. The rest of the country will try to work it out for you.
R
Ridge
@Bobby Thomson:
Well then, get those justices on the bench. Find a case and spend 10 yrs getting it through the system and maybe your justices will rule like you want. Maybe they won’t. The more assured way for your desire is to start a movement to amend the Constitution. it worked for alcohol.
Of course if you really want to lessen gun violence instead of blowing balloon juice on internet boards, I would look at the most scientific study of gun violence in American by the CDC and commissioned by Pres. Obama. It speaks directly as to where it happens most and what can be done to decrease it.. Certainly more than can be done than wishing current law away.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
R
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Yes. That is correct. Just got back in and had a chance to check things, so that is my answer, but since all four failed, which is what I actually expected to happen, its kind of a moot point of clarification.