New thread for the vote?

[pugz]

What time are they supposed to vote today?  And is it just no-fly list and universal background checks or is there more?  

If Senate passes it has to go to the house, yes?

[downtoearth]

As I understand, yes to both of those gun control measures:

[debatethis]

Are these two separate bills? What are their numbers? I am not a fan of the provision about the terrorist watch list/no fly list.

[pugz]

Does universal background checks have any loopholes? Like online or gun shows? Or is it truly universal?

[downtoearth]

Jun 16, 2016 13:22:00 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Are these two separate bills? What are their numbers? I am not a fan of the provision about the terrorist watch list/no fly list.

ACLU agrees with you on using the no fly list for gun control.

www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

[debatethis]

Jun 16, 2016 13:27:12 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jun 16, 2016 13:22:00 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Are these two separate bills? What are their numbers? I am not a fan of the provision about the terrorist watch list/no fly list.

ACLU agrees with you on using the no fly list for gun control.

www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/the_aclu_rightly_rejects_the_n.html

I am not surprised, but I am pleased to hear it. It's McCarthyism/PATRIOT Act bullshit all over again. Secret lists being used to deny people their Constitutional rights? When arguably a good chunk of the people who are on those lists are religious/racial minorities? No thank you.

[WanderingWinoZ]

Jun 16, 2016 13:30:25 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Jun 16, 2016 13:27:12 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

ACLU agrees with you on using the no fly list for gun control.

www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/the_aclu_rightly_rejects_the_n.html

I am not surprised, but I am pleased to hear it. It's McCarthyism/PATRIOT Act bullshit all over again. Secret lists being used to deny people their Constitutional rights? When arguably a good chunk of the people who are on those lists are religious/racial minorities? No thank you.

i can kinds of see this, but I've got bigger fish to fry (or at least care about) when we're talking about constitutional liberties being trampled upon. 
I.E. VOTING!  The GOP has no problem making it harder for many to vote by requiring state issued photo ID



Read more: pandce.proboards.com/thread/537012/new-thread-vote#ixzz4BlksIiw4
how about my abortion rights?  those burdensome restrictions are clearly impacting women and poor (more oftne minority) women.

So... sorry, but sucks to be you if you want to buy a gun, but there are ways to get off of it. I think when were talking about a CON right that basically gives you lethal power and the ability to kill others, fI'm fine with coming down on the side of "better safer than sorry"

[WanderingWinoZ]

Jun 16, 2016 13:39:51 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

[StrawberryBlondie]

I really wish they'd give up the no fly list thing.

[LoveTrains]

Jun 16, 2016 13:27:12 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jun 16, 2016 13:22:00 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Are these two separate bills? What are their numbers? I am not a fan of the provision about the terrorist watch list/no fly list.

ACLU agrees with you on using the no fly list for gun control.

www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

I agree, I have a HUGE issue with this and I'm all for most other forms of gun control (like banning AR-15s for example). 

[laurack]

I am against the no-fly list one and wish we could scrap that and insert high capacity magazine ban instead

but really if anything passes it will be a miracle

[WanderingWinoZ]

well, if getting rid of the no fly list is an option, then I vote for that

Our air security measures are generally total BS & TSA is a huge worthless moneypit

[redshoejune]

After listening to the filibuster last night, the no fly list makes a lot of sense to me. I think that there should be a clearly defined path to getting removed from the list if there is a mistake and there should probably be more stringent criteria for how the list is created. But it makes perfect sense to me to say that if a person is considered too dangerous to get on an airplane, it follows that this is a person who should not be able to legally purchase a weapon. Especially a semiautomatic weapon that can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time.

[debatethis]

Jun 16, 2016 13:53:12 GMT -5 laurack said:

I am against the no-fly list one and wish we could scrap that and insert high capacity magazine ban instead

but really if anything passes it will be a miracle

Or do something really meaningful like criminalizing accidental discharge of a firearm by a minor. Or adding a provision to background checks so DV perpetrators/those who have a TRO against them can't get guns. 

[debatethis]

Jun 16, 2016 13:57:17 GMT -5 redshoejune said:

After listening to the filibuster last night, the no fly list makes a lot of sense to me. I think that there should be a clearly defined path to getting removed from the list if there is a mistake and there should probably be more stringent criteria for how the list is created. But it makes perfect sense to me to say that if a person is considered too dangerous to get on an airplane, it follows that this is a person who should not be able to legally purchase a weapon. Especially a semiautomatic weapon that can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time.

Ah yes, the old "guilty until proven innocent" idea. It works great.

[usuallylurking]

Jun 16, 2016 13:57:17 GMT -5 redshoejune said:

After listening to the filibuster last night, the no fly list makes a lot of sense to me. I think that there should be a clearly defined path to getting removed from the list if there is a mistake and there should probably be more stringent criteria for how the list is created. But it makes perfect sense to me to say that if a person is considered too dangerous to get on an airplane, it follows that this is a person who should not be able to legally purchase a weapon. Especially a semiautomatic weapon that can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time.

But it's unconstitutional. It completely ignores due process. Felons have firearm privileges revoked once they're convicted. They go through the entire process. There is no process for the no fly list. If the FBI (or whomever) wants the no fly list people to be unable to purchase a gun, then they need to charge them and allow the whole judicial process to take place. Anything less is unconstitutional and a blatant disregard for our individual rights.

I also wish we could nix the no fly list portion and go for magazine capacity regulation. Or requiring a license prior to purchase. There are plenty of ways to regulate without infringing on the right to purchase/own. All transactions should be completed through an FFL. Etc etc.

And please, stop focusing on the AR-15 (not you specifically, but speaking in general terms). An AR-10 is "worse," just as easy to obtain, and yet everyone is hyperfocused on one gun. There is a way to regulate this without banning a specific firearm.

[turnipthebeet]

Ok but isn't the no fly thing just distracting us from the fact that many of the mass shootings in recent years haven't been carried out by people who are on the no fly list? Like, it's sort of addressing the one issue, but I just feel like it's a red herring.

[usuallylurking]

Jun 16, 2016 14:17:26 GMT -5 turnipthebeet said:

Ok but isn't the no fly thing just distracting us from the fact that many of the mass shootings in recent years haven't been carried out by people who aren't on the no fly list? Like, it's sort of addressing the one issue, but I just feel like it's a red herring.

Yes. Exactly. I think it's emotionally charged by the most recent shooting at Pulse. But it wouldn't have applied to Sandy Hook, Aurora, Planned Parenthood, Charleston, etc.

God it's disgusting to just be able to make a list like that and not even scratch the surface of gun violence.

[eclaires]

I really think high capacity magazines need to be banned. It would actually make a difference, IMO. I also think federal funds should be used for research. Those are two things that I think are reasonable and both sides could agree on.

I think the no fly thing is ridiculous unless the whole process is revamped. It's unconstitutional. The end.

[debatethis]

Jun 16, 2016 14:19:35 GMT -5 usuallylurking said:

Jun 16, 2016 14:17:26 GMT -5 turnipthebeet said:

Ok but isn't the no fly thing just distracting us from the fact that many of the mass shootings in recent years haven't been carried out by people who aren't on the no fly list? Like, it's sort of addressing the one issue, but I just feel like it's a red herring.

Yes. Exactly. I think it's emotionally charged by the most recent shooting at Pulse. But it wouldn't have applied to Sandy Hook, Aurora, Planned Parenthood, Charleston, etc.

God it's disgusting to just be able to make a list like that and not even scratch the surface of gun violence.

Exactly. This is a PDF and I can't figure out how to imbed it here but the DV loophole (because of the background check loophole) and proof of purchase/proof of certification requirements (like gun safes, insurance, gun inspections, training courses) would reduce gun injuries and deaths in immeasurable ways. ncadv.org/files/Gun%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

And also start mandating that all states comply with NICS. www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

[CheeringCharm]

Jun 16, 2016 13:53:12 GMT -5 laurack said:

I am against the no-fly list one and wish we could scrap that and insert high capacity magazine ban instead

but really if anything passes it will be a miracle

I agree. The high capacity magazine one or something similar is what is really needed. The no fly list is bullshit.

[pixy0stix]

Do away with the no-fly list AND the Patriot Act.

A girl can dream, right?

[eclaires]

What I would like to see is a ban on memes about assault rifles. On both sides. I just think it's such an easy thing to dismiss for a variety of reasons, and unfortunately, to get something done, I think it needs to be avoided.

Idk. I'm not a gun person but most guns are semi automatic and I think there are other aspects that make more sense and are more likely to pass than a wholesale ban on "assault rifles".

[laurack]

I mean tying gun ownership to the flawed no fly list could be really bad down the line too. Like imagine president trump and how he would abuse this? No fly no gun list now contains all the brown people in America?

While white men continue to be permitted to stockpile as many guns as they want

[laurack]

The laws in MA seem so reasonable to me. If regulations like those in MA could just become federal law that would be a big step in the right direction. But I know that's a ludicrous pie in the sky idea

[usuallylurking]

Jun 16, 2016 14:37:04 GMT -5 eclaires said:

What I would like to see is a ban on memes about assault rifles. On both sides. I just think it's such an easy thing to dismiss for a variety of reasons, and unfortunately, to get something done, I think it needs to be avoided.

Idk. I'm not a gun person but most guns are semi automatic and I think there are other aspects that make more sense and are more likely to pass than a wholesale ban on "assault rifles".

I agree. The misuse of "assault rifle" is an immediate trigger for pro-gun people to dismiss anything further in the argument because "you don't even know what you're talking about."

Yes, most guns are semi automatic. An AR-15 cannot shoot 13.3 bullets per second (something I saw in a meme). Really, it can't. That would mean a person would have to pull the trigger 13.3 times in one second. Not happening.

Magazine capacity would have the most chance at keeping mass shootings from happening. Closing of all private sales/all sales having to go through an FFL (which requires a background check) would have a great impact on criminals/people who shouldn't own firearms from being able to obtain one legally. Requiring a license prior to purchase would ensure that everyone has some form of education before becoming an owner. Instituting a mandatory waiting period for a purchase to be able to be walked out of the store would stem crimes of passion/immediate gratification. All of these things do not infringe on the right to "bear arms." They do, however, present a reasonable compromise.

[pugz]

universal background checks and funding research are the 2 things I'd really like to see to get things started

[debatethis]

Does any one know if these two provisions are in one piece of legislation or are being introduced separately. As much as I am desperately pleading for closing the background check/gun show loophole, I can't in good conscience write to my congressman to support this if they are tied together.

[isabel]

Not sure if it got answered, but I heard on NPR that the actual vote will take place early next week.

[OscarQ]

From C-Span: Senator Ted Cruz on Wednesday's #filibuster: "Yesterday we saw a political show on the Senate floor." He also says, "This is political distraction. This is political gamesmanship. And I think the American people find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack the Democrats go on high dungeon that we've got to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens. This is not a gun control issue. This is a terrorism issue. And it is nothing less than political gamesmanship for them to try to shift for their favorite hobby-horse, of taking away the Bill of Rights from law abiding citizens.