General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Everyone calm down: The “no fly, no buy” bill was designed to embarrass Republicans, not to pass...
Everyone calm down: The “no fly, no buy” bill was designed to embarrass Republicans, not to pass — and it’s workingWe must remember the "no fly, no buy" bill was written purely to maximize political damage to the GOP
AMANDA MARCOTTE
Wednesday night, the House Democrats, building on Sen. Chris Murphy’s headline-grabbing filibuster to force a Senate vote on gun control, held a highly dramatic sit-in, demanding the same thing in the House.
Led by Rep. John Lewis, whose history as a civil rights activist added moral weight to the event, the sit-in was a smashing bit of political theater. It threw a wrench into the Republican do-nothing strategy that, until now, had been employed to great effect after each mass shooting. It made it way more likely that gun control remains a major issue throughout the election season.
And, in a sign of the state of political discourse in the year 2016, it caused a wave of “uh, actually” reactions from liberal journalists.
At issue was a bill deemed the “no fly, no buy” bill. (There was also a bill, that barely got mention, expanding background checks.) This bill would ban anyone whose name is on the no-fly list from buying a gun. Many liberal journalists, most notably Alex Pareene at Gawker, protested because the no-fly list is already a terrible violation of civil liberties.
more
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/23/everyone_calm_down_the_no_fly_no_buy_bill_was_designed_to_embarrass_republicans_not_to_pass_and_its_working/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
B2G
(9,766 posts)Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
smh
Hekate
(90,648 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The potential beginnings of a long-due national conversation signifies more than "nothing." Although I understand the bias that instructs our minds to find "theater" as the only possible conclusion, regardless of irrelevant head shaking.
B2G
(9,766 posts)It would be nice if they would get behind something that would actually make a difference and would hold up in court.
Because this bill ain't it.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)The "YOU CAN'T TAKE MUH GUNZ" drowns out all rational discourse.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Clean up the list, be specific about who's on it and why and build in due process around adding and removing names.
THEN use the list for the purpose intended in the bill.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It is facile to say "this bill ain't it".
This bill might very well not be "it", and could benefit from Congressional debate aimed at getting something that would hold up in court.
It is very easy to fold one's arms and say "no", instead of rolling up one's sleeves to get to "yes".
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)This brought attention to the fact that our government (the republicans) have decided to ignore the uniquely American problem of gun violence
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)In general, I find any story that starts out with headlines like 'everybody calm down' is an ego-driven opinion piece that can safely be ignored. This one contained two major factual errors just in the short extract posted here on DU, so I am not going to be losing any sleep over la Marcotte's opinions.
Hekate
(90,648 posts)knr
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a shame all those people had to die, but at least they gave us a chance to score some political points and accomplish nothing!
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)How about we actually do something substantive for once.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Forget Warren as VP or trying to attract Sanders voters with pleasantry.
If DCDems will go in on a protest dems rally, there is unity, at least until the lights go out, the sit-in ends and gang heads out for breakfast
Bucky
(53,998 posts)Political theater has its place. If Speaker Ryan had been smart, he could have brought the bill to the floor and let it die on its merits. It's telling that he reflexively tabled it without consideration rather than trust the legislative process. It shows his priorities.
Hopefully the next fight will be over a smarter bill, one that make the country safer in the long run.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Right now - C-SPAN - the Senate is debating the Collins bipartisan 'No fly, no buy' amendment.
Democrats - WE - want to take action to protect ourselves from terrorists and suspected terrorists - like the psycho in Orlando - from legally buying guns and using them on us!
B2G
(9,766 posts)This bill wouldn't have done anything in the Orlando case.
How many terrorists have been on it?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Or worse - you know exactly what you are peddling.
B2G
(9,766 posts)I know what I'm peddling too. Due process.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The FBI admitted he was removed.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)New legislation has been proposed to address this.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/not-just-the-no-fly-list/
We’d note that in the Orlando case, however, the shooter, Omar Mateen, bought his guns after he was no longer on a terrorist watch list. FBI Director James B. Comey has said that Mateen was on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist in 2013 and 2014 when the FBI was investigating him, first due to co-workers raising concerns about Mateen’s incendiary language about terrorism and then due to him having “casually” known a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque in Florida. The FBI didn’t find evidence to arrest Mateen, Comey told reporters, and the investigations were closed, which removes suspects from the watch list, the New York Times reported.
Mateen purchased the guns used in the Orlando shooting in June.
But the Department of Justice is considering implementing some system that would alert counterterrorism officials if someone who had previously been on a watch list tries to buy a gun, the Times said.
New York Times, June 13: Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general, also told reporters at the news conference that the Justice Department might look to adopt new procedures that would alert counterterrorism investigators if someone who had been under investigation and on a terror watchlist tried to buy a gun.
B2G
(9,766 posts)2 separate lists.
This legislation would have used the no fly list, not the terrorist watch list.
Which is a main reason I think it's bunk.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"Trevor Velinor, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,said: 'He is not a prohibited person. They can legally walk into a gun dealership and acquire and purchase firearms. He did so. And he did so within the last week or so,' he said."
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)New legislation has been proposed to address this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/not-just-the-no-fly-list/
We’d note that in the Orlando case, however, the shooter, Omar Mateen, bought his guns after he was no longer on a terrorist watch list. FBI Director James B. Comey has said that Mateen was on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist in 2013 and 2014 when the FBI was investigating him, first due to co-workers raising concerns about Mateen’s incendiary language about terrorism and then due to him having “casually” known a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque in Florida. The FBI didn’t find evidence to arrest Mateen, Comey told reporters, and the investigations were closed, which removes suspects from the watch list, the New York Times reported.
Mateen purchased the guns used in the Orlando shooting in June.
But the Department of Justice is considering implementing some system that would alert counterterrorism officials if someone who had previously been on a watch list tries to buy a gun, the Times said.
New York Times, June 13: Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general, also told reporters at the news conference that the Justice Department might look to adopt new procedures that would alert counterterrorism investigators if someone who had been under investigation and on a terror watchlist tried to buy a gun.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Other lists can also be put to good use.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)He also had more thorough background checks to get a security guard endorsement.
vi5
(13,305 posts)If the DNC and all Dems running against vulnerable repubs don't run wall to wall adds saying explicitly "Senator/Congressman such and such voted in favor of letting suspected terrorists buy assault weapons" then the political theater was for nothing.
I get that they want to get these folks on record, but doing so without then following it through to it's logical political conclusion is pointless.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)in the race could counter about "due process" And not only do "libruls" want to take your guns, but your right to due process as well. That line of attack is an electoral loser.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I honestly think this is a fairly shitty aspect of gun control that they are fighting over and of all the hills they could have died on over the years this seems like.....I don't know.
But they've done it so they should own it and run with it and not go about it with half measures.
The Republicans are going to counter no matter what they do. The problem is that they continually cower at the mere thought of any retort or counter-attack from Republicans.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Once they prove that all hell doesn't break lose with these measures, they can approach slightly less popular legislation.
That's what the NRA knows, and that's why they fight even the smallest efforts.
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)against the bill thus making all their anti-terrorism rhetoric sound hollow
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)This is just one step towards trying to reach that goal. Young people were glued to C-Span last night -- there were also people streaming the speeches outside the House.
What the House Democratic Caucus accomplished last night was to open a national dialogue by getting the majority of Americans to think about just who the NRA and GOP allows to buy guns--remember most Americans aren't as politically attuned as we are. Yet the world was watching and talking about two things last night--common sense gun control measures and the GOP balking at having that conversation.
This means the likelihood that we gain the majority this November grows and with that growth, actual substantive action can happen.
Most people agree that suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons, no matter your stance on the 2nd amendment or the no-fly list. That's a sound talking point and rally cry that anyone can get behind. How big a step is it from that to Universal Background Checks and closing the gun show loopholes?
What the Dems did last night was win a very big skirmish in a very long war and winning has given them much needed momentum going into November.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)would be better than more shootings.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)There's no way in hell we'd get big sweeping motions through the House. First you have to win over the American people and the Dems did that last night.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)all my moderate friends now think Democrats are trying to take away their right to due process.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)
lancer78
(1,495 posts)what happens, but if I was a democrat from Wisconsin or any other midwest or western state, I wouldn't push this too hard.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)that actually MEANS something.
Until that happens, no legislation will or should pass that utilizes the existing list. It's bad enough that innocent people can't travel free of harassment and not get off it.
sarisataka
(18,616 posts)To play a political game and ourbluff bet is further surrendering of our civil rights. Got it.
Question, what do we do if Republicans call the bluff and pass the bill? Do even tell Obama to not sign it because it takes away too many of our rights and we never meant for it to pass?
I do hope somebody will tell us when we are seriously discussing gun control and not just playing political games.
Response to sarisataka (Reply #22)
Post removed
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
It is funny when you call me a gun lover when I cannot own guns because of prior mental health issues.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You are full of it and we are done listening to your bullshit arguments. Today you and your fellow gun humpers are moaning about due process, a subject we only hear about from you when you feel your rights are threatened but never at any other time. Of course, that's designed to pull attention away from the other two bills to close loopholes in the background check system* and provide funding to the CDC to study gun violence.
I have really had it with people like you. I don't think you really give a flying fuck about anything other than your own convenience and I no longer care about your collective rights because you have collectively proved incapable of exercising them responsibly.
* and don't even bother trying to tell me about how those loopholes don't really exist and the background check system is actually super stringent. I've been to gun shows and I know about armslist.com and we both know that it's actually really fucking easy to buy or sell a gun without going through a whole lot of paperwork.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Gun humpers? Sounds like a prohibited attack to me.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Call me a Machiavellian bastard, but as the saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste...
It's after tragedies like this that people actually talk about these issues, and maybe become more open to changing their minds.
Strike when the iron's hot.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)one must have shame. They don't, because they know voters won't hold them accountable.
applegrove
(118,622 posts)common sense gun regulations.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It is too bad political theater is more important than trying to actually work the issue and cut down on firearms murders and suicides.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)That require me authorities to make the case in court within three days.
Democrats could have made progress but decided that voting against gun control provided more opportunities.
