Breaking: Democrats Halt The Senate, Launch Filibuster For Gun Control

[underahedgerow]

Source: Daily Buzz

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut stood up in front of the Senate just before noon and began what is going to be a “filibuster-style blockade.”

They have promised to not stop speaking until the government does something meaningful in regards to gun control.

Senator Murphy said: Newtown is still putting itself back together, probably will be for a long time. This is a different moment today than it was at the end of last week.

There is a newfound imperative for this body to find a way to come together and take action, to try to do our part to stem this epidemic of gun violence and in particular this epidemic of mass shootings.

There is a fundamental disconnect with the American people when these tragedies continue to occur and we just move forward with business as usual. So I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful bipartisan way.

These measures include: preventing suspected terrorists from legally acquiring guns, closing legal loopholes for gun sales at gun shows and on the internet, and increasing the level and depth of background checks for those interested in buying firearms.

To watch the filibuster live, visit NBC News.

Read more: http://the-daily.buzz/democrats-senate-gun-control/?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_9cbf38d0331b11e69519013b248da655

---

It's about time they grew some balls.

[democrank]

1. Finally! Enough is enough!

Stand up

[MynameisBlarney]

2. This is yet another thing to present to those who equate the 2 parties

One party filibusters to benefit the wealthy and corporations and to obstruct the machinery of gov. out of spite, because they hate the prez.
The other party filibusters to save lives.

[PJMcK]

7. Great observation!

There are such profound differences between Republicans and Democrats that I always scratch my head in disbelief when I hear someone equate them or their candidates.

[MynameisBlarney]

28. Thanks!

Most people I hear trying to say they're the same are usually libertarians, lol.

[MisterFred]

43. Or they're talking within the context of economic rather than social issues. nt

[NoMoreRepugs]

25. let's hope someone in the Dem hierarchy is smart enough to make the

same observation and that it becomes a TV ad somewhere down the line

[MynameisBlarney]

29. True that.

Maybe we here at DU should bring it to their attention.

[rickford66]

3. Found their backbones !!!

[L. Coyote]

4. Watch LIVE on C-SPAN

http://www.c-span.org/video/?411209-1/democrats-take-senate-floor-debate-gun-control&live

[livetohike]

27. Thanks! This is great!

[rock]

5. "It's about time they grew some balls."

You know, to go along with the new president we'll have next year.

[underahedgerow]

10. The next President won't have balls, regardless of who wins.

Bah dum bum.

But it will be Mme Clinton, thank goodness.

[meow2u3]

11. I'll take the President with the ovaries to stand up to gun humpers

[rock]

13. I think you're wong

Metaphorically is how you meant it, and it's how I meant it.

[Amimnoch]

46. I always wondered about that expression "have the balls".

Really, of all the parts of the anatomy of both sexes.. They pick the one part that seems to make one of the 2 sexes the most vulnerable and weakest.

Let's be honest here, the expression is supposed to represent toughness, but it's the one part of the male anatomy all but guaranteed, when struck, to bring the person down to their knees very quickly.

Anyway.. There's my digression and tangent for the day.

[awoke_in_2003]

57. Attributed to Betty Whie

"Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding."

I don't know if she really said it, but I wouldn't put it past her. I have loved her since I had a teenage crush on her during Mary Tyler Moore days.

[Odin2005]

78. Ovaries are balls, too.

[SpankMe]

6. I can't say it enough: Fuck Republicans. n/t

[Calista241]

8. They weren't planning on passing anything anyway.

No serious votes were going to take place this election year. But I admire their new backbone.

[groundloop]

9. FINALLY !!!!!

And I have to wholeheartedly agree with the previous comment comparing the 2 parties.

[L. Coyote]

12. Mexican artist melts 1,527 guns, makes shovels to plant trees

Mexican artist melts 1,527 guns, makes shovels to plant trees
by Amanda Froelich on December 11, 2015

[villager]

15. +1 Very "Isaiah"-like. ;-)

nt

[Chemisse]

14. The public needs to hear - loudly - that Republicans are blocking all gun laws.

And they need to be voted out in November.

So I applaud the Dems for making a big, noisy deal out of this.

[onehandle]

16. Listen to the silence of the Gungeoneers. nt

[SwankyXomb]

36. Hopefully Skinner grows the same kind of backbone

And shuffles them off to some place where they'll be more appreciated, like Disgustionist. Or Red State. Or Stormfront.

[Eleanors38]

44. Right here, onehandle. Got anything? Same? nt

[jamzrockz]

51. A wise man once said

“Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.”

Bertrand Russell

This is the same way we all stood in silence while the republicans rammed down the Patriot act bill. I for one understand that a lot of people are scared and just want to see something done even if said thing will further destroy the liberties we now have in this country.

A secret list made by the FBI will soon be used to limit the right to bear arms and we have people on this website cheering for it. God help us all.

[askeptic]

52. Thankyou. Trying to subvert 5th Amendment is no solution.

...and if the FBI's precog program works so well, why does this happen?

I realize we are starting to get used to the idea of subverting people's due process rights, but the Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the herd mentality... Secret programs like these are incompatible with a democratic society

[PaulaFarrell]

56. Lots of laws destroy our liberties

law you must wear a seatbelt - liberty lost

law you must have a driver's licence to drive a car - liberty lost

law you can't smoke on a plane - liberty lost

At the end of the day, it's a balance between freedom and what's best for the general populace, and what the populace wants to happen. fact is, gun nuts are out of control. If it hadn't reached this point, you'd have a leg to stand on.

[JustinL]

58. but those laws apply to everyone, not just those on problematic lists n/t

[PaulaFarrell]

59. ok sure

No fly lists - loss of freedom

Sex offenders register - loss of freedom

probably other but late and tired

[JustinL]

61. Thanks for making my point. The No Fly List is a travesty.

There are a lot of problems with various sex offender registries as well.

[NewJeffCT]

17. Instead of "balls" for a symbol of toughness

can we use less gender-specific terms like "spine" or "guts" or "backbone" ?

As a guy, I know men definitely don't have the market cornered on toughness.

[orwell]

19. +1,000,000

Loves me some Betty White.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Amimnoch]

47. OMG! Just up thread I was pondering the same thing!

[rhett o rick]

18. Anyone have names of the Senators participating? nm

[annabanana]

20. kick . . .n/t

[DonCoquixote]

21. it's about time

where was this courage 7 and a half years ago?

[Friend or Foe]

22. In the words of the great Bob Marley

Get up, Stand up; Stand up for your rights.

The lyrics are so appropriate to this fight:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobmarley/getupstandup.html

[bucolic_frolic]

23. Scalia must be rolling in his heebie-jeebies

Hallelujah! The Obstructionist Dam is weakening

[HereSince1628]

24. anyone have handy a link to the wording of the proposal increasing background checks?

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Very good.

[TeddyR]

30. So we are cheering for a proposal

That would prevent "suspected terrorists" from exercising a constitutional right based on a secret government list without any sort of due process. Very "progressive." Are we also going to take away their right to vote and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?

I support the other proposals, even though they will have little impact on gun violence. In fact, I can't recall any recent shooting these changes would have prevented, although I haven't seen the details on the "expanded" background checks.

[OnDoutside]

34. Why should anyone have a gun in a civilised society ?

[TeddyR]

40. That's a different issue altogether

And even Hillary stated today that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Which by the way is consistent with the Democratic Party's official platform.

[rhett o rick]

55. And we can restrict which types of guns, ammo and magazines w/o violating the Constitution. nm

[TeddyR]

63. Well yeah

I don't disagree with the general proposition. But (for example) government pretty clearly cannot ban the possession of handguns for self-defense. The exact limits on magazine capacity is undecided -- a few courts have upheld a 10 round limit, and one court shot down a 7 round limit. I think that a 10 round limit would be constitutional in most instances, though I'm not sure there's the political will to pass that type of law.

[Blandocyte]

54. Shooting sports are fun

Target shooting and competitive tournaments are enjoyed by many. That has nothing to do with manners/civility. It's just a hobby or sport.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. Why not have the guns stay as a possession of the gun club/shooting range then?

Anyone can go in and borrow/rent a gun for target shooting, hunting, whatever, and then turn it in after they are done using it. It would be registered in their name and tracked like most rentals. Seems reasonable.

[TeddyR]

64. Yet unconstitutional

Because the Second Amendment prevents government from banning handguns in the home.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. True, the 2nd amendment would have to be repealed.

I really don't understand this need for firearms that people have.

[OnDoutside]

73. I could understand it 200 years ago, when there were no Police forces or indeed American Military.

It was a law "of its time".

[Travis_0004]

77. Even today for a lot of people the police are 30+ minutes away.

Our police department closes overnight.

If we call 911, the dispatcher will wake the police chief at home. We will then get out of bed, and respond. Eventually. Lets just say its not a quick response time.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. So its like Mad Max out there? Raving bands of lunatics that go....

Looting and pillaging? Its the lawless frontier that requires you to be armed?

[Travis_0004]

80. Its well known that if you are breaking into a house, you will be shot first

Then they will get around to calling the police.

Everybody where I live owns a gun. Honestly bears are a bigger threat than humans. But crime is almost non existant, largely due to high rates of gun ownership.

[Humanist_Activist]

81. Any evidence of you claim that high rates of gun ownership reduce crime?

Wouldn't it be more likely to be less population density and economic reasons?

ON EDIT: If your claim had any value, the United States would have the lowest crime rate compared to every developed nation in the world.

[Travis_0004]

76. My shooting range is on 100 acres in the middle of nowhere

In fact, most shooting ranges are in rural places, its kind of a good idea. At night other than a now trespassing sign, there is nothing to keep people out. Storing a bunch of guns there is not a great idea.

Also, i have gone before when I am the only person there. Not sure how a rental is going to work. I guess its on the honor system to return the gun.

[24601]

71. Should or need are not ascribed to rights. You aren't required to demonstrate the need to speak

freely, worship, assemble peacefully, vote, receive due process, not be a slave, etc.

That's what distinguishes rights from privileges. One may disagree with Heller v. DC, but not accepting it as settled law is to say neither are Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, nor Miranda v. Arizona.

[OnDoutside]

72. Bit of a difference between speaking freely and blowing someone's head off because you were angry

and had easy access to buy guns ?

[24601]

74. Absolutely agree that speaking & killing are different. But it's a small percentage of gunowners,

that blow someone's head off - just like its a small percentage of impaired drivers that kill others.


I was thinking about this earlier - I want responsible owners smart and as well trained as a seal team. I want
irresponsinle owners or criminal possessors to unskilled and a be as stupid as a bag of rocks.

[OnDoutside]

75. Well I wouldn't want them seal team trained, but certainly trained to respect the weapon they own.

I'm sure most do. However, the bar should be set a lot higher than it currently is, and semi automatic guns/rifles should be banned.

[sarisataka]

35. Yes we are

because Second Amendment, gunz and stuff. (Even though this is actually a Fifth Amendment issue)

[NickB79]

42. Shut up and cheer, damn it! Didn't you get the memo?

I'd bet $50 that if such a proposal became law, the ACLU and other civil liberty organizations would sue to the Supreme Court and win, though.

The ONLY way such a proposal would pass legal muster is if the list were completely transparent (good luck there) and had a way for one on the list to challenge his or her listing to a panel of judges, where the onus is on the government to prove why said individual should be denied their legal rights.

[Eleanors38]

45. Which 5A dillution do some DUers prefer? NRA's? Trump's?

[Just reading posts]

53. Some people love authoritarian government when their party is in charge. I wonder if they'd be

such fans of secret government lists that take away constitutional rights if the Republicans were in charge?

[NastyRiffraff]

31. EXCELLENT!

This should show the voting public the vast differences between the parties. Anyone who says it makes no difference who wins the presidency or the Congress is batshit crazy.

[uppityperson]

32. Would you consider editing your last line and use "spine"? Thank you.

[ISeeA BrightFuture]

33. YOU CAN TAKE PART AND MAKE THIS AN EVEN STRONGER STATEMENT! Here's HOW!!!!!

See the fillibuster live and chat about it here:

SIGN A PETITION TO DEMAND STRONGER GUN LAWS HERE:
http://go.boldpac.com/page/s/filibuster?source=MS_EM_PET_2016.06.15_B2_filibuster_X__F1_S1_C1__all

Send him a "I stand with you note" and thank you note at his office:
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/contact

CALL CONGRESS TODAY AND TELL THEM TO ACT HERE:
http://act.everytown.org/call/disarm-hate-calls/?akid=3649.4207961.1YoGC4&rd=1&source=emne_orlando-calls&t=2&utm_campaign=orlando-calls&utm_medium=_e&utm_source=em_n_

[Amimnoch]

49. Done... Done.. And tomorrow.

Thanks for the links!

[LS_Editor]

37. The word "halt" makes it appear the Senate was actually doing anything prior to this.

[asiliveandbreathe]

38. Many Dems standing with Murphy -

Murphy began speaking at about 11:20, and the filibuster was continuing just before 2 p.m. Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had joined Murphy in speaking.

The Senate is currently considering the Commerce, Justice and Science spending bill. Though no votes are currently scheduled, the senators are blocking other senators from making any amendments to the bill “pending”—the first step to getting a vote -

Then we have Sasse - Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the first Republican senator to come join Murphy and other Democrats, asking a question about the terror watchlist.

"I'm familiar with the terrorist screening database. There are a series of lists that fall from the database, but I don't think there's any such thing as 'the terrorist watchlist,' and I certainly don't understand what due process rights would apply," Sasse said.

And then we have Cornyn - Sasse’s comments hit at a key GOP critique of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposal to give the attorney general broad authority to block individuals on the terror watchlist from being able to buy a gun or explosive.

Republicans argue that it would negatively impact Americans who aren’t tied to terrorism and violate their constitutional rights by stopping them from buying a gun without court approval.
- If they are on the no fly list - they shouldn't be able to BUY!!!! I seriously question whether these republiklans even have a thought process.. or any comprehension of NO FLY - NO BUY!!!!!

Instead Sasse and most Republicans are supporting an alternative proposal Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to allow the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm. -

That's what we can do - look folks we got some repubs with a plan - 72 hour wait for suspected terrorists to buy weapons.....pathetic!!!!! disgusting -

my fellow Americans - lets be sure we all have our voting registrations up to date....you know someone who needs help with voter registration - then help - and know when and where you can vote - EVERYWHERE _ IN EVERY STATE - JUST DO IT!

[Paper Roses]

39. Finally. Let us hope something good happens.

Change in the outdated 2nd amendment is long overdue. We need to abolish this 'right to bear arms". Guns kill---'nuff said.

[bucolic_frolic]

41. Trump is meeting with the NRA who blames Obama for inaction and playing politics with this issue

Seriously, saw it on the Guardian.com

[onecaliberal]

50. fuck trump straight to hell.

[onecaliberal]

48. Finally something I can respect them for...

[Feeling the Bern]

60. Until we have Paul Ryan as House Minority Leader, it will die in the House

[CanonRay]

65. Halting the Senate is like

halting a broken down cement truck. But kudos to them anyway.

[myrna minx]

67. K&R nt

[ailsagirl]

68. I'm watching it now

Or C-SPAN2

[Beartracks]

69. And, hey -- those measures don't infringe on the right to bear arms!

The people would still 100% have the right to bear arms.

So I'm only just now thinking this through, but it seems a strict reading of the constitution, which Republicans claim to prefer (when it suits them), would still allow for some regulation. And I don't mean that to be in reference to the phrase "well-regulated militia."

The amendment doesn't say "every individual" has the right; it says "the people" -- collectively -- have the right. So stopping terrorists from purchasing (e.g. bearing) arms does not infringe the right. As I understand it, felons can't purchase or own guns, either, so it's not without precedent, and it does not infringe on the right of "the people." Most nearly all Americans, as the People, will still be able to individually exercise the right.

The amendment also doesn't say "any/every kind of armament"; it says "arms." Banning the sale of assault weapons does not infringe on the right to bear arms. If assault weapons were banned, the people would still 100% have the right to bear arms. Not "assault arms," but nearly all other arms nonetheless.

As to that phrase "well-regulated militia" -- and this is important. Someone posted here at DU an explanation that in the 18th century "well-regulated" meant something like "functioning as intended." If that's the case, I think an argument could be made that, since the intent of the amendment was clearly that the people, bearing arms, would be a well-regulated militia for the "security of a free state," then an interpretation or implementation of the amendment that leads to a DECREASE in the security of that state (e.g. thousands of citizen deaths) would mean that the envisioned militia -- gun owners, collectively -- is NOT "functioning as intended."

========================

[eastwestdem]

70. His closing remarks were so powerful. That story needs to be shared more. nt