Elizabeth Warren Joins Filibuster over Gun Control
Source: Boston Globe
WASHINGTON (AP) A Democratic senator launched a filibuster Wednesday to force a vote on gun control legislation three days after 49 people were killed at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy said he would remain on the Senate floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together, as he also evoked the Newtown school shooting in his state in 2012. His plea came as presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would meet with the National Rifle Association about the terror watch list and gun purchases.
For those of us that represent Connecticut, the failure of this body to do anything, anything at all in the face of that continued slaughter isnt just painful to us, its unconscionable, Murphy said.
Twenty children and six educators died in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. Murphy said he cannot look into the eyes of those childrens relatives and tell them that Congress has done nothing since.
Read more: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/06/15/democratic-senator-frustrated-inaction-guns-begins-filibuster/s0PdS7XEnjWLshf9lPZeFP/story.html?event=event12
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)I stand with them.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Scientific
(314 posts)We need leadership now.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)Fuck the GOP and their NRA enablers.
turbinetree
(24,683 posts)well-------------------------this just amazing and really, really sad ------------
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/06/wv-sovereign-citizen-murders-three-ar-15
Honk-----------------for a political revolution
turbinetree
(24,683 posts)what next
askeptic
(478 posts)I am really disappointed to see Elizabeth Warren supporting using unConstitutional methods.
If she wants to use the watchlist, the watchlist will need to be Constitutional. Silly thing like due process getting ignored by huge numbers of Democrats blinded by their emotions.
We should already know what kind of legislation arises when emotion rules (so-called "patriot" act, anyone?)
And if the FBI has enough evidence that someone is a terrorist, then we have a legal system under which they should be charged. Unlike Ms. Warren, I do not think the FBI has gained magical powers through a pre-cog program, that would allow the overriding of the 5th in order to "restrict" the 2nd! How absurd! Read article 5, it describes how to change the Constitution, just as we have in the past. We don't need to ignore or destroy our other Constitutional rights in the pursuit of gun control.
I also think it's quite amazing how long the watchlist can survive without high-level judicial review. So far, review has been low-level and in all instances I am aware of the list has been declared unConstitional by these courts.
Oh well, it's pretty amazing how long we managed to incarcerate Japaneses-Americans too. I sure hope we get out of the habit of ignoring our Constitution.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Not at all "high-minded principles" are more important and sacred than my right to live in safety and security, the number one priority of our Federal government.
Selling guns and the NRA arguments to protect selling guns is not the be-all and end-all of our government!
askeptic
(478 posts)The 5th Amendment is not about Guns!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"We don't need to ignore or destroy our other Constitutional rights in the pursuit of gun control," you are not talking about guns - on a thread about guns, in an OP about guns.
'Cause I'm ignorant.
SouthernDemLinda
(182 posts)Fifth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/.../fifth_amendm...Legal Information InstituteAmendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy, and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that due process of law be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen life, liberty or property and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.
They are playing politics with national security as a major distration. They are prepared to make a case before we even have all the facts.
Nothing that they have already done should make anyone think that this will make us more secure or safer.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/showsknew/
Watch the Frontline (documentary) The Man Who Knew
As an FBI agent who specialized in counter-terrorism, John P. O'Neill investigated the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole in Yemen, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the first attack on the World Trade Center. O'Neill came to believe America should kill Osama bin Laden before Al Qaeda launched a devastating attack, but his was often a lonely voice. A controversial figure, O'Neill's hot pursuit of terrorists and his James Bond style led to nicknames like "Elvis," "The Count," and "the Prince of Darkness" inside the buttoned-down world of the FBI. In the end, he was forced out of the job he loved and entered the private sector - as director of security for the World Trade Center. [Explore more stories on the original website for The Man Who Knew.]
Zero Hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-12/orlando-shooter-worked-security-company-which-tranports-illegal-immigrants-deep-insi
by Tyler Durden - Jun 13, 2016 5:30 AM
Orlando Killer Worked For Company Transporting Illegal Immigrants Inside US; Was Interviewed By FBI 3 Times.
In a surprising discovery, the Palm Beach Post first reported that according to state records, Orlando shooter Omar Mateen - who as we reported earlier was licensed as a security guard and also holds a firearms license - was employed by the US subsidiary of G4S plc, a British multinational security services company, whose US-headquarters are located in Jupiter, Fla, and which also happens to be the world's largest security company by revenue.
Shortly thereafter, G4S confirmed that Omar Mateen has worked for the company since 2007. This is the statement released from G4S:
We are shocked and saddened by the tragic event that occurred at the Orlando nightclub. We can confirm that Omar Mateen had been employed with G4S since September 10, 2007. We are cooperating fully with all law enforcement authorities, including the FBI, as they conduct their investigation. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the friends, families and people affected by this unspeakable tragedy.
In other words, Mateen who according to preliminary reports, had been on a terrorist watchlist, and who still managed to obtain weapons thanks to his various licenses and permits just last week, was employed by one of the world's largest security companies, where he may have had extensive clearances well above his pay grade, not to mention access to sophisticated military weapons and equipment.
But where it gets more disturbing is that as Judicial Watch reported several days ago, in a post titled, "DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing Vanloads Of Illegal Aliens Away From Border", border patrol sources said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was quietly transporting illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to Phoenix and releasing them without proper processing or issuing court appearance documents. As a reminder, the government classifies them as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and this week around 35 were transferred 116 miles north from Tucson to a Phoenix bus station where they went their separate way. Judicial Watch was present when one of the white vans carrying a group of OTMs arrived at the Phoenix Greyhound station on Buckeye Road.
And this is where the Mateen-G4S link emerges: as JW reported previously, a security company contracted by the U.S. government is driving the OTMs from the Border Patrols Tucson Sector where they were in custody to Phoenix, sources said. The firm is the abovementioned G4S, the worlds leading security solutions group with operations in more than 100 countries and 610,000 employees. G4S has more than 50,000 employees in the U.S. and its domestic headquarters is in Jupiter, Florida.
Judicial Watch noted that it had filed a number of public records requests to get more information involving the arrangement between G4S and the government, specifically the transport of illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to other parts of the country. The photo below shows the uniformed G4S guard that transported the OTMs this week from Tucson to Phoenix.
MisterFred
(525 posts)I reject the idea that fear must make us give up our freedoms. No matter who that demands come from. And yes, I support gun control. But you are more or less advocating that we round up people who have done no crime and throw them in prison... like Trump.
Yes, I said like Trump. What do you think taking away the freedoms of anyone on a watch list looks like. It looks like a bigoted police state.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)And don't give much of a crap for people - even little ones who's bodies get ripped apart by people who use those much loved guns.
So sad.
askeptic
(478 posts)The 5th Amendment is not about Guns! Do YOU care if YOU get due process??
lunatica
(53,410 posts)You're the one accusing everyone else of being emotional. But you're wrong. You're as emotional as the come, only it's for your guns.
askeptic
(478 posts)Try again...
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I'm just stating what appears to be a fact with you gun types.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)is the 2nd amendment.
askeptic
(478 posts)if I had to choose. Due process is important to everyone. I think the whole Constitution is important as it forms the basis for law and was what I swore to uphold and defend.
I have to wonder why anyone would support a secret list made by secret means over the Constitutional right of Due Process.
So I think if you are willing to subvert the 5th Amendment in order to accomplish your goals, you are the real gun nut.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)because of suspicious activity, but nothing concrete enough to arrest them for? Yet!
You know, like those who are getting ready to commit terrorism but haven't built up the nerve yet?
What about due process for the mentally ill who go out and buy assault weapons and then shoot up a school full of young children or a movie theater, or a gay bar?
Do they all get to buy any kind of weapon they want, because they have not yet been arrested for terrorism, or detained in a mental health hospital?
You have a lot of compassion for the 'inconvenience' of some people, but seemingly no compassion for the lives lost of those killed in mass shootings.
askeptic
(478 posts)Do you think the FBI should be able to operate outside the courts and the 5th Amendment? We are talking about Constitutional rights being taken away on some nebulous list of "suspicions". They aren't being "Investigated". Read about the ACLU suits about the people they've represented and all the mistakes on the "watchlist".
What is this? - Joe McCarthy day on DU? Get on "the list" and you automatically are guilty - otherwise why would you be on the list? I am amazed at how little respect for democracy and freedom there seems to be in general, but it is really distressing to see it here...
suspicion is not guilt in the US yet and I hope it never becomes that way.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)they do not always want to give away the fact that they are watching, as they may be looking at more than one person and they may be trying to track down connections to hate groups.
No, your apologist answer is noted, and wrong.
One more point.
A gun seller is not required to sell someone a gun if they think they are acting xuspiciously. Are they breaking their civil rights by denying them a purchase?
No...it is not a constitutional right that everyone in this country can have a gun just because they want one. Al Franken said it right:
MisterFred
(525 posts)A police state where people are punished with no conviction or judicial action is bad. Very bad.
Much better to simply enact useful gun control than allow the FBI to be judge and jury.
MisterFred
(525 posts)I am as confused as you are by the respondents who think you're talking about guns.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Not about guns? It's all about guns!
What he commented: "We don't need to ignore or destroy our other Constitutional rights in the pursuit of gun control."
MisterFred
(525 posts)Delete that sentence and I agree with him about the threat to the 5th. But I support gun control. Just not though the foolish mechanism of not allowing people targeting by the government for potentially political reasons to not have guns. Proper gun control for everyone.
askeptic
(478 posts)I have said this in other threads, but I do not believe the "watchlist" is Constitutional for removal of ANY right. Gun Rights, or Travel Rights. Secret lists are not compatible with the Constitution or democracy in general. I'm not sure why this is taking so long to get judicial review, but the judicial review so far HAS judged the watchlist unConstitutional. You can google for yourself if you are interested in actual facts rather than your fallacious attack.
AND whether or not "it's all about guns" as you are so insistent - it's kind of like calling me a witch! - Therefore, if protecting the 5th Amendment in this context IS "all about guns" you can disregard any arguments that might be made about anything else.
This is a logical fallacy called: ad hominem
Attacking the person instead of the argument; a fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)baffle them with bullshit.
Neither strategy is working!
We been playing this game too long, and now we are dying.
Your so-called "right" to keep and bear toys does not supersede our right to live!
packman
(16,296 posts)Perhaps these people didn't understand Constitutional bullshit as well as you do - all they understood is they wanted a long, peaceful life free from fear:
Perhaps you could e-mail their families a copy of your reasoning?
askeptic
(478 posts)I really resent your trying to lay that shit on me because I support the Constitution. The reason there even ARE openly gay clubs is because I and people like me have supported the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution for a long time.
Do you think the Constitution should go in the toilet everytime some tragedy occurs? What are you - 12?
This is a logical fallacy called: ad hominem
Attacking the person instead of the argument; a fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
packman
(16,296 posts)And how many tragedies will be too many tragedies. Your hubris is awesome to behold - what did you do, take a jr. college course in Constitutional law or just spend the majority of your time on gun-nut, right wing internet sites and then drop in here to poke and prod?
As for my age, well beyond yours with a great deal of grief and tears related to senseless violence. That "shit" - as you refer to it - are humans whose lives seem to matter little to you in comparison to your "support" of a law that needs to be struck down.
Grow up and join the human race. Look at those faces again and let us speak of laws and rights in relation to lives destroyed .
dsummers
(1 post)Packman,
The other commenter with whom you're engaged in debate may have in fact been reading:
Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/23/reminder_the_no_fly_list_is_riddled_with_dangerous_flaws/
Slate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/hillary_clinton_is_wrong_about_the_terror_watch_list.html
HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra-gun-control_us_575f08ece4b071ec19eebbdf
I wouldn't call any of the above "gun nut, right wing internet sites."
The argument you claim to be heartless is an important legal one. It's resistance to emotional appeals is likely positive.
I worry what kind of devastating legislation could come from a call for a hasty response to a tragedy I believe everyone mourns.
Every decade since my birth has witnessed such misguided legislation. The war on drugs. The Clinton crime bill. The PATRIOT act. I hope this decade is free of well-intentioned legislation that disproportionately affects minority and marginalized groups in this country and around the world.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)There's no question that Warren is presidential material. Just hope we can hang on until her opportunity comes.
SunSeeker
(51,508 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Rocknrule
(5,697 posts)They value guns over human lives. This is not an exaggeration or a hyperbole, it is literally the truth. And it is a narrative that needs to be repeated, to show other people just what kind of "Christian family values" they really have.