If Music Could Talk

Flex wrote:Despite some assertions from people I actually think are pretty politically astute, I'm reasonably sure this sit-in won't lead to gun legislation that materially makes anyone safer. But I do think there's a pretty good chance this has helped solidify the surveillance-state watch-list concept as not only bipartisan consensus, but as a legitimate tool to advance so-called progressive causes. So that's something, I guess.

Yep.

Wolter wrote:

Flex wrote:Despite some assertions from people I actually think are pretty politically astute, I'm reasonably sure this sit-in won't lead to gun legislation that materially makes anyone safer. But I do think there's a pretty good chance this has helped solidify the surveillance-state watch-list concept as not only bipartisan consensus, but as a legitimate tool to advance so-called progressive causes. So that's something, I guess.

Yep.

Agreed. The one thing that will always bind the two parties is that the state should be able to snoop on people's private lives.

Interesting times at any rate.

Silent Majority wrote:Interesting times at any rate.

May we live to see a boring world.

Flex wrote:Despite some assertions from people I actually think are pretty politically astute, I'm reasonably sure this sit-in won't lead to gun legislation that materially makes anyone safer. But I do think there's a pretty good chance this has helped solidify the surveillance-state watch-list concept as not only bipartisan consensus, but as a legitimate tool to advance so-called progressive causes. So that's something, I guess.

Jesus, I thought only the republicans were offering terror watchlist bans and that the democrats were offering more robust, less anti-due process options. Looks like they were proposing those as well.

I mean, I'm all for increased gun control, but jesus, banning people from purchasing firearms on an unregulated, ambiguous, and generally unlawful list is awful in so many ways.

matedog wrote:Jesus, I thought only the republicans were offering terror watchlist bans and that the democrats were offering more robust, less anti-due process options. Looks like they were proposing those as well.

I mean, I'm all for increased gun control, but jesus, banning people from purchasing firearms on an unregulated, ambiguous, and generally unlawful list is awful in so many ways.

Perversely, the NRA-backed/Rpeublican version required that any person banned from purchasing a firearm required the government to go to court and provide material evidence the suspect was considered likely to be preparing to engage in terrorist activity, which the dems rejected as being too onerous a requirement. So, you actually have the repubs trying to push a more due process-oriented version of the bill in this scenario. Just surreal stuff.

Flex wrote:

matedog wrote:Jesus, I thought only the republicans were offering terror watchlist bans and that the democrats were offering more robust, less anti-due process options. Looks like they were proposing those as well.

I mean, I'm all for increased gun control, but jesus, banning people from purchasing firearms on an unregulated, ambiguous, and generally unlawful list is awful in so many ways.

Perversely, the NRA-backed/Rpeublican version required that any person banned from purchasing a firearm required the government to go to court and provide material evidence the suspect was considered likely to be preparing to engage in terrorist activity, which the dems rejected as being too onerous a requirement. So, you actually have the repubs trying to push a more due process-oriented version of the bill in this scenario. Just surreal stuff.

But easy to appreciate when you accept that neither party is bound by a set of principles of behaviour but instead only fealty to particular interests. As such, any tactic is legit, with amnesia setting in if it contradicts how to deal with other interests.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Flex wrote:

matedog wrote:Jesus, I thought only the republicans were offering terror watchlist bans and that the democrats were offering more robust, less anti-due process options. Looks like they were proposing those as well.

I mean, I'm all for increased gun control, but jesus, banning people from purchasing firearms on an unregulated, ambiguous, and generally unlawful list is awful in so many ways.

Perversely, the NRA-backed/Rpeublican version required that any person banned from purchasing a firearm required the government to go to court and provide material evidence the suspect was considered likely to be preparing to engage in terrorist activity, which the dems rejected as being too onerous a requirement. So, you actually have the repubs trying to push a more due process-oriented version of the bill in this scenario. Just surreal stuff.

But easy to appreciate when you accept that neither party is bound by a set of principles of behaviour but instead only fealty to particular interests. As such, any tactic is legit, with amnesia setting in if it contradicts how to deal with other interests.

I would venture to guess that the dems are in the mindset of "any gun control is good gun control and a victory for the cause" which is leading to this buffoonery.

matedog wrote:I would venture to guess that the dems are in the mindset of "any gun control is good gun control and a victory for the cause" which is leading to this buffoonery.

Almost certainly their attitude is to get any kind of seeming win to break the appearance that gun control is a no-go issue, to make it seem like the door is opening a crack. Then, bam!, Obama/Hilary/Bernie can take everyone's guns away.

matedog wrote:

Flex wrote:Despite some assertions from people I actually think are pretty politically astute, I'm reasonably sure this sit-in won't lead to gun legislation that materially makes anyone safer. But I do think there's a pretty good chance this has helped solidify the surveillance-state watch-list concept as not only bipartisan consensus, but as a legitimate tool to advance so-called progressive causes. So that's something, I guess.

Jesus, I thought only the republicans were offering terror watchlist bans and that the democrats were offering more robust, less anti-due process options. Looks like they were proposing those as well.

I mean, I'm all for increased gun control, but jesus, banning people from purchasing firearms on an unregulated, ambiguous, and generally unlawful list is awful in so many ways.

It is a deal with the devil, innit?

Still, I'd take it.

If only because it would be a crack in a so-far impenetrable wall ... that will hopefully grow over time until it collapses.

At this point, I'll take the Democrats showing any fucking guts at all in the face of the Republicans. Even in this madly wrongheaded compromised attempt.

The 2nd Amendment has been repealed, Obama's coming to every gun-owner's home to personally take away every gun!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sup ... 3?section=

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... n-lockdown

No Open Carry in the Capitol building??? THIS ISN'T AMERICA, DAMNIT!

Rat Patrol wrote:http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... n-lockdown

No Open Carry in the Capitol building??? THIS ISN'T AMERICA, DAMNIT!

The only way to ensure civility and safety inside the Capitol is to mandate that everyone in there is armed to the teeth. Talk is cheap, hondo!

Is this thing on? It hasn't moved in weeks. :(