Senator Chris Murphy's Gun Control Filibuster Leads To Vote

Forums: Politics, Gun Industry, Chris Murphy, N R A, Gun Safety
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 14 • Views: 15,411 • Replies: 176

[+7] - snood - 06/27/2016What's bullshit is your bovine inflexibility and inability to think for yourself. So what if you know more about guns than I do? You can't see the need to regulate a deadly machine.
[+6] - RABEL222 - 06/27/2016Spout this bullshyt at the 49 who died at Orlando and the 20 children six and seven years old, and the 6 adults killed at Sandy Hook you mindless jerk.
[+6] - snood - 07/04/2016[img]https://playingintheworldgame.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/936470fac8bbc03a24a9c46fc4b5dbff.jpg?w=538[/img]
[+6] - Real Music - 07/05/2016Thanks for the insight. I was not aware of any of this. I further researched what you posted. Here is a link and article that further supports what you posted. Thanks. I will continue to...
[+5] - parados - 06/20/2016You are wrong when you state that the government can't impose arms control of any kind.
[+5] - Real Music - 06/24/2016[quote]You have ignored my primary argument. These Democrats were members of the power structure. Their use of so-called civil disobedience was an insult to all those who, without power, chose this...
[+5] - parados - 07/14/2016You mean the plain language in the 9th amendment that makes it clear there are rights not listed such as privacy between a doctor and patient? Or are you referring to the 10th amendment which...
[+4] - parados - 06/19/2016[quote] If you were to reform the background check system so that it only barred criminals and the dangerously insane from buying guns, and you prosecuted Barack Obama in federal court for...
[+4] - roger - 06/21/2016The statement I referred to sounds like it applies to assault rifles. Just for your benefit, I want to point out that it could easily include handguns. I know that's what they want, but I think it...
[+4] - Real Music - 06/22/2016[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyaMFh0rr04 [/youtube]

0 Replies

The purpose of this filibuster was to force a vote which could be used against those not voting for gun control. Murphy never expected to prevail on the issue and he won't

It's all politics, all the time.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The purpose of this filibuster was to force a vote which could be used against those not voting for gun control

I agree that this may still be an uphill battle of getting enough votes to pass new gun control laws. I also agree that this vote will force senators to go on RECORD to being against restricting the sale of guns to people who are on the no-fly list. Also this vote will force senators to go on RECORD to being against expanding the current background checks to include gun shows and internet gun purchases.

For some senators they may experience real pressure to vote for these new gun control laws. The reasons that there may be pressure for some senators to vote for these new gun control laws is because the proposed laws are very narrow and seen as being reasonable. For some senators, avoiding going on RECORD up to now has relieved them from any pressure. Now they have to go on RECORD. That pressure may peel off just enough to get the laws pass.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

They're going to need to seriously examine the false positives on that no-fly list, and provide a reasonable path for an individual to challenge his inclusion.

Can you really buy guns over the internet? How do you do it, in case I ever feel the need.

2 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

They're going to need to seriously examine the false positives on that no-fly list, and provide a reasonable path for an individual to challenge his inclusion.

Can you really buy guns over the internet? How do you do it, in case I ever feel the need.

Yes, you are correct. There need to be a reasonable avenue of challenging being wrongfully placed on the no-fly list. The devil is in the detail. Congress can address and rectify that particular issue to be included in the vote.

You ask can you really buy guns over the internet or on-line sales. I don't know the answer to that question. There will be a vote in the Senate to expand background checks to include on-line purchase and gun shows.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

You can buy guns on the internet, but it is not as easy as you may think. You still need a Federal licensed dealer to receive the gun and then go through the registration procedures of your State. I hate to say this, but some gunshows are very lax in this requirement. If the purchase is made from an individual at the show, the only question the seller may ask you is if you are an American.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Now they have to go on RECORD. That pressure may peel off just enough to get the laws pass.

Have you ever, perchance, heard of the NRA?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

(WASHINGTON) -- The senator behind the 15-hour gun control "filibuster" this week in the wake of the Orlando shooting is already looking beyond Monday's scheduled vote on a series of gun control amendments that are expected to fail.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, said a measure he co-sponsored to expand background checks, along with a proposal from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, to prevent anyone on the terror watch list and no-fly list from buying a firearms, will face resistance from Republicans.

“I think the background checks bill is going to be tough to pass,” he said of his own measure in an interview with ABC News Friday. “But keeping terrorists from buying guns -- I think we might be able to pass that.”

The Senate is also set to vote Monday evening on a pair of Republican amendments from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would implement a three-day waiting period on gun purchases to give law enforcement officials time block a sale in court. All four measures -- the two sponsored by Democrats and the two sponsored by Republicans -- are expected to fail.

But Murphy said he is encouraged by work going into more limited compromise proposals from Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, and Susan Collins, R-Maine. Nelson's measure would alert the FBI when someone suspected or previously investigated for terror ties tries to buy a firearm.

Collins’ proposal would block gun sales to terrorism suspects on the no-fly list or a similar list of individuals who require additional airport screening – a list that Orlando gunman Orlando Mateen was on, according to Collins’ office. The FBI would also be notified if someone who had been on either list in the previous five years buys a gun.

The Maine senator’s measure would also allow individuals to appeal decisions preventing them from buying firearms and would award attorney fees.

“None of this would've been happening if we hadn't gone to the floor and forced this discussion,” he said.

After Monday's vote, he added, the Senate will be on the record ahead of Election Day in November.

“Republicans are interested in compromising because they know on Monday night a lot of them are going to have to take a really bad vote,” Murphy argued.

The Connecticut Democrat said he won’t be discouraged if the amendments fail next week.

“I represent Sandy Hook [Elementary School]. I just dropped off my 7-year-old for his last day of first grade today. I have a personal obligation to those families and to my family to do everything within my power to try to make this country safer, even if along the way I don't win every single vote,” he said.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

How many of those proposals has NRA approval?

0 Replies

I am glad that they are trying, I hope they are successful and listen to the will of the people who do want to make it illegal to purchase a gun with the capabilities of killing people so quickly. I know the arguments, but, people break laws all the time, that doesn't mean we don't have laws. We just need better ways of first catching them and then longer stricter sentences for having the illegal guns with the capabilities of having 100 bullets shoot out in a minute. (I am not up on gun terms)

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

They're going to need to seriously examine the false positives on that no-fly list, and provide a reasonable path for an individual to challenge his inclusion.

Can you really buy guns over the internet? How do you do it, in case I ever feel the need.

Indeed. Our right to due process is, in my opinion, more precious than our right to bear arms. Without it there is nothing to stand in the way of an abusive government.

What angers me is that the President as well as all the legislators promoting this as a "no-brainer" measure, all know very well how unreliable the list is. They don't care because they don't wish to preserve the 2nd Amendment. If you or I got on the list and were unable to buy a gun...no big deal for them, because, of course, you can't trust anyone who wants to buy a gun.

Seac is correct. You can purchase a gun on the internet, but if they are at all legitimate, they won't send the gun to your home. I've no problem with this.

Gun show purchases are too lax, but that is a distinct and separate problem.

I've gone 62 years without a gun, but I am now going to buy one. I'll be purchasing a shotgun for home protection. I've been thinking about it for a number of years now but have demurred to my wife's reluctance to have one in the house. However, it is clear to me that our government is going to continue to press against the 2nd Amendment, regardless of who is elected president. I want to have one before I no longer can.

Of course the registration process (which I don't necessarily oppose) will mean that some time in the future, government agents may be at my door demanding I surrender my gun, but if we ever get to such a point I won't be voluntarily giving it up. I'll lie to them and tell them I gave it away and invite them to search my home. If they tear my house apart looking for it I will know, for sure, I was right to buy it.

I'm not predicting this, but I'm also not so foolish as to think it can't happen...and it could just as easily happen under a right-wing administration as a left-wing one.

The Founders' brilliance was in recognizing the realities of human nature, power and governmental abuse. Things haven't changed so much since then to render their concerns moot. We are always one huge catastrophe away from martial law, and the possibility of such a catastrophe has increased, not decreased, since the 18th century.

We are currently facing foes who would like nothing better than to visit a huge catastrophe upon us...suitcase nuke, dirty bomb, biological weapons. Will it ever happen? I don't know and I, of course, hope it won't, but only an idiot believes it can't ever happen.

Call me a paranoid alarmist, but I'm afraid that my owing a shotgun doesn't seem all that crazy to me.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I hope they are successful and listen to the will of the people who do want to make it illegal to purchase a gun with the capabilities of killing people so quickly.

None of the gun banners are even trying to do such a thing. Maybe one day they would do so, but right now the only thing they want to do is hassle gun buyers and violate people's rights.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I think that the remainder of this generation will involve just what "rights re: gun ownership" actually means.

We seem to have gotten it right with the National Firearms Act. We dont have many brilliant "originalists" left on the USSC, even Alito and the Chief justice are NOT of that cloth.

1 Reply

Those who have actually served in the armed forces know that even if you are issued an assault rifle, you don't take it back to your quarters, you turn it in to the armorer, even in a war zone. Only if you are in a free-fire zone do you have it at your side at all times.

American society is not a free-fire zone. It is nothing less than obsessional insanity that people claim the second amendment gives them the right to any firearm they want, and that they should keep assault rifles with less stringent security that that employed by the armed forces.

As for FM's comment about the National Firearms Act, in 1939, in The United States versus Miller, Mr. Justice McReynolds wrote the majority opinion, including this remark:

Quote:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Court upheld the National Firearms Act.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think that the remainder of this generation will involve just what "rights re: gun ownership" actually means.

The meaning of rights has been set in stone for centuries. Humanity is not going to suddenly decide to redefine "rights" to mean "not rights".

farmerman wrote:

We seem to have gotten it right with the National Firearms Act.

The parts of it that needlessly hassle gun buyers should be reformed.

farmerman wrote:

We dont have many brilliant "originalists" left on the USSC, even Alito and the Chief justice are NOT of that cloth.

The only purist in modern times has been Justice Thomas. Justices Alito and Roberts both support people's Constitutional gun rights however.

And don't forget the NRA. They will defend the Constitution even when the courts do not.

Your opposition to our rights continues to be dumbfounding to me. Let's say you got your way and freedom was repealed. How would you like it when they came and took all your guns away?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Those who have actually served in the armed forces know that even if you are issued an assault rifle, you don't take it back to your quarters, you turn it in to the armorer, even in a war zone. Only if you are in a free-fire zone do you have it at your side at all times.

There is a significant difference between a soldier in a standing army wielding a government-owned weapon and a private citizen wielding their own personally-owned weapon.

Setanta wrote:

It is nothing less than obsessional insanity that people claim the second amendment gives them the right to any firearm they want, and that they should keep assault rifles with less stringent security that that employed by the armed forces.

No one has claimed that they have a right to any weapon.

People do, however, claim a right to have a type of gun if there is no good reason for banning that type of gun. And so far no one has come up with any good reason for banning a gun merely because it has a pistol grip.

People also have the right to keep their guns at home, and to carry them when they go about in public.

Claiming these rights are hardly insanity. These are the rights that the law actually provides to American citizens.

1 Reply

Quote:

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The rights contained in The Bill Of Rights to the United States Constitution are not ABSOLUTE. Example: The Freedom of Speech does not give a person the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. Another example: Freedom of religion does not give a person the right have human sacrifice on the basis of religious freedom. Another example: The right to bear arms does give a person the right to possess a tank, bazooka, or surface to air missiles.

I can provide soooooo many other examples. I wanted to point out that the government has the right to regulate the rights contained in the Bill of Rights within REASON. These rights are not ABSOLUTE. What is considered to be within REASON is the only true debate.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Actually militiamen have the right to keep anti-tank bazookas and Stinger missiles at home.

You are correct though that rights are not absolute. But I think everyone already knew that.

Rights do however prohibit laws that have no good reason for existing. Like, say, laws against having a pistol grip on a rifle.

2 Replies

Senator Chris Murphy's Gun Control Filibuster Leads To Vote

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know