Senator Chris Murphy's Gun Control Filibuster Leads To Vote

I'm all for civil disobedience if those who use it are prepared to accept the consequences of their acts. That is true heroism.

The stunt that took place in the House is nothing like the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement or India's Independence Movement. Nothing.

First of all there was never a chance that these Democrats would have faced actual consequences.

Secondly, and more importantly, these Democrats are part of the power structure in this country and most of them have participated in establishing laws that may or may not be subject to righteous civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is a tool of the those without conventional power. The Democrats hardly fit that category.

I believe they were prepared to accept the consequences for their acts. I believe they were willing to be handcuffed and taken to jail for the cameras to see. Especially for the cameras to see. Civil Disobedience by design is suppose attract attention. Essentially civil disobedience is supposed to be a stunt so that it draws public attention to a particular issue.


I believe that the Speaker of the House has the authority to take legal action against the participants. Whether that be having them handcuffed and removed or even arrested, I don't know that answer. As I stated above Civil disobedience by design is suppose to be a stunt. I am sure the participants are keenly aware that if Speaker Ryan were to order law enforcement to handcuff, remove, and arrest the participants, that Speaker Ryan would in turn have the worst public relations of his existence. The participants goal is to put him in a no-win situation which ultimately forces him to come to the table which is good strategy. Yes, even during the civil rights movement there was a lot of strategy involved in civil disobedience.



Civil Obedience throughout history was used as a tool to shine a bright light on a particular issue. Throughout history it has also been used as a strategy. The strategy of forcing the opposition to look bad in the public's eyes through their actions or inactions. Because of civil disobedience being used as a strategic tool, our country has made right many wrongs throughout our history

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 means as an effective means to confront the power structure.

The House democrats are really not members of the power structure, because they have no power. In the House, the republicans have a solid majority giving them all of the power. So, in this particular case, the Democrats are not really part of the power structure. The House Democrats are without power.

Of course, in this case the Democrats are hoping that their civil disobedience will help to perpetrate a wrong.



They might hope that. In the end though all the Leftist whining would rightfully be ignored.

DON'T GIVE UP,

DON'T GIVE IN,

KEEP THE FAITH,

AND KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE

says AMERICAN hero John Lewis

This is absurd and motivated by your insistence on regarding them as romantically heroic.

I don't recall if you have ever made an argument against the Republicans for being obstructionists during Obama's presidency, but if you have you are now being hypocritical.

Besides, the Democrats had complete power for Obama's first two terms and they could have passed all sorts of gun control, as well as any number of laws you might think are great. Did they? What did we get from their period of dominance? Obamacare and a massive Stimulus package.

Probably a few other things as well, but none of your precious gun control methods.

I wonder why?

Those house democrats were sitting in for all of us without power who for years have wanted someone to ban guns which are capable of mass killings such as we have experienced too many times. They are fighting for lives which have been lost and lives which might be saved and they are fighting the biggest powerhouse in the land, the NRA. I hope they keep on, I am very proud of them. I hope there are marches and other such methods used in this fight for lives against the NRA.

White NRA Radio Host Lectures John Lewis On “What The Sit-Ins Were About In The Civil Rights Movement”

More romantic pap.

Note that they didn't even try to ban any guns. And even when they do talk about banning guns, all they talk about is banning harmless cosmetic features, which would do nothing but violate people's civil rights. And even though they weren't trying to ban anything, the things that they were actually trying to do were also massive civil rights violations.

Regarding the goal you wished for above, pretty much any gun that would be useful for self defense would also be capable of killing a certain number of people.



No, they only want to violate civil rights, and only because they think it is fun to violate people's civil rights.



You got that part right. These Freedom Hating worms have no chance of passing any of their civil rights violations.



Did you cheer for the 9/11 attackers too?



I'll bet this Lewis character wasn't willing to learn. He certainly has no respect for civil rights.

In general what, if anything, do you find inspiring, Finn?

The reason that I see them as heroes is simply because they champion a cause that is dear to me as well as the vast majority of Americans. They are fighting for a cause that I and most Americans agree with. Let's be clear of what that cause is. I and most Americans believe that all law biding citizens have and should continue to have the right to bear arms to hunt and for self defense. Whether or not you are for gun control or not, I believe the vast majority of Americans agree with that single point. The difference is the vast majority of Americans support and favor reasonable gun control laws. The vast majority of Americans who support and favor reasonable gun control laws includes gun owners, non-gun owners, NRA members, and non-NRA members. To see someone go above and beyond to fight for the vast majority of Americans against the powerful influential forces of the Gun Manufacturers is simply heroic. The following is a video link showing what gun owners, non-gun owners, NRA members, and non-NRA members all have in common.





Yes, that is true that I did not make that same argument to support the Republicans for being obstructionists during Obama's presidency. The reason is simple. I did not believe in the Republicans causes in which they were fighting for. I cannot call a person or persons heroes if I totally disagree with the causes they are fighting for. That would make absolutely no sense. The republicans obstructed and opposed virtually any and all legislation proposed by Obama or the democratic party.. They wanted to repeal Obamacare. Yes, I agree that Obamacare is not perfect. And yes I agree that Obamacare does have some flaws needing to be fixed. I still believe Obamacare is still a good law, but it does need some fixing. I also have hopes of the Democrats and Republicans working together to improve and make the law better. I would never support repealing Obamacare.




Yes it is true that Obama and the Democrats had complete control for a time. That time was very brief. When Obama was first elected the democrats had control of the House and 60 vote filibuster proof Senate. During this brief two year period the biggest most monumental piece of legislation in decades was signed into law. That law is The Affordable Health Care Law, commonly known as Obamacare. Due to all of the time and resources expended on fixing the financial and economic CRISIS left by the previous administration as well as enacting the biggest most monumental law in decades left no time to achieve more accomplishments. Everything cannot be at one time. Especially big and substantial pieces of legislation.

After the first mid term election, the Democrats no longer had complete control. They didn't have control of the house most of his 8 years. They also did not have a 60 vote filibuster Senate most of his 8 years. Also the Republicans started their obstructionist the moment the Dems no longer had all the power. That was two years into his first term all the way to the present.

You are just trying to fool people into thinking you aren't taking their guns, right up until you come and take them.

No one is fooled.



Characterizing civil right violations as "reasonable" does not in any way legitimize them.

I think the idea that you have to agree with a hero's goal in order to call him or her heroic is mistaken. Likewise, you don't have to regret the demise of someone to call their situation a tragedy.

I don't, for one moment, consider so-called Republican obstructionism to be an example of heroics even though I largely agree with the thinking that drove it.

What is essential to the heroic is the willingness to sacrifice all to achieve a goal from which their personal gain is far overshadowed by the gain of the whole.

For example, Gandhi's supporters in India who engaged in civil disobedience put themselves at great personal peril from a British Raj that had demonstrated time and time again that it was prepared to be brutal with supporters of independence. Obviously, if they survived they would have benefited from independence but their actions were based on a desire to see their nation independent and their people free. Most of them, I feel quite sure, understood that they were in great jeopardy and might very well not survive.

Likewise the American Civil Rights leaders and activists. They had a very good understanding of the very real dangers they faced and still they took their actions to further a goal in which they believed, wholeheartedly, was for the best.

Now you and I, I'm sure, agree that both of these goals were more than worthy, but that's immaterial to whether or not the actions involved were heroic.

What is essential, is whether or not the hero truly believes they are worthy.

As much as I am a cynic about progressive goals (and the goals of all politicians) I don't believe these Dems are pushing for something they don't think is ultimately beneficial to Americans, and if you are at all fair minded you should be able to concede the same for Republican "obstructionists."

The fundamental element of heroics that is missing for both of them though is the willingness to pursue their goals despite the high likelihood that they will personally suffer.

Instead they both (as is the nature of politics) pursue their goals because of a perceived promise of personal benefit: They will get re-elected.

We, for quite some time now, have adopted a definition of hero that is at once Romantic and cartoonish.

Superman can't be a hero because he can't be injured and he can't die. (Although within the last decade or so DC has attempted to change his invulnerable profile).

Tiger Woods was considered a hero precisely because he almost never lost.

Our modern definition of the terms allow for heroes who are not particularly heroic and this is a shame.

You have adopted a modern definition of hero: Those who advance causes with which you agree are heroes, regardless of where or not their actions to advance those goals are truly heroic.

You and others might say "What's the big deal?"

In my opinion it is a "big deal" because we (and I've been guilty of this myself) are watering down terribly, a word we need to describe people who are truly worthy of honor and admiration, and by doing so, cheapening the sacrifices of true heroes.