John Lewis leads sit-in on House Floor to pass gun control legislation.

[Green Line]

Lol, they're just doing the Republicans work for them.  Government shut down? Success!

[Green Line]

Sounds like things are about to go down. Republicans are going to try to take the floor back and reports are that capitol police is ready to pull people out. Personally, I don't think that physically removing John Lewis out of the House chamber would be smart optics for Speaker Ryan, but that's just me.

You wouldn't be saying the same if Republicans we're doing this.  Ya'll would be screaming for the capitol police to move in.

[Green Line]

Get the capital police to remove them and continue on with real issues not some silly anti constitution protest.

They can't.  John Lewis is black you see, so it would be automatically racist.

[Green Line]

Everyone knows my bias on this issue, but i'm finding it really hard to take the Dems seriously on this issue when they weren't willing to vote for the Cornyn bill. Yeah it wasn't the 5 steps forward that they wanted (all no-fly list people banned), but it was at least 1 step forward (all no-fly list people face a brief waiting period during which the Feds can get a court order I.E. minimal due process). The only real justification I've seen for the Dems to vote against it is so they can run ads saying "na na na na GOP luvs terristz". Why wouldn't the "do something anything" vote for the bill that could actually pass other than politics?

My thoughts exactly.  I'd love to see a Democrat actually rebut this.

[Green Line]

Everyone knows my bias on this issue, but i'm finding it really hard to take the Dems seriously on this issue when they weren't willing to vote for the Cornyn bill. Yeah it wasn't the 5 steps forward that they wanted (all no-fly list people banned), but it was at least 1 step forward (all no-fly list people face a brief waiting period during which the Feds can get a court order I.E. minimal due process). The only real justification I've seen for the Dems to vote against it is so they can run ads saying "na na na na GOP luvs terristz". Why wouldn't the "do something anything" vote for the bill that could actually pass other than politics?

My thoughts exactly.  I'd love to see a Democrat actually rebut this.

Because the 72 hour waiting period is totally meaningless. What is the point of putting people on that list in the first place if they're deemed to be potentially dangerous enough to be banned from planes but not buy weapons? Buying a gun and shooting up a place is a hell of a lot easier than hijacking a plane and crashing it or getting past security with a bomb.

Isn't 72 hours enough time for the government to put forward evidence as to why someone is too dangerous to buy a gun?  A lot of people on the No-Fly List are just unfortunate to share the same name as a terrorist.  Is that enough reason to punish them?

And anyways, isn't it a good thing that we are forcing the government to back up their No-Fly list with actual evidence?  Right now, what's the recourse if you get put on the list?  What evidence does the government have to put forward to support it?

[Green Line]

What an embarrassment on the House floor right now. 

[Green Line]

Everyone knows my bias on this issue, but i'm finding it really hard to take the Dems seriously on this issue when they weren't willing to vote for the Cornyn bill. Yeah it wasn't the 5 steps forward that they wanted (all no-fly list people banned), but it was at least 1 step forward (all no-fly list people face a brief waiting period during which the Feds can get a court order I.E. minimal due process). The only real justification I've seen for the Dems to vote against it is so they can run ads saying "na na na na GOP luvs terristz". Why wouldn't the "do something anything" vote for the bill that could actually pass other than politics?

My thoughts exactly.  I'd love to see a Democrat actually rebut this.

Because the 72 hour waiting period is totally meaningless. What is the point of putting people on that list in the first place if they're deemed to be potentially dangerous enough to be banned from planes but not buy weapons? Buying a gun and shooting up a place is a hell of a lot easier than hijacking a plane and crashing it or getting past security with a bomb.

Isn't 72 hours enough time for the government to put forward evidence as to why someone is too dangerous to buy a gun?  A lot of people on the No-Fly List are just unfortunate to share the same name as a terrorist.  Is that enough reason to punish them?

And anyways, isn't it a good thing that we are forcing the government to back up their No-Fly list with actual evidence?  Right now, what's the recourse if you get put on the list?  What evidence does the government have to put forward to support it?

What a cop-out. That's an issue with the no-fly list, and Cornyn's bill does nothing to address that.

Yes it does...?  That's the whole point of the waiting period.  It allows the government to present proof that the person on the no fly list is too dangerous to purchase a gun.  It addresses exactly that.

Your answer was more of a cop-out.

[Green Line]

Yes it does...?  That's the whole point of the waiting period.  It allows the government to present proof that the person on the no fly list is too dangerous to purchase a gun.  It addresses exactly that.

Your answer was more of a cop-out.

The government presenting proof should occur when the person is initially put on the list. We need to improve the no-fly list; at the beginning. I think we can all agree on that. Cornyn's bill does not fix the initial mistakes.

This debate is about the ease of acquiring guns. It's ridiculously easy to the point that terrorists openly encouraged people to take advantage of it. Cornyn's bill and the other GOP bill did not go far enough. The defeat of these bills wasn't a "we need to do something, anything" because "something, anything" won't fix the easy access to guns.

Er, yeah, I agree that the government should have to present that proof when they initially put someone on the list, but the fact is they don't have to right now.  The Democrats bill doesn't address the problems with the No Fly List, in fact it just completely ignores them and bars anyone on it from buying a gun, whether or not the person is justified to be on the list at all.  Like I said, the Republican bill gives the government a 72 hour period to present their case for denying someone their 2nd amendment rights. The Democrats bill gives absolutely no checks to the governments list, despite the fact that you yourself are admitting that the list is flawed.

[Green Line]

The correct solution, of course, would be to place the burden of proof on the government as to why a person is on the no-fly list in the first place.  As long as we have a database that arbitrarily labels people as suspected terrorists and gives them no notification and limited means of appealing, a waiting period is pointless.  But I am extremely disappointed in Democrats for not offering any amendments to reform a list which disproportionately affects Arab Americans and builds on the same Orwellian security state that many of these same "progressives" claim to oppose.  This should not be an either/or problem.  Both parties deserve blame for giving these problems little acknowledgment.

The Cornyn bill does place the burden of proof on the government.. It has 72 hours to present the proof.  If not, the person in question can purchase the gun.

[Green Line]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

[Green Line]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden.  I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

[Green Line]

It really is surprising to see the Democrats turn so Islamophobic all of a sudden. I thought they were better than that!

Eh?

"No-Fly, No-Buy" is basically, "Muslim? No-Buy"

Glad to know you suddenly care about Muslims.

I've always cared deeply about law abiding Muslim-American citizens!  Good to know you don't, though