I’m not going to complain about the concession to have the vote and I’m ok with dragging the No’s through the mud, at least those that are up for re-election. The DNC will also be able to make hay (if they can get their heads out of their butts) to make a pretty good blanket statement in the run-up to November to turn the Senate blue again, based on the vote in question.
This might be the time, in a few weeks, to do the same with the SCOTUS nomination, huh? Could be an interesting summer.
Let vote no. Make it public and use it, along with the Republican’s failure to act upon a Supreme Court nominee, over and over again to show how Republicans love the NRA and are more loyal to the NRA than the American public.
But what happens when this measure gets to the House?
If I lived elsewhere*, this would make me a one-issue voter. In the pocket of the NRA? I’ll never vote for you, no matter what other positions you take.
*Murphy is one of my Senators, and my House district is as blue as they come. (Locally, things are murkier - my county actually went for Linda McMahon in 2012. Lots of RWNJ’s out here in the boonies.)
that was designed for the military, for law enforcement to kill as many people as quickly as possible
Since when does “law enforcement” need a weapon to kill as many people as possible? Am I the only person that sees a contradiction between that and what law enforcement’s mission is?
That is the Republican strategy behind all the attempts to kill Obamacare. It was simply putting markers in the ground for later use.
The real reason that LEO’s need that kind of firepower is that the bad guys have it. They learned that lesson in the North Hollywood shootout in 1997: North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia
It shouldn’t be that way, of course, but it’s just a fact of life these days.
How about tarring the lobby efforts to counter such gun control is enabling terrorism, as in, NRA?
I have a farm in Salem. There is a Don’t Tread flag right down the road from me. Everyone thinks CT is blue, buti is rapidly moving to the right.
I’m not sure the state as a whole is veering right. I think what you and I are both seeing is that “fringe” people tend to gravitate toward “fringe” places. I’ve noticed this not just at home, but all around the world.
I’m in Barkhamsted, which is evenly split, D, R, and I. But head for the towns to the north and west of here, and it gets increasingly nutjobby.
My hairdresser was in Winsted. The kind of stuff she spouted was scary, but her husband was a retired prison guard (due to on the job injury), so I am not sure that her world view wasn’t slightly biased.
Lived in Canton for years.
Much of what I have experienced there is anecdotal, but yes, it is drifting.
Sad to hear- we need your Dems in Congress. This coming from someone in Texas…
Congrats to Senator Murphy. After all, how often is a filibuster successful?
I hate to get my hopes dashed, but when they’ve lost O’Reilly and Carlsen, I suppose there is a chance for change.
More of THIS!
Hold these fuckers feet to the fire and MAKE them vote on these important issues, then hammer them in the upcoming election with the FACT of their votes.
If you win the vote. Fantastic.
If you lose the vote, nail it to their foreheads and never, ever, let the public forget it.
Some progress. Let’s hope these measures pass. Then, let’s hope a Democratic controlled Senate can bring up the assault weapons ban.
Wonder what the chances of these two amendments being sustained in the House should they pass the Senate?
The House will be interesting. The Freedom Fry Caucus would never let measures like this come to the floor, but I don’t know, if a spending billing went through conference committee and this stayed in, if they would kill it just for that. Or if they could, since you’d only need a couple dozen republican crossovers to vote with democrats to pass. More headaches for Ryan. And he deserves every one of them.
My understanding is these are being attached to an appropriations bill, which means a bill that was passed by the House initially. It will of course go back to the House, which is where it will get interesting. Will the House bottle up the bill? Go to conference and vote on that? Who knows.
It’s good to have both sides talking about gun control, but the emphasis should be on who can get a gun, not what type of a gun they can get.
I could do similar damage to Orlando, with an MI Carbine ( WWII weapon) as the shooter did, using a 70 year old weapon. Most AR-15"s are set up for the .223 round, a high speed but low impact bullet.
Again, the purpose of gun control should be who can get a gun, not what gun can they get.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
No civilian needs a military-grade weapon. Period. Get them off the market, and you’re not left with the complicated “vetting” of purchasers - which one is mentally unstable, which one is too radical, which one is a potential bank robber, etc., etc.
Ditto for handguns. There’s simply no rational reason for anyone to have one. (Please don’t trot out the patently bogus “self defense” garbage - we’ve heard it all before, and it’s been thoroughly debunked.)
Once you’re down to genuine “good for hunting rather than for killing people” weapons, you don’t have to worry so much about who’s purchasing them.
“I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of the ongoing slaughter of innocents, and I’ve had enough of inaction in this body,”
Bravo Senator Murphy, Bravo!
That’s how most of us feel.
Well done Sir!
My understanding of the process for appropriations is that once the house and senate have both passed a version, it automatically goes to conference for the two versions to be brought into agreement, and then there’s a vote in each chamber on the unified version that comes out of the conference committee. So if these amendments pass (which is still a pretty big if) then the first question is whether the amendments stay in the conferenced version. Although there would pretty clearly be trouble in the senate if they didn’t. Then the question is whether the House is willing to bring the conferenced version to the floor and vote, with pretty much all the options leading to disaster for Ryan. (If he doesn’t bring it to the floor, he’s clearly not even trying to do his job; if he does and it fails, he and the GOP look like the assh*les they are; if he passes it with democratic votes, he might lose his speakership.)
My bet is that if it passes the senate, the house conference folks will insert a poison-pill amendment that puts the whole process back to square one. But that’s just because I haven’t eaten enough popcorn lately.