No bill, no break
June 22, 2016 10:20 AM   Subscribe

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and more than 40 Democrats are staging a sit-in on the US house floor. Occupiers are demanding a vote on gun control measures. In response, Speaker Paul Ryan has turned off the cameras.
posted by galaxy rise (383 comments total) 70 users marked this as a favorite
 
You can find the latest tweets from members of congress here.
posted by Zephyrial at 10:25 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I approve of this.
posted by Mooski at 10:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Good for them for not letting this go. The obstructionism is looking more and more desperate, not to mention undemocratic. It's important to remember that success here is more symbolic than practical, though—none of the currently proposed bills actually represent effective gun control, but getting any gun safety legislation out of this congress will be a big victory. It will show that it's possible, and hopefully will pave the way for more meaningful legislation down the road.

The GOP is looking more and more incompetent, lately.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]


*long rant about the current state of US democracy and those in power over the body politic and their tactics*

Honestly, I can't even type this stuff out anymore. It's all so exhausting. The American public wants action on gun control (and not the bullshit "this will keep 2700 people from buying guns" that the Senate is currently working on). But the elected representatives of that public don't give a shit about what the public wants.

Broken. Seriously broken.

I hope the sit-in works, but I don't have much faith that it will.
posted by hippybear at 10:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


As a response to Orlando, House GOP members are trying to repeal DC's gun laws including banning us from enforcing our gun free school zones. They don't want us to have the power to decided, through the democratic process, whether we have guns in schools, it's madness and good for these members for standing up to the nonsense.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:29 AM on June 22, 2016 [21 favorites]


Next they're going to sit in for ENDA, right? It annoys me so much that this has turned into a debate over the no-fly list. Was what's-his-face even on the no-fly list? Does it matter, since he was already in the country? The no-fly list is racist security theater anyway. Why are we not addressing that he shot up a GAY BAR full of Latinx people? Where are the lawmakers when the civil rights of those two groups are at stake?
posted by AFABulous at 10:30 AM on June 22, 2016 [27 favorites]


Scott Peters keeps going live on periscope
posted by madamjujujive at 10:30 AM on June 22, 2016


Mod note: Quick mod note: we've had a couple recent long discussions about gun stuff in general, most recently this from last week; this congressional situation is interesting and worth talking about in its own right and if you've got a more general question/comment/argument about guns it'd be great to keep it out of here and head over there instead and read to see if it hasn't already been hashed out. (It has probably already been hashed out.)
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:32 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Thank god. This is so long overdue.

I feel for the parents, spouses, siblings, children, friends, neighbors, and general fellow citizens of all the Americans who've died in shootings that failed to provoke this sort of action. The children of Sandy Hook weren't enough? The innocent filmgoers of Aurora? Gabby fucking Giffords? I'm glad this is happening, maybe there's hope for us yet, but in a just world it would have happened years ago.
posted by town of cats at 10:32 AM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]


None of this is going to matter until we change (and enforce) campaign financing laws. It's not like the GOP doesn't know what their constituents want.
posted by AFABulous at 10:33 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Here's Lewis' speech at the start of the sit in.

Does anyone know if there have been other sit ins on the house floor before? I tried to google for it, but came up empty handed.
posted by galaxy rise at 10:33 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


John Lewis is freakin' awesome.

Given the overwhelming support for expanded background checks even among most gun owners, I'm starting to think even this problem isn't really about guns or the NRA. At this point I honestly think it's just more of the same obstructionism we've seen all along. Republicans don't want any sort of societal progress under the Obama administration, full stop. Anything that gets better is a win for him and a loss for them, and they don't want that. And they're fine with people dying in the meantime.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:33 AM on June 22, 2016 [57 favorites]


Politics 101 final exam: When in a political battle with someone who actually marched with Dr. King and is one of the last surviving icons of the Civil Rights Era, should you or should you not reiterate the tactics of racist Southern politicians from 1962?

Way to turn off the cameras, Paul Ryan.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:33 AM on June 22, 2016 [154 favorites]


This is so wacky. On one side, Democrats are staging a morally important sit-in in order to pass way, way less than the bare minimum of a gun control law.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are so far up either the NRA's ass that, phrased in their own rhetoric, denying guns to terrorists is a step too far.

What the fuck are we doing here? We are so fucked.
posted by cmoj at 10:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [27 favorites]


In response, Speaker Paul Ryan has turned off the cameras.

Whoa...Are you saying Ryan actually did something? I mean, made a decision on his own and everything?
posted by Thorzdad at 10:36 AM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]


not the bullshit "this will keep 2700 people from buying guns" that the Senate is currently working on

Haha, "working on."
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 10:38 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


On the Senate side, The Daily Show did a pretty great piece last night: Let's Do Anything!
posted by hippybear at 10:38 AM on June 22, 2016


In response, Speaker Paul Ryan has turned off the cameras.

The underlying message of this is pretty hilarious, actually, since it shows that house republicans literally cannot understand actions motivated by genuine convictions and heartfelt beliefs. All they understand is getting the cameras on you for publicity.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:38 AM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]


Amazing speeches being made - just caught Florida Republican David Jolly speaking on the issue that makes this Democrat proud.

Anyone catch who the woman in blue is? Cspan did not caption her, or I missed it. She spoke movingly and convincingly as well. Her repetition of 'common sense' was wonderful.

Big ups to John Lewis that man is a national treasure. We need more like him!
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 10:38 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]




Proud that Atlanta is so well represented in this sit-in by Congressmen Lewis and his junior colleague Hank Johnson (my congressman--we are a mile east of Lewis's district). Like many US cities, Atlanta is plagued by daily, pointless gun violence and is dominated in numbers by a (black, Latinx, and other immigrant) underclass who feel powerless, voiceless, and unrepresented in state or local government. Rise up, y'all! I can't say how proud I am to be an Atlantan right now. Thank you, Congressman Lewis!
posted by hydropsyche at 10:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]


A powerful tweet from Gabe Ortíz shows pictures of "John Lewis getting pulled off a stool during a sit-in in the 60s. And John Lewis today."
posted by Celsius1414 at 10:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]


In response, Speaker Paul Ryan has turned off the cameras.

You would think that someone who has made a career of politics would realize doing something like this is shooting themself in the foot (you should forgive the expression).
posted by Mooski at 10:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


John Lewis is a goddamned force of nature, and his speech is fantastic. I could watch him pound on that podium all day long.
posted by vverse23 at 10:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Senate votes struck me as odd, almost as if neither side wanted any gun control measure to pass. None of the proposals were particularly great, but all of them were something-better-than-nothing. It seemed like the Democrats were setting the goalposts just past their own proposals, saying, "Whatever passes has to be at least this good," even though their own proposals were far from anything resembling effective gun control.

I wonder if the same thing will end up happening in the House.
posted by clawsoon at 10:48 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The sit in seems to be a method or resistance to parliamentary procedure in the House that makes it possible for the leadership to keep measures that enjoy broad popular support from coming up for a vote. Does anyone know a good source for a discussion of how the current rules of the House developed,and possibly a defense by someone who believes they are a good thing? Procedural issues seem to play a large role in many political decisions, and I understand you could spend a lot of time studying how and why things play out the way they do. But it would be helpful to have a primer on the issue, if anyone can recommend a place to start.
posted by layceepee at 10:50 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


In response, Speaker Paul Ryan has turned off the cameras.

Minor point, but the cameras are always off when the House is in recess. (Not that calling a quick recess wasn't deliberate to turn off the cameras, but it's not like Ryan's unilaterally doing something unprecedented or against the rules.)
posted by pwe at 10:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wonder if the aides will think to bring them portable phone chargers so they can tweet through to next week.
posted by numaner at 10:53 AM on June 22, 2016


After yesterday, I'd like it if we could make the headline Republicans Vote to Continue Uninterrupted Flow of WMDs to Extremist Groups happen.
posted by duffell at 10:54 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]


We need to improve the functions of NICS (the background checking system.) The data feeds that maintain the database are broken. It's not picking up any of the mental history, most of the spousal abuse data, most of the restraining order data, and the valid terror related issues. All proposals for increased background checks should include funded fixes for NICS, none do this.

The no-fly lists, etc are shit and need light and real intelligence applied. None of the proposals do this.

Surprisingly the GOP counter proposal contained a new idea that should be in any effective proposal. Prosecution of people who are breaking the laws by TRYING to buy a gun.

Let's get real with effective laws instead of feel good square fillers!
posted by shnarg at 10:56 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


I heard about this on the radio on my way back from lunch and got teary. I know it's not going to solve things, but it makes me feel hopeful anyhow.
posted by SeedStitch at 11:08 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Current Periscope link:

https://www.periscope.tv/ScottPetersSD/1RDxlwkaQPgJL
posted by synthetik at 11:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is indeed the literal, actual, flawed bare minimum of gun control Democrats are fighting for here, and still, this is better than nothing. I mean, that's where we're at right now. Inaction is obscene and shameful, and I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If this is partly a show, it's a show we desperately need.
posted by yasaman at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]


"This is indeed the literal, actual, flawed bare minimum of gun control Democrats are fighting for here, and still, this is better than nothing"

Anybody have a link or any info on the legislation?

Also, is there an article that describes this seat-in? Like a summary? I'm just at work now and don't have time to read the whole Atlantic live feed.
posted by I-baLL at 11:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Senate votes struck me as odd, almost as if neither side wanted any gun control measure to pass. None of the proposals were particularly great, but all of them were something-better-than-nothing. It seemed like the Democrats were setting the goalposts just past their own proposals, saying, "Whatever passes has to be at least this good," even though their own proposals were far from anything resembling effective gun control.

Of course neither side wanted any gun control measure to pass.

The surest way for a Republican to get primaried to oblivion is to be weak on guns, where weak is anything short of funding efforts to airdrop them into every square foot of American public space where white people gather.

As for the Democrats, one wouldn't want to rock the boat during The Most Important Election Year Ever*, would you? Or risk that ten Moderate Republican Swing Voters** might vote Trump instead of Hillary because a meaningful gun control bill that could never pass the House anyway passed the Senate and gave the NRA's shrieks that DEMOCRATS ARE GUN GRABBERS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN JEOPARDY the slightest bit of reality?

* It's funny how every election year is The Most Important Election Year Ever Which Is Why We Must Ignore The Hippie Grassroots Completely Yet Again.

** I say "ten" because that's how many are left nationwide.
posted by delfin at 11:24 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


Would it be improper/against rules if they started placing placing photos of those killed in the seats of those who opposed the bill?

Should we care, even if it is?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:25 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]


Just e-mailed my representative (Adam Smith, D-WA) to thank him for joining the sit-in.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 11:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Or risk that ten Moderate Republican Swing Voters** might vote Trump instead of Hillary because a meaningful gun control bill that could never pass the House anyway passed the Senate and gave the NRA's shrieks that DEMOCRATS ARE GUN GRABBERS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN JEOPARDY the slightest bit of reality?

Abortion is effectively illegal and actually unobtainable across wide swaths of the U.S. today because of tiny, incremental, "reasonable restrictions" over the course of two generations. That's why the NRA fights against tiny, incremental, reasonable restrictions. And it's why tiny, incremental, reasonable restrictions are what need to happen, because big, sweeping, meaningful restrictions won't pass.

Yet.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [65 favorites]


shnarg: Let's get real with effective laws instead of feel good square fillers!

Here's my hope:
Step 0.5: Make sure no bills pass that erode current gun "controls" (see DC's law against guns in schools from upthread);

Step 1: Pass anything beyond what we have now (for example, no guns to people no no-fly lists), which will show that new gun control laws can be passed;

Step 2: Make this a policy issue for the upcoming election, and respond to NRA nonsense with daily statistics on gun violence and cite Australia's success, making sure to point out that this isn't about mass shootings or criminals with guns, but about everything from suicide to toddlers with access to guns.

Step 3: institute real gun control, including gun buy-back programs either at the national level, or providing more support for this to happen at the state and local level.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:33 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


80 Democrats currently sitting down. This is what makes me hopeful about our country.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:35 AM on June 22, 2016 [29 favorites]


"We've had it. We're not going to watch any more people in this country get slaughtered and do nothing!" Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) yelled during the protest.

Nice to see my rep right in there. He's in a solid blue district but even so saying anything anti-gun in Western Pennsylvania seems pretty brave.
posted by octothorpe at 11:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]


My Representative isn't a Democrat. I wrote him an email, though, telling him what I think of his and his colleague's useless and frankly insulting "prayers" and "moments of silence."

As soon as I get off work, I'll be calling him too.
posted by cooker girl at 11:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


And it's why tiny, incremental, reasonable restrictions are what need to happen, because big, sweeping, meaningful restrictions won't pass.

I see what you're saying, but neither tiny, incremental, reasonable restrictions nor big, sweeping, meaningful restrictions can pass. Neither are allowed to come to the floor even though both have substantial public backing.

So, given that, why ask for crumbs instead of using the Overton Window to your advantage? Ask for more than you can reasonably expect to get and use those crumbs as a fallback negotiating compromise. Portray the incremental changes as exactly that -- a small increment towards the real end goal -- instead of Of Course This Is The Best Gun Control Advocates Can Ever Hope For.

The little abortion restriction bills slip through partly because states like Oklahoma and North Dakota also swing for the fences regularly. Tiny steps seem more reasonable when full broadsides are their neighbors.
posted by delfin at 11:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Anybody have a link or any info on the legislation?

I thought this WaPo article was a good overview. I don't know about a summary of the current sit-in, looks like current news are lagging a bit on that.
posted by yasaman at 11:43 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The little abortion restriction bills slip through partly because states like Oklahoma and North Dakota also swing for the fences regularly.

The swinging for the fences is only happening now, after four decades of little restrictions have made "Well, you can't get an abortion around here anyway, so I guess we might as well ban it" the new normal.
posted by Etrigan at 11:45 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Abortion is effectively illegal and actually unobtainable across wide swaths of the U.S. today because of tiny, incremental, "reasonable restrictions" over the course of two generations.

And, arguably, because of a single Supreme Court justice.
posted by Gelatin at 11:45 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Looks like the hashtag #NoBillNoBreak is useful here.

Pleased to see two of Rhode Island's lawmakers -- Langevin and Ciccilline -- taking part.

I grew up knowing how to shoot (I still have some NRA target-shooting medals that I wore on my high school uniform!), and believing that guns aren't inherently the problem. But after decades of watching people get tooled up (what need for the CCW everywhere?!) and innocent people getting shot down, I really have changed my mind.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:47 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


C-Span has now completely switched to Periscope.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:50 AM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


My hometown Representative, Brian Higgins, is there. The first vote I ever cast was for him and he continues to make me proud to be from Buffalo (I now vote for Eleanor Holmes Norton, and she's there, too).
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:50 AM on June 22, 2016


The surest way for a Republican to get primaried to oblivion is to be weak on guns

Last I heard, the 2016 primaries are over.
posted by hippybear at 11:50 AM on June 22, 2016


Unlike a typical voter, the NRA does not have a short memory or a forgiving nature. You're running again sometime.
posted by delfin at 11:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Last I heard, the 2016 primaries are over.

The 2016 presidential primaries are over. Not the congressional ones, in a lot of places.
posted by Etrigan at 11:53 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


For those of you unfamiliar with John Lewis's background with the civil rights movement, he's got a great trilogy of graphic novels covering that time period. The first two are out, and the third will be out this August.

The comics aspect led to him coming to Dragon Con the past few years, which has been delightful and awesome.

When I saw that he was leading a sit-in in Congress, I got chills.
posted by sgranade at 11:58 AM on June 22, 2016 [21 favorites]


The comics aspect led to him coming to Dragon Con the past few years, which has been delightful and awesome.

John Lewis cosplaying as John Lewis
posted by Etrigan at 12:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [41 favorites]


For those of you unfamiliar with John Lewis's background with the civil rights movement, he's got a great trilogy of graphic novels covering that time period. The first two are out, and the third will be out this August.

He was also depicted in the film Selma
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:01 PM on June 22, 2016


@RepMarkWalker Rep. Mark Walker Retweeted Justin Amash:
Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth's. They sat-in for rights. Dems are "sitting-in" to strip them away

Yep, you do that. Lecture John Freaking Lewis as to the proper way to protest things.
posted by delfin at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [54 favorites]


Representatives are literally encouraging other representatives to download Periscope in case we crash it. I love this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2016


Evidence is growing that gun violence in America is a product of weak gun laws
In 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 20 schoolchildren were shot dead, two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, introduced a measure that would have required background checks on most gun sales. It failed to move forward despite a majority vote in its favour, because supporters were unable to assemble the supermajority needed to overcome a procedural hurdle. Seemingly intractable disputes in American politics do sometimes give way to overdue reform. More probably, America will make scant progress in dealing with its gun problem until it begins to resolve its broader political problem.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:05 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


Republicans seem to be hitting the ol' false equivalencies real hard these days.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:06 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Minor point, but the cameras are always off when the House is in recess. (Not that calling a quick recess wasn't deliberate to turn off the cameras, but it's not like Ryan's unilaterally doing something unprecedented or against the rules.)
I was wondering about that.

I used to work in the TV studio that films the Senate TV broadcast (ie. what you see on C-SPAN 2, plus a bunch of other stuff). I don't know how things work on the House side – in the Senate, you'd need to call a recess, or involve the involve the Rules Committee and/or compel Sergeant at Arms to forcibly stop the cameras. The latter two would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Of course, the House rules are much easier to change, so it's not surprising that Ryan's given himself the power to do whatever he wants.
posted by schmod at 12:08 PM on June 22, 2016


@igorvolsky has been doing good work on summarizing opposition to rational gun control. Here is a summary of Senators and contributions received from the NRA. Hopefully, one day that cash will be seen legally as money laundering to support terrorism on American soil. Gun makers have no Constitutional rights to spread terror, and I'm glad we're finally having something more than thoughts and prayers to underscore that point.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unlike a typical voter, the NRA does not have a short memory or a forgiving nature. You're running again sometime.

You don't even need a good memory, the NRA does it all for you consistently.
posted by Talez at 12:12 PM on June 22, 2016




I kinda think John Lewis broke cosplay.

If you're a literal superhero forty years ago, then you age well and replay that same superhero-ness in the future, doesn't that close the loop? Aren't we done?
posted by Sphinx at 12:17 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Proud that my Rep. Steve Cohen from the TN9 is sitting down on the job!
posted by vibrotronica at 12:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Republicans seem to be hitting the ol' false equivalencies real hard these days.

Hey, when it's all you've got...

I do wish Democrats would get wiser about pointing out that trotting out phony non-arguments that hold no water after even a moment's thought might be enough to bamboozle our elite political media, but it's also basically a concession that the Democratic arguments are right.
posted by Gelatin at 12:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


My rep Chellie Pingree's Twitter feed shows that some Senators, including Christ Murphy, have joined them.
posted by anastasiav at 12:25 PM on June 22, 2016


Per Zephyrial's link to tweets from (pretty much all) members of Congress, it's amazing how little the GOP is actually saying about this. The occasional boneheaded tweet, instead of being amplified and retweeted by the rest of the Republican Congressional delegation, is just vanishing into the ether.
posted by Etrigan at 12:25 PM on June 22, 2016


roomthreeseventeen: C-Span has now completely switched to Periscope.

This is the part of living in the future I love. Other parts, not so much.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:27 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hopefully, one day that cash will be seen legally as money laundering to support terrorism on American soil.

Even if we accept the proposition that the real purpose of NRA lobbying is to support terrorism, I don't see where the money laundering part comes in.
posted by layceepee at 12:29 PM on June 22, 2016


roomthreeseventeen: "C-Span has now completely switched to Periscope."

Proving once again what an idiot Paul Ryan is.
posted by octothorpe at 12:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


denying guns to terrorists is a step too far

The ACLU:

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.....

And then we ask you to call your senators to oppose these proposals. Congress can pass effective gun control laws without relying on unfair and discriminatory watchlists or failing to provide meaningful due process.

posted by jpe at 12:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [21 favorites]


I just copied the transcript for Lewis' speech so I could post it on Social Media - lemme know if anyone wants to read it. (It was kinda buried on the CSPAN page.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:34 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes please transcript please
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:35 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: 80 Democrats currently sitting down.

Does anyone have a list of who's sitting? Thanks!
posted by filthy light thief at 12:37 PM on June 22, 2016


Here: I copied-and-pasted, and only edited this to add paragraph breaks and change it from all-caps. I did not edit the content at all.
--

Mr. Speaker, I will ask that all of my colleagues join me on the floor.

On occasion, Mr. Speaker, I have had what I call an executive session with myself. For months, even for years, I wondered what would bring this body to take action? What will finally make Congress do what is right? What is just what the people of this country have been demanding, and what is long overdue? We have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence, to tiny little children, babies, students and teachers, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, daughters and sons, friends and neighbors.

And what has this body done? Mr. Speaker, nothing. Not one thing. We have turned a deaf ear. We have turned deaf ears to the blood of the innocent and the concern of our nation. We are blind to a crisis.

Mr. Speaker, where is the heart of this body? Where is our soul? Where is our moral leadership? Where is our courage? Those who work on bipartisan solutions are pushed aside. Those who pursue commonsense improvement are beaten down. Reason is criticized. Obstruction is praised.

Newtown, Aurora, Charleston, Orlando. What is the tipping point? Are we blind? Can we see? How many more mothers, how many more fathers need to shed tears of grief before we do something?

We were elected to lead, Mr. Speaker. We must be headlights and not taillights. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand. Deadly mass shootings are becoming more and more frequent.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fight. It is not an opinion. We must remove the blinders. The time for silence and patience is long gone.

We're calling on the leadership of the house to bring commonsense gun control legislation to the house floor. Give us a vote. Let us vote. We came here to do our job. We came here to work. The American people are demanding action. Do we have the courage? Do we have raw courage to make at least a down payment on ending gun violence in America?

We can no longer wait. We can no longer be patient, so today we come to the well of the house to drum the need for action. Not next month. Not next year. But now. Today.

Sometimes you have to do something out of the ordinary. Sometimes you have to make a way out of no way. We have been too quiet for too long. There comes a time when you have to say something, when you have to make a little noise. When you have to move your feet.

This is the time. Now is the time to get in the way. The time to act is now. We will be silent no more. The time for silence is over.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:37 PM on June 22, 2016 [73 favorites]


I think the number is fluid. Senator Warren just got there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:40 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


So proud that my entire legislative delegation is on the floor: Michigan Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow, and Michigan's 12th Congressional District Representative Debbie Dingell.
posted by palindromic at 12:40 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thank you, EmpressCallipygos.
posted by mcduff at 12:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yay, my rep Steny Hoyer (also Democratic Whip) is there! He spoke, although it wasn't broadcast because of Ryan:
WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) spoke on the Floor of the House of Representatives today during a sit-in staged by House Democrats to demand Republicans hold a vote on legislation to address gun violence. As soon as the House of Representatives was brought to order this afternoon, House Republicans gaveled out the proceedings. Below is a transcript of his remarks, which were not broadcast because House Republicans recessed the House:

“Our chaplain began today's proceedings with thanks to God for this day.

“We stand for those who do not see this day. Their days were taken from us in an instant by weapons of violence designed to kill, in many instances, a lot of people very quickly. They will not see another day.

“So far, there have been 6,354 souls taken from us by gun violence, 49 just a week ago. And frankly, had we taken a moment of silence, which would have been justified, for those 6,354 this would be but a short time to call America’s attention to the violence that confronts them, their families, and children.

“Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 2015, as you were about to take the gavel as the Speaker of the People's House, you said this: ‘we need to return to regular order... We will not duck [the] tough issues; we will take them head on...We should not hide,' you said, 'our disagreements. We should embrace them. We have nothing to fear from honest disagreements honestly stated.’ Eighty-five percent of Americans believe we ought to address this issue and address it now.

“Mr. Speaker, we are in this Well to say redeem your promise to the people's House that we will take issues of consequence to America head on.

“Mr. Speaker, you have been faced with issues of moral weight, just this past month. This is such an issue - this is an issue the American people are asking us to say where we stand. That's what a vote will do.

“Mr. Speaker, let it not be said that you did not want your Members to let the public know where they stand on an issue supported by eighty-five percent of Americans. That is why we say: no bill no break.

"We believe this is an issue, as Rep. John Lewis said so impressively and powerfully - John Lewis walked across a bridge. He walked across a bridge knowing full well that he could face perhaps death. All he asked for is the right to vote. We ask you for the right to vote on an issue of life and death confronting the American people.

“Six thousand, three-hundred and fifty-four of our fellow citizens did not get to see another day. They are silent. Let not the people's House be silent.”
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:43 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


Wake me up when this law is enacted:

Gun owners have 365 days to turn in ALL firearms in their possession to agents of the federal government. They will be paid current value for said arms.
After this grace period anyone found in possession of any firearm will receive a mandatory two year prison sentence.
posted by notreally at 12:44 PM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


Rep. Steve Israel of New York, talking now about how we sent young people into battle after 9/11, but cannot be bothered to protect lives from guns.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


house republicans literally cannot understand actions motivated by genuine convictions and heartfelt beliefs

The American public wants action on gun control ... But the elected representatives of that public don't give a shit about what the public wants.

I'm sure that at least some of those objecting to restrictions on access to guns are motivated by genuine convictions and heartfelt beliefs - which is why they are voting against what the majority of Americans prefer.

And some of them are reflecting the majority will of their districts, and some are scared that the NRA will cause them to lose their seats.

All of which is to say that people who are wrong aren't necessarily malicious or deceitful or cowardly.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


The sit in seems to be a method or resistance to parliamentary procedure in the House that makes it possible for the leadership to keep measures that enjoy broad popular support from coming up for a vote. Does anyone know a good source for a discussion of how the current rules of the House developed,and possibly a defense by someone who believes they are a good thing?

For the current state of House procedures and some discussion of how they got that way, you might as well hit the Oleszek bible, Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. It's dense but not difficult.

For a discussion of the broader trend over the past thirty-odd years towards centralized power in the speakership, eh, there are other things to choose from but Rohde's Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House is reasonably accessible. A lot of it has been supplanted or complemented by the basic ideas in Krehbiel's Pivotal Politics and Cox and McCubbins Setting the Agenda, and a whole bunch of stuff on majority rolls and tools used to prevent them (eg Anzia and Cohn/Jackman), but those are not very accessible unless you're already familiar with spatial voting models.

But the broadest question of how procedures came to be so that you could use them to prevent a vote from taking place because it would have succeeded and you didn't want that? That shit is oooooold. In the US House it would almost certainly date from the formation of more or less stable coalitions in the early 1800s, with similar things in the Commons going back way earlier.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is awesome. The Periscope thing makes my day!

But I do agree with ACLU. Show me a bill with transparent application (like making certain types of weapons very difficult to obtain and easy to confiscate), rather than opaque watch lists.

Meanwhile, in other civil rights news, the Senate considers expanding warrantless surveillance and the Voting Rights Act continues to be ignored.
posted by zennie at 12:54 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


Please please please no expansion of the no-fly list, it's one of the worst post-9/11 programs to model ANYTHING after.

Access to guns in this country needs to change substantially, no doubt about it, but wow the no-fly list is an unmitigated discriminatory disaster. "No-fly, no-buy" most likely only means "Arabs and Muslims can no longer buy guns". Fewer than 1000 US citizens are on the list, I would venture a guess per usual these ~1000 folks are predominantly non-white, and that in general white extremism is underrepresented in the list.

I understand the desire to symbolize gun regulation is possible, but lets please not base this on one of the most pernicious practices in American bureaucracy. Lets not further entrench the unjust and ineffectual tool the no-fly list has proven to be.

Firearm model bans, felony charges for attempted purchase as an excluded person, ammunition bans, huge extensions to the waiting period (how about 18 month waiting period during which time you may not be arrested or convicted of any crime?) Just ANYTHING but more no-fly list nonsense.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 1:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]


But the broadest question of how procedures came to be so that you could use them to prevent a vote from taking place because it would have succeeded and you didn't want that? That shit is oooooold. In the US House it would almost certainly date from the formation of more or less stable coalitions in the early 1800s, with similar things in the Commons going back way earlier.

Thanks ROU_Xenophobe. Is there a school of thought that identifies this as a good thing, like a sensible hurdle to demagogy or democracy run wild? I suppose this is part of what the people who insists on pointing out that "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" are talking about. Can you recommend anything that makes this case explicitly?
posted by layceepee at 1:01 PM on June 22, 2016


Err, better source on number of Americans on the watchlist says between 5,000 and 15,000 Americans.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 1:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Does anyone know if there have been other sit ins on the house floor before?

Answering my own question, from an update to the Atlantic article:
Sit-ins and protests on the floor of Congress are rare but do occur from time to time. Over the past few decades, both parties have engaged in them.

Republicans mounted a floor protest over energy legislation on August 1, 2008. After then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi adjourned the House, the bill—which would, in part, lift a federal ban on offshore oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—was left without a vote.

Republicans were outraged. According to John Boehner, the minority leader at the time, around a dozen or so Republicans occupied the otherwise vacant floor to protest the decision and demand a special session for a vote. News reports indicate that they encouraged tourist to fill the galleries. One lawmaker brought a stack of gas station receipts, which he brandished above his head.

The protests continued for days. Congress would pass an energy bill later in the session. It did not include drilling rights in the refuge. “The whole floor was packed, the gallery was packed,” Boehner said. “This has never happened before.” But it had.

On November 18, 1995, in the midst of a full government shutdown over the federal budget, 28 Democrats stormed the floor after the Republican leadership refused to keep working, called a recess, and left.

The Democrats chanted “work, work, work,” “save Medicare,” and “where’s Newt?” in reference to the House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Notably, the Republicans turned off the television cameras in 1995, as well. But Harold Ford, a Democrat, climbed up to the press gallery and turned them back on.

The protesters threatened to stay all night. But two hours later they were gone. Congress passed a temporary spending bill the next day.
posted by galaxy rise at 1:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


News reports indicate that they encouraged tourist to fill the galleries.

Hmm. I wonder if tourists are being admitted to the galleries now, and if they would be permitted to actually stage their own sit-in in support in the same room? (Ideally I'd love if they came and joined their representatives on the floor, but I suspect that wouldn't fly because of security concerns - which, ironically, would be borne of the very same concerns over easy access to guns which this hoped-for bill would relieve.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is there a school of thought that identifies this as a good thing, like a sensible hurdle to demagogy or democracy run wild?

It's just a tool, like a screwdriver. The question of whether it's good to prevent some proposal that would command a majority if voted on hinges entirely on whether that proposal is a good and smart thing or a bad and stupid thing. If there's any school of thought on it, it's probably that having firm procedural control in general is a good thing because the alternative is cyclic majorities or -- in the voting model sense of it -- chaos.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:18 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


EmpressCallipygos, there have been several Periscope shots of crowds upstairs.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:18 PM on June 22, 2016


At this point I definitely don't like anything related to no-fly list expansion, but given the decades-long stonewalling there's been from everyone under NRA pay, I'm thinking "Propose reasonable thing, watch it get shot down, propose something ineffectual which will pass, watch everyone decry it for being ineffectual" doesn't really get us anywhere.

So let's start actual negotiations. They won't come to the table for sane regulations? Expand the no-fly list scope.
No luck? Require firing ranges to make sure the number of rounds bought/brought in matches the number expended when someone leaves.
Require primer/gunpowder to be sold in child-safe 2oz. containers wrapped in that theft-deterrent plastic.
Publish monthly/yearly stats of which manufacturers got the best deaths-for-lobbying-dollar value.
I'm sure better ideas can be brainstormed in this vein.

If they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith and actually govern, limiting our options won't help anyhow.
posted by CrystalDave at 1:18 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Isn't Clinton in town? Imagine the media circus if she showed up at the Capitol right about now.
posted by Ber at 1:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am so, so proud that my Representative is participating in this sit-in and tweeting about it. Ryan can turn the CSPAN cameras off, but he can't keep Twitter or Periscope from documenting what's happening as it happens. While I am skeptical that truly thoughtful, responsible, sensible gun control legislation will happen with the utterly dysfunctional congress we currently have, it thrills me that some members have finally, FINALLY realized they are going to have to be disruptive to get something done. Yay for John Lewis and his badass civil rights righteousness! "We have been too quiet for too long. There comes a time when you have to say something, when you have to make a little noise, when you have to move your feet. Now is the time to get in the way. The time to act is now. We will be silent no more. The time for silence is over."
posted by pjsky at 1:21 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


She just gave a speech in North Carolina, but I think she met with the House Democrats earlier this morning.
posted by yasaman at 1:22 PM on June 22, 2016


I'm a recent transplant to Atlanta, but I'm so, so proud to call John Lewis my representative. That speech gave me chills.
posted by biogeo at 1:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, the Republicans won't vote because it would mean losing their primaries. That means, a lot of primary voters support guns and the GOP party line? Is this actually true? Even though it seems as if everyone in the country is screaming for better control? What am I missing here? Can someone enlighten me on this? (Sincerely.)
posted by Melismata at 1:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]




(That person seems to be missing a ton, though)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:28 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


That means, a lot of primary voters support guns and the GOP party line?

The actual currency here is "a lot of primary voters". The majority of the US public on both sides of the divide support some measure of gun control. But the most active voters, those most engaged, include NRA-mailing-list-involved voters, and the NRA is much more effective at getting their loyals out for primary votes than nearly any other group.
posted by hippybear at 1:28 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


That means, a lot of primary voters support guns and the GOP party line? Is this actually true? Even though it seems as if everyone in the country is screaming for better control? What am I missing here? Can someone enlighten me on this? (Sincerely.)

Would it help if I showed you a facebook feed full of posts from people I attended a rural high school with?
posted by craven_morhead at 1:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sarah Jeong on the amazing Periscope/Facebook Video B-story. So strange!
posted by The Bellman at 1:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


All of the 75+ members of Congress (all Democrats) participating in today's sit-in for gun control #NoBillNoBreak

Plenty of folks are replying to that tweet and saying terrible things about people who support gun control. One person replies back to them, ending with, "Buy a musket." That would make a sweet (albeit reductionist) meme.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


When I clicked into the facebook-feed by Rep O'Rourke I was thrilled to see my representative Katherine Clark (well mostly amazed I actually recognized someone) I'll be more impressed when I see stacks of empty pizza boxes in the morning.
posted by sammyo at 1:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


That means, a lot of primary voters support guns and the GOP party line?
Yup.

Is this actually true?
Yup, yup.

Even though it seems as if everyone in the country is screaming for better control? What am I missing here?
"Seems."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I agree with the argument upthread that at least part of the intransigence is due not to the NRA, or personal conviction, or opinions of their districts, but because they don't want Obama to "win" even one battle. They are like (racist) toddlers who can't stop saying NO to absolutely anything associated with Obama. Their egos and well-stoked hatred have driven away all their reason.

100 years from now John Lewis will be venerated and their names won't even be hated, they'll be forgotten. They are nothing but a speed bump in this country's history. She doesn't have the range.
posted by sallybrown at 1:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


"There's a difference between being concerned and being committed."
posted by defenestration at 1:42 PM on June 22, 2016


"NRA get the hell out of the way."

YES.
posted by defenestration at 1:43 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill
"Perhaps such a bill makes political sense as a sort of desperate attempt to get something through a conservative-dominated Congress. But if it is, as it appears to be, more of an effort to highlight the unpopular extremism of Republicans on gun issues, it is a stupid and counterproductive hill to theatrically die on. Almost any popular and previously debated gun control measure would have made a better symbolic lost cause. Democrats could be staging a sit-in in support of universal background checks and waiting periods, nationally standard gun licensing and training requirements, and tougher restrictions on where and how guns are sold. All of those, or even any one of those, would have been more defensible both politically and morally. Instead House Democrats are going to the mat for a shitty, racist, useless bill."
posted by burgerrr at 1:43 PM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]


The support for gun control is like the support for Obamacare. If you name specific measures, support is extremely strong. If you call it "gun control", then support drops. See here:
The support for tougher gun laws rose to 55% in the newest poll -- the highest number since just one month after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, in January 2013.

But support for specific gun control measures was very strong, with 92% saying they wanted expanded background checks, 87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems and 85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns. Among Republicans, that number is even higher -- 90% say they favor preventing people on the terror watch list or "no fly" list from buying a gun. That number is at 85% for Democrats.
posted by Anonymous at 1:45 PM on June 22, 2016


I don't care. It's a stand, no matter how weak. I'm proud of them and I'm sick of all the little jabs about democrats doing things the wrong way. It's something in the face of nothing and it's symbolic of a larger fight. #ENOUGH
posted by agregoli at 1:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [37 favorites]


Almost any popular and previously debated gun control measure would have made a better symbolic lost cause.

Timing is everything.
posted by sallybrown at 1:46 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a thousand dipshits saying "we haven't even invented teleportation yet."
posted by tonycpsu at 1:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [40 favorites]


Yay, Rep. Dan Kildee! He's my parents' (and would be mine, if I still lived in the US) rep, and though I haven't lived there in a long time, his staff was awesome earlier this year in helping me unsnarl my passport mess, even though I can't vote for him. His district is pretty reliably Democrat, but people there do like their guns, so this isn't a totally risk-free move for him.
posted by skybluepink at 1:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm proud that my Senator Bill Nelson and Congresswoman Gwen Graham are involved in the Sit-In. I'm disappointed to not see my other Senator Marco Rubio involved, since he has made a career out of sitting down on the job.
posted by Cookiebastard at 1:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


something is better than nothing, but staging a sit-in to expand racist watchlists isn't the best something.
posted by burgerrr at 1:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


I am 100% okay with telling people on the no-fly list they cannot have a gun, if that's what it takes to save lives. I don't care if they are a terrorist or the government just thinks they are. Sorry, but as a queer person who cannot even go to a Pride event this weekend out of fear, that's where I am.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Saw this tweet in the Twitter livestream:
As serial pedophile Dennis Hastert goes to jail today, it's time for @SpeakerRyan to ditch the "Hastert Rule." #NoBillNoBreak
So I looked up the Hastert Rule, and found this op-ed from a former Republican congressperson:
Even with O'Neill taking the floor to argue vigorously against one of my amendments, I won -- and took 51 of his Democrats along with me, including three Democratic chairmen who spoke for my amendment and against their leader's position. Consider that I was then a member of a small minority -- we had fewer Republicans in the House then than the number of Democratic members today -- and I was a senior member of the Republican leadership, a leader of the opposition to O'Neill's policies. Yet we in the minority could nonetheless offer our amendments, take on the speaker and beat him, something not likely to happen today. That was the Congress as it was supposed to be -- decisions by the whole House and a man who saw himself not merely as the leader of a party but as the constitutional officer charged with leading the whole House.

If Ryan truly means to bring a fresh perspective to the office of speaker, he should make clear that he will be speaker of the whole House, not merely the spokesman for his party. For nearly three decades, under both Republican and Democratic Party majorities, speakers have manipulated the House's rules to ensure that there will be few challenges to their own party's agenda.
This sit in is of course about gun violence more than anything else, but I'm also glad to be seeing pushback against the idea that the Speaker can rule the House with an iron fist.
posted by galaxy rise at 1:51 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I also don't care. I'm super pro-ACLU and generally against things like the no-fly list for leaning racist and so on, but in the course of events, I have gone so far into look at my field of fucks for the poor "good guy with a gun," for it is barren that I want them all gone -- yea, even unto the guns used by native populations who subsistence hunt because I'm pretty sure 200 years ago they weren't using assault weapons to hunt for food -- that I cheer even the token resistance of banning guns to persons-of-(suspect)-interest, because one less gun is one less motherfucking gun and I want them all gone so I am totally okay with this.

Proud that one of my Senators is there and many Representatives from my state are there and I hope the Republicans all fucking choke on this.
posted by sldownard at 1:53 PM on June 22, 2016 [25 favorites]


I am 100% okay with telling people on the no-fly list they cannot have a gun, if that's what it takes to save lives. I don't care if they are a terrorist or the government just thinks they are. Sorry, but as a queer person who cannot even go to a Pride event this weekend out of fear, that's where I am.

But... it doesn't actually save lives. How many gun massacres have been carried out by people on the no-fly list? Any? It wouldn't have saved the people in Orlando. If (god forbid) something happens at a Pride celebration, it will almost definitely be a copycat who is not one of the 2700-ish people on the list. Statistically, some white non-Muslim.

Bad laws come from blind fear.
posted by AFABulous at 1:56 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]


something is better than nothing, but staging a sit-in to expand racist watchlists isn't the best something.

Okay: The Black Panthers lobbied for concealed-carry permits in the late 60's, and their visible support for that spooked the GOP party line into saying "hmm, maybe concealed-carry isn't such a great idea." And that encouraged the government to levvy increased regulation of concealed-carry for many years. And in the meantime, a double-standard was corrected (the Black Panthers couldn't have concealed-carry, but now it was because no one could).

It's possible that if we can successfully tie gun restrictions to the No-Fly list, then the GOP may be forced to say "Hmm, maybe the No-Fly list isn't such a great idea," and they'll take care of that instead, and in the meantime a double-standard will be corrected (If being on the no-fly list is keeping you from flying, it should also keep you from getting a gun).

Sometimes, you get what you want through an alternate route.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [32 favorites]


But... it doesn't actually save lives. How many gun massacres have been carried out by people on the no-fly list? Any? It wouldn't have saved the people in Orlando.

I mean, I would prefer the bill they are discussing be expanded to anyone who has ever been under serious FBI surveillance. That would have prevented the massacre in Orlando.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:57 PM on June 22, 2016


I do not care if the no-fly rule gets passed, because I'm pretty sure that it won't survive judicial review. However, to get no-fly to work, you MUST also pass Universal Background Checks, and so when they throw out no-fly we'll be left with Universal Background. I hope.
posted by anastasiav at 1:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I don't care about the no-fly bill so much, I can take it or leave it. It's a convenient sound bite that makes the Republicans sound unhinged in their opposition. Universal Background Checks are the literal bare minimum thing I want. I'm frankly boggling that the pro-gun rights people immediately start shrieking about "YOU'RE TAKING MY GUNS" in response to this very small, very common sense measure that does not, in fact, do anything to take away the guns of existing gun owners.
posted by yasaman at 2:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Have any of the previous mass shooters in the years following the institution of the no-fly list been on the list? By my count, only one: the riverside shooting.

IF the shooters haven't been on that list, then for "no-fly, no-buy" to be effective, we would need to expand the list criteria substantially.

Alternatively, we could just change the laws for all Americans rather than having special laws for a secret list of people.

roomthreeseventeen: considering a possible future with a president that is very hostile to marginalized groups, do we really want to expand their ability to unaccountably place citizens who they deem "radical" (only in the "wrong" ways, I'm sure they'd say) on lists which alter their rights?
posted by Matt Oneiros at 2:03 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Matt Oneiros, I am someone who would not be sad if we said nobody can have guns anymore. I understand how these laws would be problematic and extend to other situations, but I have no problem saying someone can't have a gun.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm cynical - I see this as a convenient move to swing the balance back to Deomcrat by riding the political wave of the Orlando shooting.

Other than this, what is actually accomplished by the sit in, especially with regards to lawmaking process?
I'm honestly curious.
posted by plinth at 2:09 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm more comfortable banning guns outright than I am expanding the secret lists practice. Tremendously so.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm cynical - I see this as a convenient move to swing the balance back to Deomcrat by riding the political wave of the Orlando shooting.

Yes, just like all those other times that gun control was a winning issue electorally for Democrats, such as
posted by tonycpsu at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


I am really enjoying hearing the various representatives speaking on C-SPAN right now. It is clear that they are by and large not prepared, mostly rambling from the top of their heads. It's very unpolished but feels very honest.
posted by biogeo at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Other than this, what is actually accomplished by the sit in, especially with regards to lawmaking process?
I'm honestly curious.


Because there's nothing we can do without at least 17 Republicans defecting and we have to do something. We can't just let the status quo stand anymore.
posted by Talez at 2:12 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


The Boston Globe has published an op-ed piece, Paul Ryan, what are you afraid of? "Censorship is not something that politicians who are confident of the righteousness of their beliefs bother with. If anticontrol lawmakers genuinely believe their abject fealty to the gun lobby is in the public interest, they should have no problem with debating gun-control proponents in front of the cameras. Likewise, if the Democrats who support gun control were really so misguided, the Republicans would presumably want the American people to see them Wednesday as they argued for a bad cause. "

*sips tea*
posted by pjsky at 2:16 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]


I'm cynical - I see this as a convenient move to swing the balance back to Deomcrat by riding the political wave of the Orlando shooting.

That is pretty cynical.
posted by biogeo at 2:16 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


C-SPAN livestream for those who are interested.
posted by biogeo at 2:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Bellman: Sarah Jeong on the amazing Periscope/Facebook Video B-story. So strange!

Sadly, she missed the point of C-SPAN using Periscope and/or Facebook's live video streaming feature/app. This is not the future of transparency, this is C-SPAN bypassing Ryan's request to turn off their cameras during the non-agreed-upon recess, where cameras are turned off.

This is C-SPAN doing their job, while Ryan refuses to do his.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [25 favorites]


Christ. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) just related an absolutely horrible set of stories from her district in excruciating detail. These are stories that clearly haunt these congresspeople.
posted by biogeo at 2:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Crappy question to ask: could any of those stories been different if this no-fly no-buy law passes?

I hope that such pain and suffering would lead to better laws, but I realize we should support any little steps away from NRA-dictated gun control laws as much-needed progress.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:42 PM on June 22, 2016


The tactical error by Paul Ryan in forcing this to Periscope and Facebook Live is laughable. He's suddenly made "Congressmen give speeches" into a far bigger story by forcing off the cameras.

And meanwhile, the Dems have wonderfully taken every bit of attention away from the GOP's ridiculously vague Obamacare replacement plan today.
posted by zachlipton at 2:43 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Christ. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) just related an absolutely horrible set of stories from her district in excruciating detail. These are stories that clearly haunt these congresspeople.

How absolutely awful it must be to visit your own constituents in their fucking hospital beds after they've been shot and have them look to you for help and know you're completely powerless.
posted by zachlipton at 2:44 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


The no-fly no-buy law isn't particularly important, and it wouldn't do much to change things. This sit-in is about the fact that the Republican-controlled house won't even permit votes on gun control bills, which would mean they'd be responsible for their voting records to their constituents who may be pro-gun but also pro-regulations.
posted by biogeo at 2:46 PM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]


These are stories that clearly haunt these congresspeople.

My overwhelming impression from Senator Murphy's filibuster was that a lot of the senators are absolutely haunted by these kind of stories from their constituents. A lot of people got visibly choked up and upset. Political theater this may be, but I don't doubt the conviction on this particular front.
posted by yasaman at 2:48 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Shocked, shocked that there is politicking going on in politics.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Frederica Wilson (D-FL) just related an absolutely horrible set of stories from her district in excruciating detail.

It took a little while to get a hang of the cspan interface, but I made a video clip for folks who missed it.
posted by galaxy rise at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) coincidentally just addressed the "political theater" point.
posted by biogeo at 2:51 PM on June 22, 2016


Thanks, galaxy rise. Please note that her descriptions are quite graphic, so please be advised.
posted by biogeo at 2:53 PM on June 22, 2016


Sometimes, you get what you want through an alternate route.

"Hmm, Democrats hate guns, and Republicans hate muslims... surely there's room for compromise here!"

--Democrats, apparently
posted by no regrets, coyote at 2:53 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Throw this one in the great big sack of examples you can use the next time some idiot starts sounding off about how the two major parties are just the same. (I usually don't get far beyond Obamacare literally saving my fucking life before I start to get all bitey.)
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:05 PM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


Yeah, the more I listen to these congresspeople speak, the angrier I get at that facile cynicism. The only way you can claim that "both parties are the same" or "Democrats don't really care about gun control" is by not fucking paying attention.
posted by biogeo at 3:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


"America is sending a 911 call to the only first responders they have.... that's us." - Rep. Scott Peters, CA.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


So what if it IS political theater? If it gets the Dems to grow a backbone, I wouldn't care if the only reason they were acting was because they were all tripping balls and had visions that Gandhi told them to.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]


I don't love the no fly no buy rhetoric, but I think it's important to break the barrier that any law on gun control is impossible. I don't think anyone in that floor thinks no fly no buy is the right solution, I think they think it's a means to change the rhetoric and the status quo. Progress is most often made in small steps, some of them wrong, rather than in big leaps.
posted by OmieWise at 3:27 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm cynical - I see this as a convenient move to swing the balance back to Deomcrat by riding the political wave of the Orlando shooting.

You want to talk about cynical moves of convenience in the wake of Orlando? Maybe talk about how the House GOP blocked expansion of LGBT rights less than 48 hours after it happened.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:27 PM on June 22, 2016 [28 favorites]


My family and I had the pleasure of visiting the capital last week as guests of our awesome rep Kathy Castor of FL. It was only a few days after the killings in Orlando and we heard from several interns/ aides in the house that they were getting many more calls from cranks worried about Obama taking their guns than constituents who wanted gun regulations. I'm happy to read so many posters here on the blue are actually calling their reps because if they don't hear from you the cranks win. I called both my reps today and then tweeted at Rep Jolly thanking him for his participation in the sit-in.
posted by photoslob at 3:28 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Hmm, Democrats hate guns, and Republicans hate muslims... surely there's room for compromise here!"

--Democrats, apparently


What we have here is something of a real-life trolley problem, in which circumstances are such that incremental progress on regulating firearms is only likely to come at the expense of the rights of individuals on the no fly list to carry firearms. Perhaps you think it's okay to look on as the train heads toward the five people tied to the tracks, knowing that no action of yours harmed anyone on either set of tracks, but the reason we send people to Congress is to make the hard decisions that result in the best aggregate outcome for all involved. If you feel that their calculations are wrong, then by all means make that case, but this juvenile response shows a complete lack of understanding of what we routinely ask our representatives to do. Like, next you'll be telling us that they're taking away dollars that could have fed a million people in order to try to save ten million people from dying of heart disease.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Periscope feed just cut off and C-SPAN is dark.
posted by zachlipton at 3:31 PM on June 22, 2016


Ideally, such a measure could lead to greater sanity and opportunities for redress and judicial review for people on the no-fly-list too, which would be a win for everyone.

And then we switched to a laggy Facebook Live feed from Rep. O'Rourke. That crapped out too.
posted by zachlipton at 3:34 PM on June 22, 2016


Like, next you'll be telling us that they're forced to take away dollars that could have fed a million people in order to try to save ten million people from dying of heart disease.

You're the one explicitly advocating the expansion of an extra-judicial, error-prone government blacklist, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't condescend to me about morals. Democrats could perfectly easily push solely for universal background checks, but they've hitched their wagon to to watchlist because it gives them a nice soundbite.

You don't get half points for pushing racist, unconstitutional surveillance because your intentions are super good.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 3:35 PM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]


I wonder if someone is ddos-ing or overloading the networks there.
posted by ApathyGirl at 3:37 PM on June 22, 2016


I am really enjoying the "Disarm Hate" rainbow sign in the background. It makes me feel represented.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:40 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


Democrats could perfectly easily push solely for universal background checks, but they've hitched their wagon to to watchlist because it gives them a nice soundbite.

No, it's because it gives them leverage and thus the chance to achieve something. If you don't want to see any movement on gun control, by all means push for universal background checks out of the gate.
posted by OmieWise at 3:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am kinda half way there for the symbolism, but legitimising the post 9/11 security state in the name of gun control is really not ok.
posted by ethansr at 3:42 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


On one hand, I'm encouraged that Dems are making this fight a very public and personal one, and this sit in by most accounts is having a positive impact. I really hope they continue to use this tactic to push for reforms in other areas.

On the other hand, I'm from a country that is disproportionately affected by the no fly list, and I'm terrified at a personal level about the consequences of legitimizing that secret list further and expanding its powers.
posted by kyp at 3:42 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


Ctrl+f (actually Find in page) in the article and here and I don't see any mentions of Cornyn or his bill in the Senate.
posted by ericales at 3:44 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Democrats could perfectly easily push solely for universal background checks

All four pieces of gun-control legislation proposed in the wake of the Orlando terrorist shooting failed to garner enough support to pass the Senate on Monday.

Senate Votes Down Four Gun Control Measures After Fiery Debate
The amendment by Murphy, who led last week's filibuster marathon, would have expanded the background check system, mandating that sales at gun shows and over the internet be subject to closing the so-called "gun show loophole." Federal agencies would have had to certify that they submitted to the National Criminal Instant Background Check System all records identifying individuals prohibited from buying a gun and penalize states that failed to make data electronically available to the background check system.
I keep thinking back to Manchin -Toomey, and realizing even if Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp and Pryor had flipped and Reid voted for it, it still would have been 59-41, no cloture, no floor vote. The rational they gave was they were in tight races and couldn't afford to lose, but only Heitkamp is still in the Senate now anyway.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:46 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Rep. Derek Kilmer (Washington 6th) describing his small child coming home from school after an active shooter drill.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:47 PM on June 22, 2016


The WaPo article I linked earlier discusses the Cornyn bill. Democrats opposed it because the 72-hour waiting period the bill proposes isn't enough time to put together a case against a suspected terrorist.
posted by yasaman at 3:49 PM on June 22, 2016


My rep, Judy Chu (D-CA 27th), currently in the podium shot wearing hot pink and holding a rainbow "Disarm Hate" sign. She's up for reelection this year, and I'll be proud to vote for her now.
posted by ApathyGirl at 3:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Democrats could perfectly easily push solely for universal background checks.

They've been doing that for many years. A few Republicans even joined in for the Manchin-Toomey amendment, and it failed. Democrats have also tried amendments since the Pulse shooting that had nothing to do with the no fly list, but those failed as well. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

You're the one explicitly advocating the expansion of an extra-judicial, error-prone government blacklist

No, the only thing I'm explicitly advocating is taking away a right from some that I would just as soon take away from most or all. Your attempts to attribute a bunch of other implicit views to me are noted.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


So damn happy to see this, I sure hope they have staying power. I agree that a large part of this refusal to hold a vote is simply a continuation of the giant F*CK YOU to Obama. A juvenile mindset shared by so many hate-filled people.

Scott Peters Periscope
(locked up on me once, I just refreshed and it came back)

Maybe this legislation is a shitty start, but it's still a start.
posted by Glinn at 3:51 PM on June 22, 2016


Rep. Nolan pointed out the enormous number of Americans who can't own a gun because of non-violent drug offenses or other non-violent convictions. Yes, these individuals received some sort of due process before they took their plea deal and the people on the no-fly list have none, and that distinction is not unimportant, but the point is that blacklisting people from owning guns based on not supremely sound reasons is not something new.

Also TPM a few years ago on gun control and duck hunting, as discussed a few minutes ago.
posted by zachlipton at 3:51 PM on June 22, 2016


You will never get a comprehensive gun ban in this country, which is why it is shameless and disingenuous for the NRA and GOP to constantly invoke its specter. Guns are tied into the identity politics of this nation in so many ways, from gunning down Native Americans to claim increasing amounts of it, gunning down British soldiers for independence, gunning each other down in the Civil War, the difficult task of finding a ten-year period in which the American armed forces weren't shooting or bombing anyone, the endless entertainment stereotypes of soldiers at war, cowboys and evil cowboys and Indians, Charles Bronson taking out Dangerous Punks And Negroes, the affectations of right-wing patriots dreaming of defending their castles from The Enemy and maybe watering the tree of liberty when the Revolution finally comes.

And they are right about one thing -- a majority of gun owners are not inherently dangerous or unstable or careless and have a legit gripe at the idea of their property and tool of defense being taken away. Fair enough. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that while the wackadoos and careless and impaired are not the majority there are still _a hell of a lot of them_ around, and the truth needs to lie between All Guns Are Evil and Everyone Gets A Concealed Glock. The inability to give the slightest ground on the hard right's part, coupled with the Mirror Universe Media shrieking about Second Amendment Supremacy and Muslim Terrorists and Co!d Dead Hands will keep the body count up and frustrate good people like these Congressfolk forever.

Meanwhile, don't forget to duck!
posted by delfin at 3:52 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rep. Gwen Graham (D-FL 2nd) is reading the text conversation between a son at Pulse and his mother.
posted by ApathyGirl at 3:53 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Tammy Duckworth is out of her wheelchair and on the floor.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:53 PM on June 22, 2016 [20 favorites]


No, the only thing I'm explicitly advocating is taking away a right from some that I would just as soon take away from most or all.

I mean I'd like to eliminate our draconian anti-drug laws for all Americans, but I think the best we can get is only for white Americans, so let's go with that.
posted by indubitable at 3:54 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, it's because it gives them leverage and thus the chance to achieve something. If you don't want to see any movement on gun control, by all means push for universal background checks out of the gate.

Either this is a symbolic sit-in, in which case it's irreparably tainted by association with the no-fly list. Or it's a push for compromise with Republicans, in which case it's a cynical play on racist fears of muslims. It's shitty as politics and it's shitty as policy and it's a horribly indictment of Democrats even if it works.

the point is that blacklisting people from owning guns based on not supremely sound reasons is not something new.

You don't get to handwave due process.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 3:55 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


I mean I'd like to eliminate our draconian anti-drug laws for all Americans, but I think the best we can get is only for white Americans, so let's go with that.

Nothing screams "I'm debating in good faith" like an analogy between a list that has the implicit effect of being racist against Muslims and a hypothetical law that would explicitly target people of a particular ethnicity.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:56 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]




Nothing screams "I'm debating in good faith" like an analogy between a list that has the implicit effect of being racist against Muslims and a hypothetical law that would explicitly target people of a particular ethnicity.

So we agree that this thing that you're advocating is implicitly racist?
posted by indubitable at 3:58 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not advocating the continued existence of the no fly list.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know it's totally uncool to be even mildly approving of our elected leaders these days, but I'm proud of the Democrats in Congress today.

It's all Democrats participating in the sit-in, right? Wait, never mind, stupid question.
posted by vverse23 at 4:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


No, the only thing I'm explicitly advocating is taking away a right from some that I would just as soon take away from most or all.

Nothing screams "I'm debating in good faith" like an analogy between a list that has the implicit effect of being racist against Muslims and a hypothetical law that would explicitly target people of a particular ethnicity.


I'm not seeing how the anti-Muslim racism being explicit would change things. If you passed a law that said "no Muslims can own guns," wouldn't that still be accurately described as "taking away a right from some that you would just soon as take away from all"?

And how is is better to say, "I'll support measures which I understand will be racist in their effect so long as they aren't explicitly racist in their description"?
posted by layceepee at 4:03 PM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


So if enough Republicans decide to just pack it in and go home but congress is still formally in session would a vote of mostly Democrats be valid?
posted by sammyo at 4:03 PM on June 22, 2016


You don't get to handwave due process.

Ever know someone who's taken a plea bargain under crappy circumstances? The legal system has been handwaving due process for quite some time now.

And there's a way to use this to actually get some semblance of due process around the no fly list. The list, awful as it often is, isn't going away whether we want it to or not. It took Rahinah Ibrahim seven years, an army of lawyers, and a bad-ass federal judge to get off the no fly list. Democrats have repeatedly offered to include better due process protections as part of this, and that's a good thing.

Also Scott Peters needs to learn how to hold a cell phone. Rumor has it that the GOP is going to return to the floor to do something later tonight.
posted by zachlipton at 4:05 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


The legal system has been handwaving due process for quite some time now.

And here I am, arguing for more due process not less. Don't I feel like a chump.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 4:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Also Scott Peters needs to learn how to hold a cell phone.

They're getting pro advice.
posted by sammyo at 4:14 PM on June 22, 2016


This response basically saying that Democrats in this sit-in are being cynical and racist makes me completely despondent.
posted by OmieWise at 4:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


We're all chumps. I'm willing to sit here and defend a grandstanding stunt in support of just getting a floor vote for a fairly problematic bill that has minimal hope of passing and almost no chance of actually saving lives. That's pathetic. That's how low the bar is here, because nothing has happened for years and people keep dying, and this is the most minimal legislative response that could even be mustered.

Does this make me any better than the "won't someone please think of the children?" crowd I usually run away screaming from? Not really. And I'm not sure I care. Because I just want people to stop getting shot. And the folks sitting on the House floor right now are the only ones in power who seem to give a damn about that.
posted by zachlipton at 4:25 PM on June 22, 2016 [35 favorites]


That's not a low bar. Pushing for universal background checks is a low bar. Pushing for expanding watch-lists is actively shitting on innocent people to assuage your grief.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 4:39 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


John Lewis about to speak now on how sit-ins work. This should be good.
posted by zachlipton at 4:57 PM on June 22, 2016


John Lewis speaking again, for a "teach-in on how to have a sit-in."
posted by yasaman at 4:58 PM on June 22, 2016


Nancy Pelosi speaking now.
posted by yasaman at 5:04 PM on June 22, 2016


Are there any livestreams now (Early evening)?
posted by NorthernLite at 5:06 PM on June 22, 2016


C-SPAN livestream
posted by zachlipton at 5:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Democratic caucus is literally cheering into an iPhone cheering "Periscope!" What a world.
posted by zachlipton at 5:16 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]




I just tuned in so I don't know if he's spoken, but shout-out to Ted Lieu, my rep from CA-33, who is on the floor.

Also, Im hearing about plans to organize a rally at the Federal Bldg in West L.A. so I'm hoping we are gaining steam.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Any links or more info for that, Room 641-A? I'm in West LA and would love to take part.
posted by yasaman at 5:22 PM on June 22, 2016


If the #occupy folks still have any networks left, it feels like now would be the time. I know that gun control was not really their issue but it feels like if there was just a little more of a push we could suddenly see civil disobedience all over the country. I bet there are a lot of people who would proudly be arrested for this.
posted by anastasiav at 5:25 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Elizabeth Warren (on her birthday) just showed up with Dunkin' Donuts.
posted by zachlipton at 5:26 PM on June 22, 2016 [20 favorites]


yasaman, nothing yet but I'll post here if it's timely and MeMail you when I hear more.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:35 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ryan cannot lose control that he never had.
posted by delfin at 5:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Sorry, I meant protest, not rally.)
posted by Room 641-A at 5:39 PM on June 22, 2016


it feels like if there was just a little more of a push we could suddenly see civil disobedience all over the country.

It's weird because last night for a few minutes I was thinking back to Gandhi's "satyagraha" - "grasping for truth" - his concept which became the basis for his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. And I was wondering, what would something like that look like for this issue, now? Like, how many people would have to take some simple action? I thought of something like, how many people would it take to encircle the Capitol building so Congress couldn't get out until they'd acted? How many people would go "on strike" for a day or more, bring the whole country to a halt? These are dreams, I know, and they're fueled by some 60s poetry I love by Diane di Prima, but... how far in that direction can we get?

If the polls are right, that huge numbers of American people support increased restrictions on guns in some form, what does it take to get all of those people to become more powerful in voice than the NRA? Where is the nationwide campaign of resistance/civil disobedience this issue deserves?
posted by dnash at 5:40 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


(Thanks, zachlipton, I should've mentioned cspan vidstream not working on any of my devices. So finally DL'd periscope.)

If you live in a liberal bubble and don't know anyone in RL who's on the hard (R) side, I could tell you stories about the kind of people I know.
Or I could let you read the email I got from teapublican Rep. Dave Trott of Michigan one week after Orlando.

To summarize:
Number of times "LGBT" was mentioned: 0.
Number of calls for assault weapons bans: 0
For background checks: 0
For keeping those on a watchlist from buying guns: 0.
Number of times the email mentioned ISIS, radical Islam, Syria, Iraq and terrorist: 25-plus.
(In ONE email.)
posted by NorthernLite at 5:40 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


Well, I just called my congressperson, Republican Congressperson Pat Tiberi, and left a message saying that I think it is a disgrace that the house republicans won't even entertain the idea of hearing a bill regarding gun control. Pat Tiberi has already heard from me several times about abortion and Planned Parenthood, about LGBT issues, and about foreign policy issues. He doesn't seem particularly interested in what I have to say, but I figure he needs to remember that Republicans aren't his only constituents.

Don't be afraid to remind your Republican congresspeople that they represent your interests, too. Here's the House directory!
posted by ChuraChura at 5:44 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


Tiberi is my rep as well. I went to his site to email a letter to him and there is a drop down field for the topic of your letter. Go figure there isn't anything close to gun control on his list. Same way for all my other republican reps. Sherrod Brown, my only democratic representative, was the only one to have gun control (or something like it, I can't remember) as a listed topic.
posted by noneuclidean at 6:01 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, I live in North Carolina, and y'all may have heard about this whole gerrymandering thing and redistricting thing and two sets of primaries thing we have going on.1

I got redistricted. I'm trying to figure out who represents me at the moment (since I got districted out of Alma Adams' district and I'm not pleased). My voter registration look up says I'm in district 13. Google says that the representative for district 13 is some guy in Raleigh but he's going to be running in district 2 in the fall because that's the district for Raleigh now... and the "find your representative" off of house.gov has not been updated for our shenanigans and says I'm still in district 12 with Adams.

So, more politically savvy Mefis: how the bloody hell do I find out who represents me right now? Is it Adams until the election? Is it this guy in Raleigh? Is it no one, which is sadly starting to feel more and more like the reality in my much-beloved-but-run-off-the-rails state?

1. I have words (let's district the HBCU into two, for funsies! What the actual fuck) but they're neither polite nor on topic.
posted by joycehealy at 6:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Watching in Australia on Periscope. Amazed. ♥
posted by valetta at 6:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Keith Ellison speaking forcefully now and promising to stay all night, which might just indicate that this isn't a horribly racist anti-Muslim bill here.
posted by zachlipton at 6:12 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


If the #occupy folks still have any networks left, it feels like now would be the time.

If sitting around and chanting isn't working, it's time to bring in Occupy?
posted by jpe at 6:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


So I listened to 2 NPR news updates in the car earlier, at 6 and 7pm CDT, and there was no mention of this whatsoever. Anyone else find that curious?
posted by jferg at 6:16 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


For NPR? No.
posted by indubitable at 6:16 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


NPR has shifted slowly but inexorably to the right over the last decade, perhaps not coincidentally since the Kroc bequest.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


I heard coverage around 6, but maybe it was just our local NPR station--they broadcast from Lewis's district.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:22 PM on June 22, 2016


it feels like if there was just a little more of a push we could suddenly see civil disobedience all over the country

Just wait awhile. I fully expect serious craziness if Donnie loses in November. Or, did you mean positive civil disobedience?
posted by Thorzdad at 6:24 PM on June 22, 2016


When you email your congressbro, do you drop some pleasantries like "good luck with the election" or just jump straight into it?
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anyone catch who the woman in blue is? Cspan did not caption her, or I missed it.

I have my answer: it was Rep. Katherine Clark - I accidentally found out from this tweet.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 6:24 PM on June 22, 2016


It sounds like maybe they did do some coverage outside of the top-of-the-hour news that I missed, but multiple people complaining on the Tweeter about it.
posted by jferg at 6:25 PM on June 22, 2016


"So, more politically savvy Mefis: how the bloody hell do I find out who represents me right now? Is it Adams until the election? "

It's Adams until the election conducted with the new map in place. But you can certainly call the new district's office too and say you're being redistricted into this district and are concerned about X.

(I got redistricted when a line jumped over me with a six-block hop; you "belong" to the old rep until an election is conducted with the new map, absent very special circumstances that would involve court orders and maybe special elections.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:28 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


> how the bloody hell do I find out who represents me right now?

Your current representative continues to represent you until the next congress begins. Changes of district boundaries doesn't change that. (dang, Eyebrows for the win)
posted by ardgedee at 6:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Hmm, Democrats hate guns, and Republicans hate muslims... surely there's room for compromise here!"

--Democrats, apparently


While I'm glad to see some congressional Democrats finally growing a spine, it would have been a lot nicer if they a) had done so back in the Bush years, when it was desperately needed, and b) were doing it in support of something less awful than expanding the powers of the security state. As brave stands go, this is pretty paltry.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm watching this but have tuned out occasionally -- has Barbara Lee actually spoken?

she speaks for me
posted by waitangi at 6:37 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I emailed my representative to say thank you for taking a stand. I used to be more of a bystander in issues of politics but slowly, quietly I am becoming more of a participant. There just seems like there's too much at stake these days.
posted by sevenofspades at 6:46 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thank you, Eyebrows and ardgedee!

(I will be preaching at the choir, but I will be emailing Adams' office to thank her.)
posted by joycehealy at 6:49 PM on June 22, 2016


House is coming back apparently (to gut financial protection laws). Periscope going down as soon as the House cameras are back on C-SPAN.
posted by zachlipton at 6:51 PM on June 22, 2016


I'm sad I have not been in on this. This has never happened before and msnbc is reporting the repubs are heading back in, they might go back into session. And yay Corey Booker is on!
posted by vrakatar at 6:54 PM on June 22, 2016


Just saw a representative holding up Ben Wheeler's name. Benjamin died at Sandy Hook, would be 10 now, and has a younger brother he never knew.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


House is back in session. Now shit gets real.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Speaker's here. See you on C-SPAN." says Scott Peters. It's going down.
posted by zachlipton at 7:04 PM on June 22, 2016


Democrats are making some good trouble right now.
posted by yasaman at 7:07 PM on June 22, 2016


This...is amazing.
posted by mynameisluka at 7:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is fucking ugly. Ryan is pretending to ignore what's actually happening in front of him.
posted by dnash at 7:07 PM on June 22, 2016


As the Dems shout, Ryan is going ahead with a futile vote to attempt to overturn Obama's veto of the fiduciary rule, which "requires brokers to consider only their clients’ best interests--independent of brokerage fees and commissions--when offering retirement advice."
posted by zachlipton at 7:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can shout for 15 minutes. Go get em.
posted by vrakatar at 7:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh, and y'know the rule about "don't read the comments section"? Corollary: Do not listen to the CSPAN call-ins.
posted by dnash at 7:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


I've been muting every time the C-SPAN call-ins start.
posted by yasaman at 7:09 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wish C-Span would go back to the Periscope people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


is there a way to stream c span without a cable log in?
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 7:10 PM on June 22, 2016


Never mind, I found it.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 7:11 PM on June 22, 2016


This works for me without a login: low quality C-SPAN link.
posted by spinifex23 at 7:12 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


House livefeed is back up here: http://houselive.gov/
posted by mynameisluka at 7:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Live Facebook feed from the floor. The singing. My god.
posted by anastasiav at 7:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


anastasiav, thank you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, good. My rep showed up.
posted by gaspode at 7:23 PM on June 22, 2016


Since everyone's ignoring the rules today, I guess why not livestream from the floor while the House is in session?
posted by zachlipton at 7:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is our House, screw the rules the money gun machine men have set up.

I'm fired up, but remember everyone- this is also presidential politics. Both candidates will have to talk about this. The sitting prez will get a chance to weigh in. There are many, many stories here.
posted by vrakatar at 7:28 PM on June 22, 2016


Ryan has left the floor.
posted by anastasiav at 7:33 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Scott Peters back up on Periscope.
posted by zachlipton at 7:35 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've been busy all day and just catching up. Wow.
posted by Miko at 7:37 PM on June 22, 2016


I've been on planes all day, so also just catching up. In an airport lounge and forgot that TVs exist.. well, MSNBC anyhow is actually talking about the sit in.

Thanks for the links to Periscope etc.
posted by nat at 7:41 PM on June 22, 2016


I've been listening to the call-ins for the past 15 minutes or so, and I've heard at least 4 gun owners on the Republican line use the term "common sense legislation."

CSPAN has been cutting back to Internet feeds within reason, except when the feeds were cutting out or showing the carpet. Showing feed now. It's fascinating and I want to know how they decided to do this.
posted by zennie at 7:42 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you live in DC and care about this and can stay up all night and call in sick tomorrow go occupy the steps of the House. Right now. Please? Hippies and yippies and alt folk, mobilize.
posted by vrakatar at 7:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


As the Dems shout, Ryan is going ahead with a futile vote to attempt to overturn Obama's veto of the fiduciary rule, which "requires brokers to consider only their clients’ best interests--independent of brokerage fees and commissions--when offering retirement advice."

zachlipton, from the way you've phrased that it sounds like you've got that backwards. Obama directed the Department of Labor to adopt a rule that required retirement advisors put the best interests of their clients above their own financial interests. In response the DoL adopted the fiduciary rule. The House passed a resolution to overturn the fiduciary rule (later passed by the Senate as well). Obama vetoed the resolution that attempted to overturn the fiduciary rule.
posted by RichardP at 7:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hippies and yippies and alt folk, mobilize.

And also, really, everyday people who don't identify as alternative. Because this is, and should be, a mainstream issue. And you don't need to be a protestor-of-everything to show up and support this. If ever this was your time, it's now.
posted by Miko at 7:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


Thanks Richard. I was unclear. I meant "a futile vote to attempt to overturn Obama's veto of Congress's bill to overturn the fiduciary rule."
posted by zachlipton at 7:51 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Y'all I don't know who was just on Rep. Mark Takano's feed but I thought they were gonna fight
posted by Anonymous at 7:51 PM on June 22, 2016


Sentences like that are why Hill reporters drink, zachlipton.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:52 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


Any idea who the heckler is? They keep calling him "Doc"
posted by anastasiav at 7:53 PM on June 22, 2016


It sounds like the main mic was cut?
posted by dinty_moore at 7:53 PM on June 22, 2016


Who is the guy shouting about "radical islam"?
posted by mcduff at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2016


It was, as the HoR is currently in 'recess'.
posted by spinifex23 at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2016


So who is the red-faced GOP now getting in the face of the speaker shouting about "radical Islam?"
posted by Miko at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2016


This has now devolved into a shouting match where an unidentified Republican (anybody know who?) is shouting about radical Islam.
posted by zachlipton at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's getting ugly
posted by Miko at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2016


I think Louie Gohmert is going to punch someone.
posted by nathan_teske at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2016


Any idea who the heckler is? They keep calling him "Doc"

Oh god, is it Andy Harris?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:55 PM on June 22, 2016


Someone on PEriscope IDs him as "republican fromTX"
posted by Miko at 7:55 PM on June 22, 2016


No, doesn't look like Andy Harris.
posted by Miko at 7:56 PM on June 22, 2016


Twitter thinks its Louis Gohmert and Steve King.
posted by anastasiav at 7:56 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]




If you live in DC and care about this and can stay up all night and call in sick tomorrow go occupy the steps of the House.

Gentle reminder that DC residents don't actually have a voting representative and are largely ignored by that entire branch of government, and lots of us are still out there yelling and protesting and supporting this on behalf of the rest of the country.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 7:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [21 favorites]


Hippies and yippies and alt folk, mobilize

I hear you miko, I just meant we need the all of us, and some of us have the next 12 hours to spare. March on the House.
posted by vrakatar at 8:01 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]




So who is the red-faced GOP now getting in the face of the speaker shouting about "radical Islam?"

*sigh* I've started pointing out to people who say "the Orlando shooter pledged support to ISIS before the attacks" that "Charles Manson said The Beatles made him kill. Just because a crazy person said something doesn't mean it's actually true."

I don't know how many people that will convince.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:01 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]


I can't stop thinking about Charles Sumner tonight.
posted by mynameisluka at 8:01 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


I emailed my rep (Virginia Foxx, a cowardly Republican shitbox) to ask her to allow a vote on these bills. She didn't have a "gun control" menu item on her email form, but there was one for "second amendment rights."

That email was the last time I'm being polite to a Republican. I'm done talking to or trying to be reasonable to anyone who supports the Republicans.
posted by marxchivist at 8:03 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


The real question is if someone is going to go crowd-surfing WITH THEIR FISTS
posted by Anonymous at 8:04 PM on June 22, 2016


I would email my rep but he just got indicted for racketeering soooooooooooo

yay Philly
posted by Anonymous at 8:05 PM on June 22, 2016


Video of Rep. Gomert losing his shit

And to think Howard Dean's chances ended with a scream that wasn't 10% of that.
posted by zachlipton at 8:06 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Midnight or bust, reports msnbc.
posted by vrakatar at 8:07 PM on June 22, 2016


I would email my rep but he just got indicted for racketeering soooooooooooo

yay Philly
posted by schroedinger


Illinois understands, bud.
posted by agregoli at 8:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


Video of Rep. Gomert losing his shit
Got a real chill when I realized people were yelling "No Fly No Guns" back at him.

Like. Come. On. That can't be your rallying cry? Please?
posted by ethansr at 8:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


I hear you miko, I just meant we need the all of us, and some of us have the next 12 hours to spare. March on the House.

Totally totally agree - I'm just coming from a community-organizing perspective, that identity categories shouldn't keep anyone from participating. It's all of us, all of our issue. Anyone who can get there is representing dozens, hundreds of us who can't, and anyone who's thinking "I'm not really the demonstrating type" should just not worry about that. It's the time when a moral imperative means something.
posted by Miko at 8:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Keith Ellison speaking forcefully now and promising to stay all night, which might just indicate that this isn't a horribly racist anti-Muslim bill here.

I don't think Ellison speaks for most Muslims though. A better litmus test of the general Muslim sentiment is probably CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which has come out strongly against the bill:
“American citizens who are wrongly placed on the federal terrorist watch lists must be afforded the constitutional right to due process and the ability to effectively challenge inappropriate watch list designations.

“We oppose the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 because it appears to limit the ban on firearms purchases to American Muslims and seems to be more concerned about an appeals process to obtain a firearm, instead of creating a similar process for listed individuals to challenge watch list designations.

“It would seem the Senate is willing to only apply constitutional limitations on the American Muslim community, which is disproportionately impacted by federal watch lists.

“Nelson Mandela, then former South African president, Nobel Prize winner and anti-Apartheid leader was on a U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008. Mandela himself needed special State Department clearance to visit the United States in 2008. Such an absurdity highlights the political nature of watch lists and the lack of ability to challenge inappropriate designations once they are made.

“We remain committed to reasonable gun safety reforms that expand background checks to all gun sales – including private handgun sales, gun shows and online sales. We also believe that firearms and domestic violence or stalking are a lethal combination, and we therefore support legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of such abusers. Moreover, we support the push for federally-funding research into the causes and effects of gun violence in America.”
posted by kyp at 8:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


Like. Come. On. That can't be your rallying cry? Please?

Yep. Of all the places the Dems could find their spine on gun control, it had to be in the Institutional Racism Closet?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


That can't be your rallying cry? Please?

I hear what you're saying. And I certainly don't think their agenda ends there. But keep in mind that that cry refers to the single, critical issue that most reveals the hypocrisy of the GOP, who are more than willing to tar and feather "radical Islam" but suddenly are terribly reluctant to act when it crosses their 2nd amendment philosophy. For those who talk themselves blue trying to scare us about radical extremists not to take the simplest, most obvious steps to make it a little harder for those very extremists to amass a weapons hoard is the epitome of false concern. I think it's pretty clever, actually, to throw that in their face - "oh, you? The supposed anti-terrorist protectors? Afraid to take the NRA on even on this one issue which is sooo in line with your panicked rhetoric?"
posted by Miko at 8:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [37 favorites]




Exactly. That Gohmert idiot is on the floor screaming that radical Islam killed those people but he isn't willing to do anything to stop these alleged radicals from buying AR-15s? It's a stunningly hypocritical position.

On the other hand, political expedience is a terrible reason to target a particular population without any due process protections.
posted by Mavri at 8:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


For those who talk themselves blue trying to scare us about radical extremists not to take the simplest, most obvious steps to make it a little harder for those very extremists to amass a weapons hoard is the epitome of false concern.

This is true, but the solution shouldn't be to take the scaremongering and run with it in earnest. It's possible to call the GOP out on their hypocrisy in this arena without adopting either of their odious-yet-contradictory positions.

We need to restrict guns, not further categorize people as "terrorists" based on the whims of police.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


Mobilize warm clothes and hot pots of oatmeal for the occupiers!
posted by vrakatar at 8:25 PM on June 22, 2016


I never thought I'd say this, but I can't tear myself away from C-Span.
posted by chatongriffes at 8:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


I never thought I'd say this, but I can't tear myself away from C-Span.

I KNOW. My Dad used to call me with the thrilling things he was watching on C-SPAN this week. He *loved* C-SPAN - it was one of his favorite channels.

Now I get it, Dad. Thanks. He's watching through Heaven's cable network now (they get EVERYTHING), but I know he's gleefully following along.
posted by spinifex23 at 8:34 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Now they're throwing the public out of the gallery.
posted by zachlipton at 8:35 PM on June 22, 2016


"This is our democracy." Goosebumps.
posted by chatongriffes at 8:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


everything is cray cray
posted by Anonymous at 8:36 PM on June 22, 2016


And they tried to shut down the House's wireless internet to stop Dems from streaming video of the sit-in from their phones while C-Span's cameras are off.

So, in short, even if I disagree with the bill that forms the centerpiece of the current gun-control push, the GOP can jump in a goddamn lake.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:37 PM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]


Y'know, when people call their reps to support this action, they can also mention that "however, the no fly no buy bill is problematic, and maybe you could suggest a better one".


Because we ARE calling our reps, yeah? I did.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:42 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Are they allowed to take naps?
posted by Anonymous at 8:44 PM on June 22, 2016


Hakeem Jeffries!
posted by phooky at 8:54 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


whoa cspan camera just panned the gallery
posted by vrakatar at 8:58 PM on June 22, 2016


The letter I sent to my representative, who is Republican, via his website:

Dear My Congress Dude,

First, I want to thank you for everything you've done with our district and wish you luck in the upcoming election.

As I write this, the Democrats are staging a protest on the House floor. They are protesting because the House Republicans have categorically refused to allow any votes on gun control for several years now. The level of gun violence in this nation demands an answer; but in the current state of affairs, our Congressmen can't even discuss it. This is unacceptable. It has been unacceptable for many years now.

It's possible to regulate guns without violating the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld several common-sense restrictions on the right to bear arms. Please, consider the topic, and urge your colleagues to at least allow a debate. Something has to be done, and if there's going to be gun regulation, it should be informed by people who know a thing or two about guns, like yourself.

Finally, after the shooting in Orlando two weeks ago, your office released a statement calling it "Islamic terrorism." I ask you to remember that the man who committed that act was American-born and -raised. He was not religiously observant; he fit in with his community; he was a normal American man, like all the hundreds of normal American men who commit these mass shootings. And in this case he was expressing normal American homophobia. I am not afraid of Islamic terrorists, Mr Congressman; they're a rare threat. But homophobic, Christian, Americans still have a loud voice in this country, and they threaten me every day.

Respectfully
ME
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]


and you can find your representative via the house.gov website
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:05 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Nota bene that i don't actually wish him luck in the upcoming election, and I have no idea what he's "done with our district", I'm just being polite
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:09 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Rep. Lynch is pointing out that this fight is to get a vote for three separate bills: no guns for those on the no-fly list; plugging loopholes for background checks; and giving the CDC the ability to study gun violence as a public health threat (they've been banned from doing so by law for years). This is not exclusively about the no-fly list.
posted by zachlipton at 9:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [27 favorites]


Video of Rep. Gomert losing his shit

POINT OF ORDER

Your statement necessarily implies that Mr. Gohmert at some point had his shit, in order to lose it. It is well established by science that Mr. Gohmert was born entirely shitless and has lived his entire life in the state of one who has already totally lost his shit.

SEE ALSO: primary and secondary afuckness, when people do not have fucks available for donation.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]


Rep Dingell talks about how some of her constituents have had problems with the no-fly list and asks Republicans "how do you protect people's civil liberties if you won't even come to the table and have a debate?"
posted by zachlipton at 9:28 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


Holy shit, Debbie Dingell. That was amazing.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 9:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


I would like more broadcasted shaming of asshole Republicans who won't do their damn jobs. Let's pick an issue every month and keep it up till November.
posted by emjaybee at 9:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Will someone with the appropriate skills please set video of Gohmert to "Yakety Sax" and play with the frame rate to augment his eye-bulging ludicrousness, and then post it on the web so that every person in the world can then retweet it until this tin-hatted assclown shrivels up and blows away?
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 9:47 PM on June 22, 2016


The Democrats are now reporting a rumor that the GOP leadership plans to return to the floor in the middle of the night to pass a Zika bill that Democrats oppose and then run the hell out of town until July 5th.
posted by zachlipton at 9:57 PM on June 22, 2016


This is so awesome.
posted by inconsequentialist at 10:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


At this point in Republican life I'm not even sure- are they for Zika or against it?

Funny how the (R)s couldnt anticipate the social media use angle. Like they forgot Arab Spring, among other things. I've continued to watch all evening via Periscope on tablet/phone. (I need to tell SlingTV to add C-Span!) For awhile just now I watched a stream from outside the building. Seeing these legislators speaking so informally to the crowd from a stepladder, in the dim light, somehow felt like we were back in time 150 years. Even as I was watching it via 2010s tech.
posted by NorthernLite at 10:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


C-SPAN just read off a letter explaining that control over cameras and video broadcast are completely under the control of the Speaker and what he deems appropriate, and that the representatives streaming are currently breaking the rules and the Sergeant-at-Arms is at liberty to decide what to do with them.
posted by Anonymous at 10:06 PM on June 22, 2016


The only lesson that the Republicans got from the Arab Spring was Benghazi, and even that one poorly.
posted by ethansr at 10:13 PM on June 22, 2016




This gave me goosebumps, listening & watching to the power of @RepDebDingell's emotion at #NoBillNoBreak (video within tweet)

That's the last of my tweet links! Just thought those two were particularly good.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 10:21 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm simultaneously moved by the spectacle--and the words of the many speakers in the sit-in who are discussing the impact of gun violence without reducing the issue to terrorism--and really fucking depressed that this mobilization is pegged to a bill that reifies the trash fire otherwise known as the terror watchlist. I'm a queer person who's been heartsick since Orlando, and also person who's had good cause to fear guns in the hands of a particular relative who really shouldn't be allowed to own them. But I also know people who've mistakenly ended up on the fucking no-fly list for no other reason than having the same (possibly mistransliterated!) name as someone (often with a different gender or nationality or birthdate!) who was flagged as suspicious for some reason by this vast unaccountable system. I don't want to build this movement we so desperately need on the backs of vulnerable people I care about, many of whom are themselves threatened by violence because of their perceived ethnicity or religion or sexuality.

I'm 100% behind sit-ins for voting on universal background checks and allowing the CDC to do its job. I'm just scared that the rush to use "No Fly No Buy" as a political wedge against the Republicans is going to legitimize the worst trends in American politics right now. There's got to be a better way.
posted by karayel at 10:27 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


A "no fly, no buy" law might have the added benefit of bringing the "No Fly" list into the realm of due process.

Which might also be why some people are opposed to it.
posted by yesster at 10:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


zombieflanders: "I'm cynical - I see this as a convenient move to swing the balance back to Deomcrat by riding the political wave of the Orlando shooting.

You want to talk about cynical moves of convenience in the wake of Orlando? Maybe talk about how the House GOP blocked expansion of LGBT rights less than 48 hours after it happened.
"

Et tu, quoque?
posted by symbioid at 10:49 PM on June 22, 2016


So the Chicago Tribune says that Tammy Duckworth snuck her smartphone in via her prosthetic leg, but that doesn't seem to fit with the pictures I've seen. Like every still photo on Twitter has at least a couple people on their phones. Anyone know the source/accuracy of this? Because it's awesome if it's true, but I don't see any explanation of how that's even necessary.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:56 PM on June 22, 2016


yesster: "A "no fly, no buy" law might have the added benefit of bringing the "No Fly" list into the realm of due process.

Which might also be why some people are opposed to it.
"

I just read on a forum that apparently the Republicans brought forth such a bill themselves (that is - allowed for due process). Not sure on the validity of that, as it's hard to parse truth from fucking political bullshit from both sides these days. And I count here like 50% of the hypocrisy in this thread from people who should know better.

I get it - it's not a "right" to you - so why should you protect it. OK, fine.

But still - expanding a pretty fucking un-American process (no fly list) for your pet cause just allows further abuse. If you oppose it, you can't just oppose its use when it suits you but use it in your favor.

I'm 100% for better enforcement of already existing laws, better background checks, and closing the loopholes. But they have to go pull in this racist and religionist direction. Meanwhile, the people most likely to BE on a checklist are a not necessarily the most likely to go around in the US randomly shooting people (*cough*WhiteDudesWithGoodChristianNames*cough*).

Both Republicans and the Democrats are playing political stunts.

Where the fuck were the Democrats when we demanded public health care which, frankly, could save a lot more lives than mass shootings kill. Where was their passion and pleas then. "Oh - we're shy 1 vote, guess we'll just compromise our "principles".

I really don't want to enable Trump. I really don't want to vote for Hillary, but I will (or would have) but this kind of bullshit is making me really rethinking the whole way Democrats are doing things, seeing their utter hypocrisy and expediency to pander to the base (This doesn't mean that they aren't sincere, please, I am 100% certain that they truly believe they have moral convictions on this issue - but the timing and tactics is 100% pandering -- if it were principled, maybe they wouldn't be throwing Due Process and Minorities under the bus).

So maybe I won't vote for Hillary, because time and again I'm seeing what I see the Democrats do. And it sucks so hard. Loyal opposition. Play the hard to play game when you don't have power. Then get it and do jack all and have your defenders on the blue QQ about not having votes. But now magically you're demanding impossible action when you have even LESS of a chance. But hey - it suits your politics well and makes for great ... non-TV, I guess, or whatever app is sponsoring this political stunt and getting their name plastered all over (no, I'm not actually proposing it seriously, just a more absurdist joke than anything) considering dickhead Paul Ryan's censorship. But you know he's spinning it just as hard as you are, and both sides get their bases riled up.

In the meantime we get shat on by the corporations, the hatemongers, the profiteers, those who would do whatever it takes to preserve profits at the price of our lives (literally, in the case of health care).

And yet again, lest you accuse me of being a huge pro-gun nut or something stupid like that. I am 100% for sensible gun control and compromise. And I am 100% for taking stands that do not violate ones principles, which is why I support 50% of the measures, but until the watchlist measures are taken off, I will not support this effort that will ultimately reinforce the privileged white Americans while further entrenching systems of power that will continue to be used to oppress those who are already oppressed by your opponents.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR DEMOCRATS THE POWER YOU GIVE IS NOT EASILY TAKEN AWAY, AND GIVES FURTHER TU QUOQUE ARGUMENTS TO YOUR ENEMIES.
posted by symbioid at 11:05 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Video of Rep. Gomert losing his shit

@igorvolsky is doing great work covering this stuff.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Both Republicans and the Democrats are playing political stunts.

What's a stunt is making this out to be just about the no-fly list, when the demand for a basic-level conversation about the subject of guns-out-of-control is about a lot more than just that.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]


The House is meeting again, about a Transportation bill?!
posted by spinifex23 at 11:34 PM on June 22, 2016


They're using the bill as an excuse to end the day and go to break.
posted by mynameisluka at 11:36 PM on June 22, 2016


The Zika bill they're voting on now (which is opposed by Democrats for providing less funding than they, and health officials, desire) has a bunch of other nonsense in there too. Among other things, they had a bipartisan deal to ban the display of the confederate flag in national cemeteries which somehow got stripped out in the conference report. It also blocks any money from going to Planned Parenthood for birth control for women at risk of Zika exposure.
posted by zachlipton at 12:00 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


You can't witness this kind of thing and be unmoved.
posted by ethansr at 12:11 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


I should be in bed, but I just can't stop watching!

I tweeted a thank you to my representative, Bill Foster, right after he spoke.
posted by SisterHavana at 12:27 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


So I just woke up and see the House adjourned until July 5 after a vote on Zika funding and the sit in is over. Is being in recess not the same as being adjourned? If so, why didn't Ryan just adjourn yesterday instead of waiting to come up with some legislation they could pass? I'm a little confused and hopefully someone here knows what's going on.
posted by noneuclidean at 3:04 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wait, I guess it's not over, but NPR is reporting that the Republicans thwarted the sit in. My questions still stand nonetheless.
posted by noneuclidean at 3:11 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


The New York Times has an article that says the same thing: the Republicans zoomed in, voted on a Zika bill, and ran away. (I would link but my phone isn't cooperating.)

But then he articles says that the Dems "resorted to spectacle," which seems like a really shabby thing to say, given how little recourse there is when the GOP owns the gavel.
posted by wenestvedt at 3:51 AM on June 23, 2016


I just emailed my representative, the always-fantastic Peter Defazio, to thank him for joining the sit-in and speaking.
posted by fraula at 5:08 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


What's a stunt is making this out to be just about the no-fly list, when the demand for a basic-level conversation about the subject of guns-out-of-control is about a lot more than just that.

When the chant is "no fly no guns," I'd say that yes, it is all about the no-fly list, even if the proposed legislation had other elements.

I'm not going to quote anyone, but there are a bunch of comments here from smart people whom I normally respect a lot giving weak-sauce justifications for the expansion of a secret and racist program. As an indicator of how frustrated people are on the completely stalled topic of gun control, I get it, but as a platform to base that conversation on this was very disappointing.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:35 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm not going to quote anyone, but there are a bunch of comments here from smart people whom I normally respect a lot giving weak-sauce justifications for the expansion of a secret and racist program.

You're missing the point. They are asking for a vote. The Republicans won't vote on it. Whether it passes or not (it won't, and some Dems will probably vote against it) is not the purpose of the sit in.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:31 AM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]


via R. Eric Thomas, on Facebook: "I love so many things about this ‪#‎NoBillNoBreak‬ sit-in, but the thing I love the most is John Lewis' facial expression. He has Resting Protest Face. He doesn't give a shit about your guns, or your parliamentary procedures, or your C-SPAN cameras. He's heard you want to put him on Periscope but he's not sure he gives a shit about that either. He's like "Did you see Selma? You remember the John Lewis character? That was me. John 'I asked for and received an apology from the Klan' Lewis." He is the human personification of the expression "You tried it." He most definitely doesn't give a shit about Paul Ryan. When asked for comment about how Paul Ryan compared to political foes he's encountered in the past, Lewis thought for a second and replied "He doesn't have the range." John "Freedom Rider" Lewis has an honorary doctorate in sitting. Don't come for him unless he sends for you."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:35 AM on June 23, 2016 [52 favorites]


Whether it passes or not (it won't, and some Dems will probably vote against it) is not the purpose of the sit in.

Yes. This is absolutely a tactical move and this particular legislation a tactical choice. If we can have reason to hope, then this is just the beginning. Now, it becomes about party discipline and downticket races, and there is reason to be concerned, as we saw the former fall apart during ACA and the latter has been a challenge for ages and I'm not sure this election is different. But downticket races matter so much right now. For anyone who cares about this issue (or any other really) and is in a district with a Congressional seat coming up for election, probably the most helpful thing you could do this election season is get involved and work to defeat GOP candidates. (My state is solid blue in Congress, but I'm looking for races in other states to contribute to).
posted by Miko at 6:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


He is the human personification of the expression "You tried it."

If this isn't Lewis' epitaph, it will only be because the sonofabitch is too ornery to die.
posted by Etrigan at 6:43 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Resorting to spectacle is an age old tradition. The Woolworth's lunch counter sit-ins could be described as "resorting to spectacle". The die-ins at the White House and the FDA in the 80s and early 90s were "resorting to spectacle". Sometimes, you resort to what you have.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]


What did we call it when the Republicans literally shut down federal government across the country for 16 days because they wanted to overturn 'Obamacare'? Was that "resorting to spectacle," or do we get to call it something bigger, like "putting people out of work because you can't concede that you lost this time"?
posted by filthy light thief at 7:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]


R. Eric Thomas, on Facebook: ". . . the thing I love the most is John Lewis' facial expression. He has Resting Protest Face."

I don't know R. Eric Thomas from R. Daneel Olivaw, but this is good.
 
posted by Herodios at 7:30 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Personally, I think it's stupid and shitty of them to hitch their wagon to the no fly list. Period. Also, I get that they knew they weren't going to get anywhere with this actual bill. I'm sure someone criticized the folks at the lunch counter because the end goal wasn't to get to eat at Woolworth's, but they did the sit in and it worked.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:30 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Dumb question: does the House now being put on recess until July 5 increase the chance of a recess Supreme Court appointment? The Senate is scheduled to recess July 1-5.
posted by jetsetsc at 7:38 AM on June 23, 2016


There will not be a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, or any other position -- certainly not during the Obama administration, and possibly ever again under the current U.S. Constitution (Unless a future Supreme Court overturns the 2014 decision restricting them).
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:40 AM on June 23, 2016


Dumb question: does the House now being put on recess until July 5 increase the chance of a recess Supreme Court appointment? The Senate is scheduled to recess July 1-5.

House has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. Republicans in the Senate plan to leave one person behind to avoid being technically in recess.
posted by Etrigan at 7:41 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


From NYT:
At one point, Democrats began singing “We Shall Overcome” — altering the lyrics to say “We shall pass a bill some day” — as Republicans shouted in outrage.
That's hilarious, in a "should I laugh or cry" sort of way.
posted by Melismata at 7:45 AM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]


You have to start somewhere. A lot of pacificists did not necessarily think Executive Order 9981 was the best action to start the modern Civil Rights movement, but it laid groundwork for claims of equality elsewhere in society. I give credit to those who understood the particular valence of "no fly" as a disruptive issue that challenges GOP rhetoric by contrasting it so clearly with their actions. I understand and respect disagreeing with me and finding the issue concerning, but I also understand the rationale and accept it.
posted by Miko at 8:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [23 favorites]


For the record, they're still going even though it's an even more futile gesture at this point.
posted by zachlipton at 9:33 AM on June 23, 2016


Doesn't matter to you, maybe. It matters to me. I'm growing so weary of people asserting that their take on this is the correct one. I can acknowledge the problematic aspect of this and still be proud of them for trying to make the Republicans do their freaking jobs.
posted by agregoli at 10:08 AM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]


The sit-in has ended.
posted by zachlipton at 10:10 AM on June 23, 2016


If only the fundraising emails would.
posted by Etrigan at 10:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]



When the chant is "no fly no guns," I'd say that yes, it is all about the no-fly list, even if the proposed legislation had other elements.

I'm not going to quote anyone, but there are a bunch of comments here from smart people whom I normally respect a lot giving weak-sauce justifications for the expansion of a secret and racist program. As an indicator of how frustrated people are on the completely stalled topic of gun control, I get it, but as a platform to base that conversation on this was very disappointing.


Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of "you don't get it, we're calling THEM out on their racist program by saying we want to expand it". it's like, ironic racist legislating or something.
posted by zutalors! at 10:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


Democrats end House sit-in over gun control (Reuters, Jun 23, 2016 1:54pm EDT)
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday ended a daylong sit-in at the chamber to protest the lack of action on gun control measures, Representative Steny Hoyer said.

Democratic members had taken over the House on Wednesday, sitting on the floor while chanting and singing, and stayed all night to push for gun control legislation after the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, even though Republicans adjourned the House and went home for a holiday break.

Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, told Reuters lawmakers would now go back to their home districts to try to build support for legislation.

Dramatic tactics by legislators are rare in the U.S. Capitol and the protest underscored how sensitive the gun control issue has become after the June 12 massacre in which a U.S.-born gunman pledging allegiance to Islamic State killed 49 people.
One question: if the Republicans had "the House and went home for a holiday break," why did Paul Ryan try to reconvene the House for another vote last night? Oh, because they weren't really on holiday break? Right.

And a comment: the gun control issue hasn't become "sensitive" after 49 people were killed in one event, that was the tipping point after a long, looong history of gun violence with some notable peaks that lead to no changes in anything related to increased scrutiny of who gets which guns.

Way to downplay the event, Reuters, while you title a financial story "Behind Tesla carnage, signs of support for Musk's SolarCity deal" (the "carnage" is apparently "the market's broad reaction [to Musk's plan to buy solar power company SolarCity Corp], sending Tesla's shares down more than 10 percent, and taking more than $3 billion off its market value, which now stands around $28.7 billion").
posted by filthy light thief at 11:17 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]




Paul Ryan as quoted in the NYT:

“One of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions,” Mr. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, said at a news conference, as Democrats continued to lay siege to the House chamber. “No matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a functioning democracy. We can disagree on policy but we do so within the bounds of order and respect for the system, otherwise it all falls apart.”

Except of course when we decide to dismantle that structure, lay siege on those institutions and insert chaos into the democratic process with shit like government shut-downs, stonewalling Supreme Court nominees, gerrymandering, and blocking press access to stuff that makes us unhappy. Ya know, trivial stuff when compared to a sit-in.
posted by space_cookie at 12:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]


So suddenly the majority of progressives are now in favor of the no-fly list?

I, personally, know two people on the no-fly list. One is a musician who teaches music at a day-care center and plays every weekend for senior citizens in a retirement home. He is such an extreme pacifist he would rather be killed that hit anyone in self defense. Our best guess is that he was put on the list after being arrested at a non-violent Occupy Wall Street demonstration, and he has a Hispanic sounding name, but we're not really sure. The other is the 2 year old daughter of a 7th generation American catholic church-going flag waver. I cannot link to proof of this, because the no-fly list is not public. In theory, I don't know if these people are being truthful with me about their no-fly status. But the musician, who makes very little money, had to take Amtrak across the country when he played in a festival, even though a plane ticket would have been a third of the price. And the 2 year old is the daughter of a co-worker, and I was at the airport with his family to leave for a company trip when he found out she couldn't fly, and his whole family stayed behind.

I am not a fan of the no-fly list, or any restrictions of rights for people who have not been convicted of any crime, and I believe we need to work to reduce or eliminate it, rather than expand it.

I share the sentiment that it sure feels good to see the Democrats standing up for...anything at this point. But why now and why this? Why not a sit-in for...

A Federal minimum living wage?
Free abortion on demand?
Ending a very expensive and fruitless foreign war?
Election reform to restore democracy?
Ending private prisons?
Ending warrantless surveillance and/or detention of American citizens?
Ending the drug war and expanding access to free, anonymous addiction recovery resources?
Preventing legal discrimination against LGBTQ people?
Oversight to reduce police corruption?
Guaranteed paid medical and maternity/paternity leave?
Reforming Wall-Street/Glass-Steagall?
Addressing the debt crisis?
Etc, etc, etc...

Sadly, this sit-in feels like an opportunistic stunt, capitalizing one the terrible tragedy in Orlando, in an effort to regain some of the credibility that the Dems increasingly lack. :/
posted by ethical_caligula at 3:10 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


I share the sentiment that it sure feels good to see the Democrats standing up for...anything at this point. But why now and why this? Why not a sit-in for...

A Federal minimum living wage?
Free abortion on demand?
Ending a very expensive and fruitless foreign war?
Election reform to restore democracy?
Ending private prisons?
Ending warrantless surveillance and/or detention of American citizens?
Ending the drug war and expanding access to free, anonymous addiction recovery resources?
Preventing legal discrimination against LGBTQ people?
Oversight to reduce police corruption?
Guaranteed paid medical and maternity/paternity leave?
Reforming Wall-Street/Glass-Steagall?
Addressing the debt crisis?
Etc, etc, etc...


So...you're going to throw shade on the fact that they've picked one thing right now, simply because they didn't pick another thing at another time?...

I don't know why they didn't pick any of those other things and any of those other times, but the fact that they didn't doesn't, like, render the action that they ARE taking totally useless. That argument is like saying that "oh, it would have made much more sense to found New York City in a place 100 miles to the west, let's tear it down and start over."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos: your reply to ethical_caligula kinda reads like you didn't read any of the text prior to what you quoted, nor the other similar objections. It reads like you are unconcerned with the specific implications of the specific text of this symbolic gesture -- which by-and-large is positive but includes a disturbing poison pill for any persons who may come to be accused by our government.

How do we ascertain which bills are symbolic or which are intended to be law? Should we only object to bad bills which might pass, or bad bills in general?

If we are choosing symbolic bills, why shouldn't we choose ones which symbolize our real values? (Given, my presumption here is that no one here is per se in favor of the no-fly list, just that in this context, in this action it becomes unimportant to many of the commenters in this thread -- perhaps the real value is that mere accusation by law enforcement should be enough to near-permanently strip a persons rights, that would explain a lot of what I've seen here I suppose).
posted by Matt Oneiros at 5:48 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think the no-fly list is unimportant. I just think this is a potentially great opportunity to both (1) make a point about gun control and (2) force the security-mad hawks to try and make the same points about the awfulness of the no-fly list that people on the other side have been making for years.

This is not a bill that was going to pass. It was never going to pass. But now, I would bet, we're going to see the NRA & co sending out mass mailings about how the no-fly list is a threat to American freedom. Meanwhile, those committed to flogging the no-fly list as a vital public safety measure are going to have to start supporting gun control measures too, or else risk looking like hypocrites.

It's a chance to hoist the bastards with their own petards, in other words. And yeah, it's political and it's calculated, and it's ideologically filthy-- but I think it's a tactic that might just succeed in mitigating both the evil of underregulated firearms and the evil of the no-fly list.

At least, I hope it can. I'll admit to being a person who desperately wants to see some professional here. I lost a person I liked to a spree killer for the first time when I was about nineteen. In the years since, three others have followed. Friends of mine have lost many, many more.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 7:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


It sends a TERRIBLE message to make expanding the no fly list the core of this protest. Seriously. We can't put civil liberties aside because of fear. We just can't. I've seen it too much in this thread and it's so disheartening. Yet again it feels like white liberals just discounting what happens to minorities in situations like this.
posted by zutalors! at 7:40 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]



I am 100% okay with telling people on the no-fly list they cannot have a gun, if that's what it takes to save lives. I don't care if they are a terrorist or the government just thinks they are. Sorry, but as a queer person who cannot even go to a Pride event this weekend out of fear, that's where I am.



I mean if you are not South Asian you probably have no idea how flimsy the idea of "might be a terrorist" is in this country. It just means "possibly South Asian." This attitude just underlines that that's cool with some people.
posted by zutalors! at 8:05 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]


I mean if you are not South Asian you probably have no idea how flimsy the idea of "might be a terrorist" is in this country. It just means "possibly South Asian." This attitude just underlines that that's cool with some people.

This is actually why I was surprised that they didn't pass some version of the no fly/no gun bill when it first came up, because everyone knows that there are about three white guys on the list and ten or twenty thousand foreigners and immigrants. I figured it was a transparently racist dog whistle combined with transparently fake gun control, but even that wasn't enough to get the bill passed.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yet again it feels like white liberals

Dismissing calls for rational gun control feels yet again like homophobic America discounting the deaths of gay people, whose families will never see them again.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:03 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Representative Lewis is no stranger to No Fly List-related problems.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 10:13 PM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think it's certainly possible to have reasonable concerns about opaque government watchlists without being homophobic. Still, universal background checks and allowing the CDC to do research on gun violence are very minimal highly popular steps that would make at least some difference, although far from enough.

And had the Republicans not split town, there was an actual opportunity for bipartisan cooperation that could have helped add some semblance of due process for people who could neither fly nor buy a gun, which would be a damn sight better than the current situation where someone has to spend seven years fighting in court to get off the no fly list, and prior to that case the government's position was that the list was not subject to any kind of judicial review.
posted by zachlipton at 10:59 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Dismissing calls for rational gun control feels yet again like homophobic America discounting the deaths of gay people, whose families will never see them again.

Well, that's astonishingly intellectually dishonest. We have concrete examples in this threads of people putting "civil liberties aside because of fear," in zutalors' words. The civil liberties of brown people, specifically. The no-fly list is an actively racist policy and using it as a basis for gun control is not in fact "rational." As a queer person, I find it insulting that you'd suggest that it's homophobic not to accept any and every gun control proposal, no matter how racist and counterproductive, in the name of the victims in Orlando.
posted by zeusianfog at 12:35 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]


I share the sentiment that it sure feels good to see the Democrats standing up for...anything at this point. But why now and why this? Why not a sit-in for...

A Federal minimum living wage?
Free abortion on demand?
Ending a very expensive and fruitless foreign war?
Election reform to restore democracy?
Ending private prisons?
[...]

WE CANT HAVE ANYTHING BECAUSE WE CANT GET EVERYTHING
posted by JHarris at 5:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


Wishing that our representatives would take a stand on a progressive policy that isn't racist and rights-stripping is hardly your hyperbolic and dismissive "WE CANT HAVE ANYTHING BECAUSE WE CANT GET EVERYTHING." It makes me sad to even feel the need to point this out.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 8:10 AM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's pretty obvious people just disagree on this.
posted by agregoli at 8:31 AM on June 24, 2016


You're right agregoli, there's probably no forward progress to be made here. I should cut my losses and move on.

I only argue the point because I look at the people in this thread, people I've supported and long looked to on this site to improve my understanding and refine my compassion, are advocating something which seems unconscionable to me -- and it's something which seems extraordinarily out of character for so many of them. I respect some of you here tremendously for your stands and perspectives on human rights elsewhere and when I see this, I feel as if the disjunction which is apparent to me must be highlighted. That there's a point worth arguing, that they might see where I'm coming from. It seems as if these otherwise reasonable people are making rash and dangerous decisions in their policy advocacy -- decisions they wouldn't ordinarily make, policy they wouldn't ordinarily support -- it's disturbing.

At this point, I've contacted my representatives and made my case, I've made my appeal to this community. While the dismissive and vexatious tone taken towards those of us who would rather see the our representatives take a stand free of pernicious and dangerously discriminatory policy proposals, whether earnest or merely for effect, will not stop bothering me -- I will be moving on.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 9:08 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Matt: For the record, I do not actually support the no-fly list. However, I'd like to explain the reason why I've been supporting this action of the Democrats.

My hope is that movement on this issue will force the government to actually discuss the no-fly list itself, as a way of compromising on the gun bill ("Hell no, we don't want to use the no-fly list as a gun control tool because it could prevent people from getting guns!" "Okay, so how about we take another look at the no-fly list first, to clear up problems with people who were unjustifiably put on that list - how about that? Or....maybe we do away with the list altogether and find some other way?")

Hell, maybe the GOP would be stubborn enough to say "you wanna tie this to the no-fly list? Fine, we're gonna kill the no-fly list. Now what are you Dems gonna do?"

In other words, I am hoping that this would be a chance to correct BOTH of those problems in one fell swoop, and that is why I'm supporting the Democrats on this. I'm definitely aware the no-fly list is problematic, but it is being seriously discussed now, and that is a good opportunity to fix the problems with the list itself at the same time.

I do realize this is a bit of a trusting and Pollyanna perspective, but the only alternative I see to having a trusting perspective is to let myself believe that it's no use, and I refuse to believe that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:31 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]


My general support is predicated on the understanding that there's no way in hell the thing is going to pass as is. It's going to become a focus, and it's going to heat up attention on both institutionalized racism/xenophobia and gun control and make the GOP very uncomfortable on both counts. That is why it's a smart choice.
posted by Miko at 10:09 AM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm facing some difficult decisions, ones where I will have to put other!s needs ahead of my own, probably to my detriment. I'm okay with this, but it's difficult. Maybe it's a stunt, and maybe it's hopeless, but seeing John Lewis sitting there has been a big help the last few days.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:39 AM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


Has any Democrat who participated in the sit-in indicated that they find the no-fly-no-buy bill problematic? I would have a much easier time accepting this as a bait and switch if even a few of them were discussing it.
posted by kyp at 11:19 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think they see it at all as a bait and switch so you'll likely be out of luck there.
posted by agregoli at 11:28 AM on June 24, 2016


Has any Democrat who participated in the sit-in indicated that they find the no-fly-no-buy bill problematic? I would have a much easier time accepting this as a bait and switch if even a few of them were discussing it.

A number of members discussed concerns about due process during the sit-in (and see the link upthread where John Lewis had his own trouble being on a TSA watchlist post 9/11). There appeared to be a general willingness to discuss at least a judicial review procedure, which would be a damn sight better than what we have now for the no-fly list. Republicans would come by and yell about "due process!" and Democrats said "come talk with us about due process" and Republicans walked away.
posted by zachlipton at 11:34 AM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm not aware of any such comments, kyp, but knowing what we know about the views of Democrats re: their voting records on gun control and the "war on terror" in the past, it stands to reason that the ones that showed up for the sit-in were a mixed bag of (a) reps who would have voted for at least one of the background check and/or CDC measures but opposed the "no fly, no buy" measure, (b) reps who would have voted for at least one of the background check and/or CDC measures and also supported the "no fly, no buy" measure, and (c) reps who would have only voted for the "no fly, no buy" measure.

Obviously, the redder the district, the more things would skew toward (b) and (c) on that continuum, and given that Democrats are a minority as it is with no friends across the aisle to help them no the gun issue, it seems likely to me that they felt they needed the support of the (b) and (c) blocs to make a credible opening bid to get the GOP to finally take gun control seriously after refusing to do so after so many other mass shooting events and tens of thousands of "normal" gun deaths.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:53 AM on June 24, 2016


And to be clear, I think it's valid not to trust them, to believe that, in the unlikely event Congress passes anything, it will be discriminatory and bad. There are a large number Democratic representatives who have zero concerns about "no fly, no buy" and other security state matters and would pass it in a heartbeat.

But to some extent, from my darn-the-second-amendment non-gun-owning perspective, I feel the standard to deny someone a gun should be a fair bit lower than the standard to deny someone from ever getting on an airplane. And to a decent extent, it already is: there are millions of people who, rightly or wrongly, can't buy a gun because of non-violent convictions, restraining orders, etc... They had at least some minimal access to our craptastic judicial system, which is better than most people on the no-fly list, but that is a solvable problem.

But this was, briefly, a potential bipartisan opportunity to do something about both guns and the no-fly list at the same time.
posted by zachlipton at 12:06 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


tonycpsu, that strategy also implies that a "no fly, no buy" measure could actually pass though. Even with improvements to the review process, as an immigrant, I'm very uncomfortable with the secret no fly list, and am highly skeptical that it should exist at all in parallel to the regular criminal justice system.
posted by kyp at 12:10 PM on June 24, 2016


tonycpsu, that strategy also implies that a "no fly, no buy" measure could actually pass though.

No, I think it just implies that the prospect of the measure could get the conversation started. It often takes more to get people to overcome their biases and get into the room than it does to get to an actual deal.

as an immigrant, I'm very uncomfortable with the secret no fly list, and am highly skeptical that it should exist at all in parallel to the regular criminal justice system.

We agree on this. We seem to disagree about whether it's ever okay to use that already-existing list as a bargaining chip to try to make progress on another issue.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:21 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


We agree on this. We seem to disagree about whether it's ever okay to use that already-existing list as a bargaining chip to try to make progress on another issue.

Yes, I just wanted to share my personal perspective to help people understand my position.

The very big problem I have with it as a bargaining chip is that it helps to legitimize and normalize the idea that it is OK to have separate government lists that take away the rights of certain people. Already I see many people, even leftists, accepting #NoFlyNoBuy as something to champion.

I want the Dems to come out unequivocally against the no fly list, period.
posted by kyp at 12:32 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wishing that our representatives would take a stand on a progressive policy that isn't racist and rights-stripping is hardly your hyperbolic and dismissive "WE CANT HAVE ANYTHING BECAUSE WE CANT GET EVERYTHING." It makes me sad to even feel the need to point this out.

The way you put it, Matt Oneiros, appeared to me to be fairly hyperbolic (there were, what, ten things in your list?) and dismissive (in the sense that it seemed you were pooh-poohing this fairly extraordinary act) in itself. It is nice, sometimes, to appreciate something we have, instead of ruing its negative. This kind of tactic can't be pulled out every day, after all.
posted by JHarris at 12:37 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]




« Older case/lang/veirs   |   Psychology of Fighting: Before, During, and After Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments