• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Filibuster

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? DC

The senate is under siege right by Senator Christopher Murphy who has pledged to filibuster UNTIL gun control is on the table and passed to prevent more massacres. Watch it live.

And no, this is NOT a republican v. democrat issue IMHO. This is a response to Orlando.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/06/15/watch-senator-chris-murphys-senate-filibuster/
 


Silverplum

Senior Member
Deleted--it IS a political discussion and I signed up for no politics here.

My apologies.
 
Last edited:

RRevak

Senior Member
I personally know people who lost loved ones in this latest massacre. A gun is not a "civil right". Its not healthcare for the sick, its not food on the table, its not basic human rights. Its. A. Gun. Anyone who supports resistance to any changes either refuses to care or is too blind to care. Either way, its time for the rest of the population to say enough is enough. We will no longer stand for this, we will no longer support those who push for lack of change, we will no longer back away to a "moment of silence" each and every time this happens. Because if we don't do SOMETHING then this WILL keep happening...over and over and over again. RIP to those who lost their lives.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
A Democrat filibuster to deny civil rights to law abiding citizens? What is this 1964?
How is this a civil right? They are asking to close gun show/craigslist loopholes as well as debate the idea of those on the FBI terrorist watchlist/no-fly list be restricted.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I personally know people who lost loved ones in this latest massacre. A gun is not a "civil right".
Um...yes it is. It is right there in the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe me, read District of Columbia v. Heller.

It. Is. A. Civil. Right.

I don't think anti-freedom hate should be able to be written here. Do you like the 1st amendment? Are the rights guaranteed there civil rights?

Its not healthcare for the sick, its not food on the table, its not basic human rights
Ignorance. Pure ignorance. Simplistic emotional thought that does not belong here. Your theoretical nonsense has no basis in law. Morally? It depends. It depends. I can discuss it further if you reply. But, the social contract of how we can live together seems far different from what you theorize. If you actually have some plan of the usually claimed "common sense" restrictions, state them. Unless they are different from what has already been repeatedly proposed, I will refute. (I will probably refute even if "new". The only thing theoretically effective is total confiscation. Total denial of civil rights. Civil war? Sure. But, "Think of the children!)

Its. A. Gun.
No. It is the right to be free and protect yourself. It is the right to deal with the issue of if seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Even that is if the police decide they want to protect you. The case law is clear of the penalty if they decide, for whatever reason, they don't want to protect you. (Maybe not "any" reason. Like all discrimination, if the decision is made for a prohibited reason, there could be a problem.) It is the right to deal with a potentate that demands all with no reason. (aka, "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them".) I could go on. A "gun" is not simply a thing. It represents things. Many, many things. Things that do not deserve many "." to promulgate one's personal theories.

I suspect Anyone who supports resistance to any changes either refuses to care or is too blind to care.
Yes, I agree. One change might be to allow the militia of the able bodied of the law-abiding populace to be trained and able to carry as it seems the founding fathers believed. That is not the "changes" you want. But, how many would have died at the pulse if all were armed and trained? Let us play a theory experiment. Which would have had less people killed and wounded by the radical Islamic terrorist. All those at The Pulse were armed and trained, or there were common sense gun control measures in effect?

We will not talk of the failure of the Administration to deal with the problem appropriately or if they furthered the problem.
Of course not. That would be wrong. Because, perhaps then, we can actually have a conversation on how to deal with the issue.
Either way, its time for the rest of the population to say enough is enough. We will no longer stand for this, we will no longer support those who push for lack of change, we will no longer back away to a "moment of silence" each and every time this happens. Because if we don't do SOMETHING then this WILL keep happening...over and over and over again. RIP to those who lost their lives.
Agreed. Let us try the solution the founding fathers envisioned.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
And I'm not American anyway, so (apparently) I shouldn't have an opinion.

(seriously - if I had a dollar for every time ... )
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Um...yes it is. It is right there in the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe me, read District of Columbia v. Heller.

It. Is. A. Civil. Right.

I don't think anti-freedom hate should be able to be written here. Do you like the 1st amendment? Are the rights guaranteed there civil rights?

Ignorance. Pure ignorance. Simplistic emotional thought that does not belong here. Your theoretical nonsense has no basis in law. Morally? It depends. It depends. I can discuss it further if you reply. But, the social contract of how we can live together seems far different from what you theorize. If you actually have some plan of the usually claimed "common sense" restrictions, state them. Unless they are different from what has already been repeatedly proposed, I will refute. (I will probably refute even if "new". The only thing theoretically effective is total confiscation. Total denial of civil rights. Civil war? Sure. But, "Think of the children!)

No. It is the right to be free and protect yourself. It is the right to deal with the issue of if seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Even that is if the police decide they want to protect you. The case law is clear of the penalty if they decide, for whatever reason, they don't want to protect you. (Maybe not "any" reason. Like all discrimination, if the decision is made for a prohibited reason, there could be a problem.) It is the right to deal with a potentate that demands all with no reason. (aka, "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them".) I could go on. A "gun" is not simply a thing. It represents things. Many, many things. Things that do not deserve many "." to promulgate one's personal theories.

Yes, I agree. One change might be to allow the militia of the able bodied of the law-abiding populace to be trained and able to carry as it seems the founding fathers believed. That is not the "changes" you want. But, how many would have died at the pulse if all were armed and trained? Let us play a theory experiment. Which would have had less people killed and wounded by the radical Islamic terrorist. All those at The Pulse were armed and trained, or there were common sense gun control measures in effect?

Of course not. That would be wrong. Because, perhaps then, we can actually have a conversation on how to deal with the issue.
Agreed. Let us try the solution the founding fathers envisioned.

Really wasn't trying to start a political discussion. Just to let everyone know a FILIBUSTER was happening. For the first time in forever.... Which reminds me (if you know Disney's Frozen)..
Do you wanna build a snowman?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I find it ironic that there are proposals for even MORE restrictive gun laws even before we are clear as to how the Orlando shooter obtained them.

As far as I can tell he was not a criminal, he had not been committed to e mental health institution, had not been subject to a restraining order, and was not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. As such, the only way to prevent HIM from possessing a firearm would have been to prevent EVERYONE to possess a firearm.

Now, the SKS or AK or AR he was carrying, that MAY have been unlawful ... don't know - I keep hearing conflicting info on that and I will wait to see whether it was a prohibited firearm or not, and how he obtained it (legally or not).

It is predictable that most political responses to barbaric and murderous acts is to try and restrict firearms further in ways that would not have prevented the most recent murders anyway. I strongly suspect that any legislation proposed in coming months will - in the end - have NOT prevented this massacre.

As for a filibuster, go for it! The less that the Congress does, the more I like it! When they DO anything, it tends to erode my rights further and cost me more in taxes, so they can keep this up for the next four years for all I care.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top