Skip to main content

View Diary: Harry Reid, putting that filibuster to use against gun control (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But why should he even let it come to an vote, (5+ / 0-)

    when it would fail to pass in the Senate, and even as you said, probably won't even get an vote in the House, but if it did it'd be defeated.

    All that would accomplish is to put a few of our Senators in an very difficult position - for no reason.

    We should go for things that probably/hopefully won't cause us problems in '14, yet have much more of an effect on gun violence than an AWB. Such as making it mandatory that the NICS is kept up to date by the states, both judicially & mentally; as well as closing the "gun show loop hole" by making all sales/transfers of guns (other than within family) go thru the NICS.

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      about this causing problems. See Tom Seaview's debunked mythology above. Although, even if it did, I would prioritize saving lives over political careerism.

      “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

      by tytalus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:20:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, because the AWB... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deedogg, FrankRose, noway2

        ...would save no lives, while Republican governance is a proven killer.

        Nice try.

        Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

        by Tom Seaview on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:23:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No lives. interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          Thanks for reminding me how to accurately value the quality of your opinion.  :)

          “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

          by tytalus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:27:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agree or disagree if you want. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, deedogg, annecros

        I for one hope we don't find out in the next election cycle.

        But why would you disagree that trying to pass an bill or two that could actually pass, that would have a very large affect on gun control/violence - i.e. mandatory & improved reporting of NICS and making NICS checks mandatory for all sales? Instead, you want to try to pass an basically useless, non-passable, piece of legislation that will only hurt some of our Reps & Sen's....makes no sense to me at all

        •  Nope, sorry (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          You're disagreeing with a strawman, sir, as would be obvious to you had you read the diary carefully. In particular (should you even read this excerpt) note the word "thankfully" and consider its meaning. This is not an either-or argument. Mine is all of the above. I will take all over some, some over nothing, it's progress.

          Thankfully Obama is still pushing the other gun control measures that he's proposed, and at least he won't let the entire enterprise die on the AWB. The more popular ideas may survive and become law -- even if the assault weapons ban does enjoy majority support. This is Congress, where majorities don't matter.

          “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

          by tytalus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:40:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  typical "strawman" excuse - carry on... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deedogg, FrankRose, theatre goon

            You said in your diary, and I replied to it: But the news I'm reading is that Harry Reid is working behind the scenes to terminate the proposed new AWB via a 60-vote requirement to get it into a final piece of legislation.

            That is "strawman" how? Please explain, sir

            •  If you don't like the label (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino

              then you can demonstrate where in the diary you got this argument, because your semi-quotation does not show it.

              But why would you disagree that trying to pass an bill or two that could actually pass, that would have a very large affect on gun control/violence - i.e. mandatory & improved reporting of NICS and making NICS checks mandatory for all sales? Instead, you want to try to pass an basically useless, non-passable, piece of legislation that will only hurt some of our Reps & Sen's....makes no sense to me at all
              Now, I have clearly stated, repeatedly, that I seek progress, and that I will take something over nothing, not "an basically useless, non-passable, piece of legislation". Until you can show this I have no problem dismissing your argument as a strawman. It's a textbook example of taking some modified, weaker version of my argument to bash down.

              “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

              by tytalus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 06:12:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not that I "don't like" the strawman label, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                it's due to the fact it's not true.

                Did you, or did you not say that Senator Reid either wanted an watered down filibuster reform, or was going to use the filibuster to "defeat" this new AWB? That is what I originally commented on, yet now you're crying "strawman".

                If you can't refute my first comment in an logical manner, then don't, but please refrain from the old "strawman" excuse.

                •  Ah, now the goalpost moving (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino

                  on schedule  :)

                  Your argument was about "an basically useless, non-passable, piece of legislation" vs. "an bill or two that could actually pass, that would have a very large affect on gun control/violence". Alas, your above comment is eternal, relatively speaking, and so your complaint now about filibustering is baseless.

                  So I've given this three tries, and that's enough time wasted on you, sir. Go ahead and take the last word as gun enthusiasts seem to enjoy. My arguments can stand on their own merit.

                  “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

                  by tytalus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 07:03:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm moving no goalposts - be as (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    oldpunk, FrankRose, theatre goon

                    disingenuous as you want - I find it funny that you can't actually discuss or debate the part of your diary that I've been commenting on and referring to - if you can't back it up or at least discuss it, then you shouldn't have posted it.

                    I can't make it any more clearer to you, but did you not say this at the beginning of your diary: "But the news I'm reading is that Harry Reid is working behind the scenes to terminate the proposed new AWB via a 60-vote requirement to get it into a final piece of legislation. And linguistic contrivance aside, that looks like a filibuster to me, intended to subvert the majority of the American people."?

                    You did, and I replied to that. Yet you can't, or won't discuss it and have to resort to crying "strawman" or "goalpost moving"....You can't actually refute or discuss what I commented on?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site