McConnell vows 'scorched earth' if Senate ends filibuster

And leaving it in its current, deformed form, already has led to legislative paralysis-- except when it came to McConnell's filling the judiciary with conservative judges-- which can be just as bad as extremism, when action is urgently required.

Don't worry, Dems don't have the votes to, "get... rid of the filibuster." Nor is President Biden in favor of that. The move, when it finally happens, will merely be to require anyone wishing to block a vote, to stand on the Senate floor, speaking (not even about anything relevant-- you could read Green Eggs & Ham, as did Ted Cruze). This is the how the filibuster existed for most of its history, and yet the U.S. did not succumb to Socialism, so I imagine you should be calmed by that, & have no cause to object.

Being against this reversion of the filibuster to its traditional form, is simply being in favor of aiding those who wish to prevent other Senators (who represent the majority of the country's citizens) from being able to vote on a measure that their constituents may be calling for, to be able to do so in a less-visible, more inconspicuous way. How is obscurity good for democracy?

 

The problem is that there are 100 definitions of what "common sense" is, and most interpret common sense as what they want, and if that is to take away everybody's guns then so be it.

 

Biden can say or pledge whatever he thinks people like to hear, but he is not interested in bipartisanship in any way shape or form.

 

Without results, Republicans will just call the Democratic case a load of false promises, in order to secure for themselves more power (just as I've seen numerous PF posters say about Democrats' promises to blacks). The bottom line is, the longer they wait, the less time will be left, of which to make use. And most legislative acts don't translate into instant results, much less an immediate favorable assessment of those results, by the voters.

Sure, they can try to get some honest, cooperative compromise from Republicans, in case this threatened change to the filibuster causes any to adjust their calculus. It would give sincere Republicans who want to accomplish something in Congress, the chance affect (if not totally rewrite) legislation on its course to becoming law, with or without their input (this is also an opportunity for those Republicans to legitimately claim some credit). But, to all appearances, the Republican way of playing, "chicken," nearly to a one, is to assume the other guy is gonna blink. So now, with the Dems having so telegraphed their intentions, if Republicans don't begin tacking a new course right away, I don't know why they would be any more inclined to, with the midterms that much nearer.

 

That's not the terminology used in the polls, just a way for both pols & talking heads to shorten their explanations. These, "common sense," measures always include trying to expand backround checks to cover all sales, without any loopholes. I believe there is talk, also of re-establishing the ban on semi-automatic, so-called, "assault rifles," which existed from 1994 - 2004, & which a solid majority see as a common sense step. I think there had been 10 Senate Republicans who'd voted for that ban, at the time (as well as being supported by Reagan).

Personally, if some just love the experience of shooting this weapon on a range, I would have no problem (nor would I think most) if a special license were available just to the proprietors of shooting ranges, provided they could demonstrate they had adequate measures in place to keep them secure. It is the absolutists, on both sides of this issue, who have prevented broadly agreeable, sane gun regulation for our nation, as a whole.

 

This is an example of the difficulty I suggested. I and millions like me do not think either of your examples is common sensed. If the man on the street is asked if he thinks universal background checks make sense over 90% will answer yes. Then ask the same guy if a father needs to pay for and get a background check before he gives his son a gun 90% will answer no -- but this question is seldom asked. Ask the man if assault weapons should be banned maybe 70-75% might say yes (SWAG on my part, and many are more familiar with the assault weapon ban). Then ask the same man if any gun that Sen. Feinstein thinks is ugly and looks vicious should be banned maybe 90% will say no -- but this is never how the question is asked even though that is how the assault weapon ban was basically implemented.

I say again "common sense" is in the eyes of the beholder. Secondly, the common person has very little to no knowledge on which so-called common sense ideas might actually work. Many think mental assessment is a good criteria and will so agree, but without the slightest clue as to how it should be done and whether it is at all effective. Ask a person if everyone who wants to buy a gun should have weekly sessions with a psychiatrist for two years is a good idea 99% will say no.

 

Biden campaigned on Unity. There is no Unity in doing only everything one thinks is right. The Democrats have failed to compromise since Obama took office on 2009.

And you can thank Harry Reid for the nuclear option!

For the record, elected officials are elected by a majority of votes, but they are there to serve all of their constituents. If more people would understand this, we would all be better off.

 

I am very doubtful that your description is accurate (which I hope you can understand, given your claim). Any supporting evidence for that interpretation?

Once again, your, "example," of the different definitions of, "common sense," gun regulation seems like a fabrication. First off, CLEARLY, anyone who believed that ALL gun owners required two years of weekly psychiatrist sessions would not remotely qualify as an average citizen, holding anything like a normal opinion. It is my understanding, from what I have heard from those advocating for judges to be able to have guns removed from certain people with psychiatric problems, that these apply only to cases, logically, in which the condition makes the person a danger to themself or others-- not for being, say, a germophobe, or having a fear of heights. I submit that this description would fit most people's idea of common sense-- restricting guns from schizophrenics with paranoid delusions, not from people with body dysmorphia-- and, in order to secure this action from the court, depriving the person of a constitutional right, would require not just a psychiatrist's diagnosis, but a court certification of that diagnosis as accurate. This means a hearing, at which the defendant can bring his own psychiatrist, w/ a contradicting opinion, if he can find one.

Like you, I am wary of giving psychiatrists free reign over such actions; unlike you, apparently, I also have serious misgivings about allowing clearly mentally-disturbed individuals to own firearms. The "common sense," solution, then, is to build safeguards into the hearing process, in which this determination is made, not to throw our hands up & say, "I guess it's not possible to identify psychologically-troubled individuals who pose excessive risk, if they own a gun (or multiple guns)." That latter opinion is as far from the consensus opinion as the opinion that all gun owners need 2 years of weekly psychological supervision/monitoring. BOTH opinions are ludicrous, & neither, obviously demonstrates what most would typically think of as, "common sense"-- unlike the way I have described my understanding of the advocated restriction, which I contend is close to the way most people, who say they are in favor of it, take its meaning to be. If there is any factual basis whatsoever for your allegation that two yrs. of weekly psychiatrist visits might be made mandatory for gun ownership, it is odd that you did not cite it, as that would make a devastatingly strong addition to your argument. Or was this merely the figment of an overly-paranoid imagination?

 

I could not agree MORE.

For the record, this statement is, transparently, utter nonsense.

 

You have an opinion.

 

It is common knowledge. While Feinstein did not make the official determination she was extremely influential as a co-sponsor of the assault ban act. Right after its passage she literally browsed a complete catalog of weapons and basically said this one and that one based on as much as their looks as anything and passed her choices onto the officials in charge.

You misread my statements. I said the psychiatric community has said the the two-year assessment is what would be required for maybe a 50/50 chance of predicting who is prone to be a mass murderer. I personally think that would be idiotic and believe 99% of the commoners would think it nonsensical.

Your examples support my contention. First, there is no way a person in a black robe can determine a person's propensity for violence inside a 1 or 2 day hearing. All the judge can do is interpret what the legislatures have written down. Currently the favorite scheme, red flagging, is if a neighbor or family member thinks a person is a danger they tell a judge and the judge takes away the gun, period. There is a process over months where the gun owner can fight to get his gun back but he has to prove he is not a danger rather than the other way around. Secondly, determining mental propensities is, as I said, extremely difficult and legislatures don't have the skill (or even the propensity) to do it accurately. The vast majority of schizophrenics with paranoid delusions are not a violent danger to anybody so that cannot be a valid criteria. IIRC very few, if any, of mass or serial murderers have been paranoid schizophrenics. (The guy who shot Gabby Giffords maybe was IIRC.)

However, governmental advocates are not really concerned with being psychologically accurate -- they just want the guns. A couple of states have pursued with varying degrees of success banning guns from persons under psychiatric care or even taking prescriptions of anti-depressants. This is also why they chase "assault" weapons, wanting to ban the most popular hunting and self defensive semi-automatic rifles for instance, but so far not paying much attention to other assault weapons like frying pans, shovels, cars, knives, etc. They pursue the AR-15 because it looks like a mean military weapon, and just shove under the rug that most if not all military military weapons have an automatic firing mode which no civilian rifle has (other than a very few that require a long approval and licensing process.)

 

The issue is proposed federal legislation, or Executive action-- not, "common knowledge." What is relevant, are details from the former federal assault weapons ban, not rumors about it. I'll try to give you a hand, here: If you could cite at least existing state law, you would have a legitimate point of argument, at any rate. But your contentions of, "common knowledge," are hearsay, to begin with, & totally uncorroborated hearsay, on top of that. In other words, how do YOU KNOW that this is common knowledge? Common, among whom? Can you cite an article in any reputable newspaper, reiterating this, "common knowledge?"

All my above comments apply here, as well. How could you possibly know that she based her picks on merely the guns' appearances, and ignored all the information about each weapon which would be included in any catalog? How would ANYONE know this? Is Ms. Feinstein in the habit of going around telling people things about herself that make her look bad?

It seems unlikely that the 38 Republicans in the House (including the Minority Leader Robert H. Michel), and the 10 Republican Senators-- Packwood, Hayfield, Lugar, Coats, Danforth, Kassebaum, Brown, Jeffords, Chafee, & Roth-- would all accept something that, it was common knowledge, was an arbitrarily determined list by Feinstein, especially as many, at the time, said they knew they would take a hit, for their vote, but did it as a matter of conscience.

Inclusion of such an obviously ridiculous charge (which any reasonable person would know, when he made it, should be accompanied by whatever validation, one possessed, of it) cannot help but devalue the calliber of any argument, of which, it is a part.

But 1) the psychiatric community does not write the laws and, even more to the point,
2) being able to psychiatrically verify that no gun owner has better than a 5O% chance of becoming a mass-murderer, is NOT a proposed criterion, in any envisaging of more stringent gun regulation, so far as I am aware. So WHY you would make this part of the basis for your criticism of enhanced gun regulation, is a mystery; one would think if you had a legitimately strong argument, you'd have no need to pad it with irrelevancies, such as this.

I did not mean to imply that, in & of itself, this diagnosis would automatically deprive one of the right to own a firearm. How would that even work?-- medical records are private & confidential. A person would first need to be reported to law enforcement, as a potential danger to oneself, or threat to others, before the process would begin that might, ultimately, lead to that person's psychiatrist acknowledging these things, in court, about their patient.

I feel that buried under all your false flag arguments, there might be particular points upon which I could agree with you, that attention need be given their implementation, because of the potential for abuse. It is a shame we can never discuss our shared concerns, since I am ever required to correct your positions, which are the product of spurious exaggeration, or brought forth from your own (or someone else's) vivid imagination.

THIS is something in your post which would be very interesting to both learn the details of, as well as discuss further, if those facts are actually available to you. (Without them, it is impossible to give any thoughtful, applicable response).

Come on, Rod-- are you even trying to make a credible argument? Let's see, can we think of any differences between frying pans, kitchen knives, shovels, & motor vehicles (as you argue), and the topic to which you are trying to apply them, assault weapons? Right off the bat-- oh, you forgot bats! Also tire irons, and ironing irons, and golf irons, & clubs-- it should be apparent that all those other things have an intended USE which is not, by its nature, anything potentially lethal. Apparently, Keano Reeves has been playing a character in several films, whose hallmark is the use of everyday objects as lethal weapons. Your argument tracks along this same absurdist path.

As for your argument about the AR-15, I have to believe that this is merely the gun getting the most media attention, to which I would attribute my guess that it must be a top-seller. If you have any basis for your seeming claim that AK-47s, and the like, are being left out of consideration of these future attempted regulations, please cite a source for your information (in which case, you could be taken to be arguing for stricter, more inclusive, regulation); hardly a credible thing for any of us to believe.

Have you, yet, contacted your Congressmen about the deadly risks, hiding in plain sight, that are posed by culinary tools?

 

Lol...maybe you people should stop trotting out long dead horses then.

 

Can every one of those examples be used as an assault weapon or not? If so, then why shouldn't they be banned in an "assault weapon" ban? Or limited to, say, one bat per household? Do you exclude them because their main purpose is not to assault? If so then you have to exclude firearms because their main purpose is not to assault either.

That was not my claim at all. The AK-47 is front and center -- the poster gun -- that is oft cited in support of the ban.