Democrats hold Congress 'sit-in' protest to Force Gun Control Vote

[Timbuk2]

So what's this all about then.

[LittleFuzzy]

So what's this all about then.

I believe it's about this being an election year.

[Veldan Rath]

Imagine the negative reaction if Repulicans did a sit in over abortion. They'd be called babies and anti democratic (and I'd agree), just like these Democrats.

[Aimless]

Is this a govt. shutdown or something?

[Hazir]

Imagine the negative reaction if Repulicans did a sit in over abortion. They'd be called babies and anti democratic (and I'd agree), just like these Democrats.

Since the issue of abortion isn't actually affecting society in the way gun ownership does you'd be wrong. Regardless of which side you are on it's also ridiculous you can't have a vote in Congress over an issue that is so important to society at large.

[Flixy]

I'm curious (and looking at people with knowledge about the history of political processes), were these rules originally meant to be able to block legislation like this or to prevent too many votes on things that won't pass anyway? Same for filibusters etc. It always seems to me these rules are more abused than used as they were intended.

[Veldan Rath]

Since the issue of abortion isn't actually affecting society in the way gun ownership does you'd be wrong. Regardless of which side you are on it's also ridiculous you can't have a vote in Congress over an issue that is so important to society at large.

They are demanding a vote on bills that have already been killed in the Senate. So this is just grandstanding.

Also. 4 bills were killed in the Senate, 2 by dummies on the right and 2 by dummies on the left. Voted down by party lines.

Oh, and nice to see you be so cavalier on abortion. I'm pro choice, but to say it is not affecting society as much as gun violence is a tad simplistic don't ya think?

[Aimless]

True, it's affecting society much more than gun-violence. In a positive way

[Veldan Rath]

True, it's affecting society much more than gun-violence. In a positive way

And there are many who would disagree. But again as its a point of view many refuse to recognize they won't give it merit, or at least recognize the basis of the point.

This is not how to govern. I don't get my way....wahhhhhhh!

But since some folks here agree with the goal, they don't care about the methods.

I'm just saying, if the show was on the other foot, you'd be screaming at the barbaric knuckle draggers.

And as the dummies on the right did something similar I believe a few years ago...they suck too.

[ImAnOgre]

True, it's affecting society much more than gun-violence. In a positive way

I'll never understand how people can be against the death penalty, but be for abortion... It's almost like they have a wire crossed somewhere.

One person EARNED the death sentence, the other is innocent. And the innocent one is the one who dies. Makes perfect sense to me.

But I'm probably a rarity in that I'm pro choice AND pro death penalty.

[Loki]

Presumably because they don't think a fetus is a person. Unlike a corporation.

[Hazir]

You'd have to ask why a person is against capital punishment. One reason could be that the system condemning people to death can't really be trusted to actually only kill guilty people. In which case opposition to capital punishment is totally compatible with being pro-choice.

[Dreadnaught]

Since the issue of abortion isn't actually affecting society in the way gun ownership does you'd be wrong. Regardless of which side you are on it's also ridiculous you can't have a vote in Congress over an issue that is so important to society at large.

If you think abortion is murder, then yeah, abortion is affecting society in ways that are demonstrably worse than gun ownership.

[Lewkowski]

You'd have to ask why a person is against capital punishment. One reason could be that the system condemning people to death can't really be trusted to actually only kill guilty people. In which case opposition to capital punishment is totally compatible with being pro-choice.

Using that logic there shouldn't be any punishment for crimes...

[Aimless]

Let me guess, you invented a machine that makes death reversible

[Loki]

Did you invent one that makes time in prison reversible?

[Lewkowski]

Let me guess, you invented a machine that makes death reversible

"You'd have to ask why a person is against prion. One reason could be that the system condemning people to prison can't really be trusted to actually only imprison guilty people."

The logic is the same.

[EyeKhan]

Thinking about the various equivalencies being made in this thread....

Scenario 1 - ten female students at the local high school get knocked up and have abortions.

Scenario 2 - ten students at the local high school get falsely accused of crimes and are sentenced to prison.

Scenario 3 - ten students at the local high school get falsely accused of crimes and are sentenced to death.

Are y'all going to claim with a straight face that Scenario 1 affects the wider community with anything resembling equivalency to 2 or 3?

As for comparing 2 and 3, that's admittedly a grayer area, at least until carrying out the death sentence. I don't know for sure, having never been imprisoned, but one would think being alive for the exoneration is better than being dead, so not equivalent after that. I wonder if 20 years of prison on death row followed by exoneration takes a heavier toll on the falsely accused and his/her family than 20 years of a life sentence? With either one, one's life has to be pretty roundly wrecked. Probably the cost to society is pretty much the same, though, death sentence or not. Might be cheaper for society, in the coldest of calculations, if the exoneration is too late...

[Veldan Rath]

I think more abortions are performed a year than the number of victims murdered in mass shooting. So YOUR comparison is the faulty one.

[Aimless]

Did you invent one that makes time in prison reversible?

No but with some luck you can have some time left if you get out

[Hazir]

Using that logic there shouldn't be any punishment for crimes...

Not rue, in the case of capital punishment a life is gone, in other cases the person who didn't do the crime is still alive and may try to restore what's left of his life

[Aimless]

"You'd have to ask why a person is against prion. One reason could be that the system condemning people to prison can't really be trusted to actually only imprison guilty people."

The logic is the same.

The conclusion however is not. You can imprison an innocent person but in theory you can limit the consequences of that error. You cannot do that with death, not even in theory. You don't half-kill people with capital punishment. Half-killing is what prison is for

[Aimless]

"You'd have to ask why a person is against prion. One reason could be that the system condemning people to prison can't really be trusted to actually only imprison guilty people."

The logic is the same.

Moreover, given the context, you must compare the two. Eg. the consequences of killing an innocent person versus imprisoning an innocent person and then releasing them.

[wiggin]

Thinking about the various equivalencies being made in this thread....

Scenario 1 - ten female students at the local high school get knocked up and have abortions.

Scenario 2 - ten students at the local high school get falsely accused of crimes and are sentenced to prison.

Scenario 3 - ten students at the local high school get falsely accused of crimes and are sentenced to death.

Are y'all going to claim with a straight face that Scenario 1 affects the wider community with anything resembling equivalency to 2 or 3?

As for comparing 2 and 3, that's admittedly a grayer area, at least until carrying out the death sentence. I don't know for sure, having never been imprisoned, but one would think being alive for the exoneration is better than being dead, so not equivalent after that. I wonder if 20 years of prison on death row followed by exoneration takes a heavier toll on the falsely accused and his/her family than 20 years of a life sentence? With either one, one's life has to be pretty roundly wrecked. Probably the cost to society is pretty much the same, though, death sentence or not. Might be cheaper for society, in the coldest of calculations, if the exoneration is too late...

There is a fundamental disconnect here, EK. While you and I might not believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered child, opponents of abortion (at least the genuine ones) certainly do. And from their perspective, this is state-sanctioned murder of babies on a massive scale. The numbers are a bit iffy in places, but it's probably on the order of 700-800k abortions annually in the US, stacked up against 30-odd thousand gun related deaths (mostly suicides). If we were to start with the same premises, it's entirely possible that we would also find abortion just as troubling - if not more so - than gun related deaths.

There are two abortion clinics in my neighborhood (I guess people here have a lot of unprotected sex?) and every day I see protesters standing outside them - rain or shine, from the moment they open their doors in the morning. At first I thought it was distasteful - they hold up placards and try to engage with passers-by and people going into the clinic. I think we're all aware that getting an abortion is a very difficult choice for many people, and from my perspective it seems inappropriate to place such an individual under any more strain (not to mention the fact that it's annoying to unrelated passers-by and those who are going to the clinic for another purpose). And yet upon further reflection I have come to a grudging respect for them. They are doing a thankless task in a culture war that they have definitively lost. But they believe that state sanctioned murder is happening on a massive scale - that these clinics are no better than normalized death camps - and they are using the only legal recourse available to them. If I thought three quarters of a million babies were being legally murdered in the country every year, I would certainly HOPE that people would be protesting in the streets! And to be honest, if I thought as they do, I would do a lot more than more-or-less politely disagreeing - I'd use civil disobedience to block entrances, I'd use much stronger rhetoric, and I'd definitely put a lot of time and effort into changing people's minds.

Obviously there are lines to be drawn - the abortion clinic violence of yesteryear was wholly unacceptable (in fact, my neighborhood was the site of one of the most famous shooting sprees a few decades back - abortion clinics are pretty well armored nowadays and there is frequently a police presence, along with a now struck-down ordinance requiring a buffer zone around their entrances). But peaceful protest seems eminently reasonable, provided you are working on the same premises.

I personally don't believe that those premises are correct, and I think our laws are broadly appropriate wrt abortions. And so yes, I think it's probably reasonable for someone holding my positions to be more exercised about gun violence than about abortions. But we aren't using the same playbook, and it behooves us to remember that. To simply dismiss opponents of abortion as having their priorities messed up is to miss the point. Many of them are acting in good faith, and if we engage with them in that spirit perhaps we might be able to arrive at a constructive policy shift on either gun control or abortion-related laws (e.g. access etc.).

[Aimless]

Agreed obviously on all counts.

[EyeKhan]

There is a fundamental disconnect here, EK. While you and I might not believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered child, opponents of abortion (at least the genuine ones) certainly do. And from their perspective, this is state-sanctioned murder of babies on a massive scale. The numbers are a bit iffy in places, but it's probably on the order of 700-800k abortions annually in the US, stacked up against 30-odd thousand gun related deaths (mostly suicides). If we were to start with the same premises, it's entirely possible that we would also find abortion just as troubling - if not more so - than gun related deaths.

There are two abortion clinics in my neighborhood (I guess people here have a lot of unprotected sex?) and every day I see protesters standing outside them - rain or shine, from the moment they open their doors in the morning. At first I thought it was distasteful - they hold up placards and try to engage with passers-by and people going into the clinic. I think we're all aware that getting an abortion is a very difficult choice for many people, and from my perspective it seems inappropriate to place such an individual under any more strain (not to mention the fact that it's annoying to unrelated passers-by and those who are going to the clinic for another purpose). And yet upon further reflection I have come to a grudging respect for them. They are doing a thankless task in a culture war that they have definitively lost. But they believe that state sanctioned murder is happening on a massive scale - that these clinics are no better than normalized death camps - and they are using the only legal recourse available to them. If I thought three quarters of a million babies were being legally murdered in the country every year, I would certainly HOPE that people would be protesting in the streets! And to be honest, if I thought as they do, I would do a lot more than more-or-less politely disagreeing - I'd use civil disobedience to block entrances, I'd use much stronger rhetoric, and I'd definitely put a lot of time and effort into changing people's minds.

Obviously there are lines to be drawn - the abortion clinic violence of yesteryear was wholly unacceptable (in fact, my neighborhood was the site of one of the most famous shooting sprees a few decades back - abortion clinics are pretty well armored nowadays and there is frequently a police presence, along with a now struck-down ordinance requiring a buffer zone around their entrances). But peaceful protest seems eminently reasonable, provided you are working on the same premises.

I personally don't believe that those premises are correct, and I think our laws are broadly appropriate wrt abortions. And so yes, I think it's probably reasonable for someone holding my positions to be more exercised about gun violence than about abortions. But we aren't using the same playbook, and it behooves us to remember that. To simply dismiss opponents of abortion as having their priorities messed up is to miss the point. Many of them are acting in good faith, and if we engage with them in that spirit perhaps we might be able to arrive at a constructive policy shift on either gun control or abortion-related laws (e.g. access etc.).

I really wasn't even thinking about gun violence. Yes I know that's the thread topic, but I saw a bunch of one liners and quips about abortion vs death penalty vs prison time trying to draw equivalencies between them. Thinking about the Orlando shootings, one might ask whether Scenario 4, a bunch of twenty somethings getting killed and wounded in a club, is in any way equivalent to Scenario 5, the same number of abortions performed in a clinic. I can't imagine how anyone could say the two are equivalent in any way. And to be fair, nobody here has, as far as I know. But I suspect someone is about to.