The shameful spectacle that is our United States Senate hit another new low. After being arm-twisted into pretending to consider modest gun-law reforms, four bills were proposed and all four died like a child facing an armed madman with an AK. Were they voted down? No. Not exactly. None of them even came to a vote because they couldn't get 60 votes for cloture.
Is there any more pathetic scene than the party which holds the majority filibustering their own bills?
You're in the majority, any bill you don't like you can vote down. The majority party should NEVER have to filibuster anything!
The only possible reason for the majority to filibuster a bill is that they know good and damn well that their constituents want this and they want to reject it without having to stand up and vote nay on the record. These craven, crawling cowards know that the American people want sensible restrictions on gun ownership but they are too afraid of losing their A+ scores from the vile NRA to actually represent the people who elected them. And they don't have the balls to stand up, look their constituents in the eye and say "here's why we're fucking you over. Here's why we would rather let mass murders continue to happen on a daily basis than make any effort to try and stem the flow of blood in our nation's streets."
There is a list of the sick cowards here: http://iammyfather.tumblr.com/post/146259409823/vote-these-fuckers-out ifyou have any doubt whether your Senator was among them. (Hint: If there is an R after their name, then yes.) But how about some recognition for two Senators in particular who saw the epidemic of senseless slaughter and said "hmm. . .what if I could come up with a way to make it worse?"
First: Chuck Grassley. When I saw that one of the gun control bills had been proposed by Grassley, I had a glimmer of hope. Stupid, stupid hope. I thought for a second "have we maybe finally reached such a tipping point that even a kook like Grassley is finally acknowledging that we need some restrictions on guns?" Haha, no.
Here's what Grassley proposes.
SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2016''.
So right away you know this is bullshit, because can you really do both? Protect communities AND preserve the right-wing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Probably not.
Then there's a whole bunch of mind-numbing legal crap, but the wonderful Igor Volsky sums up the effects of the amendment as:
"It would allow an individual to regain the ability to buy a gun immediately upon release from a period of INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT. It would also allow veterans who suffer from serious mental illness and are at risk of suicide to legally buy guns (emphasis added. By me.)So, sure, why should having been locked up in a god damn insane asylum keep you from owning weapons of death? And if our brave young men and women who were damaged in the service of their country want to kill themselves, who are we to try and stop them? All in all, a real piece of shit amendment from a real piece of shit excuse for a human being.
Then there's Jon Cornyn. Volsky sums up Cornyn's amanedment thusly:
"A suspected terrorist will be able to purchase a gun unless the Attorney General can prove in court that the suspect has already or will actually commit an act of terrorism. The accused individual must have an opportunity to contest the evidence against him/her and present their own. All this must occur within 3 business days."
Jeezus, where to even begin?
First of all, it's nice to see a right-wing Republican suddenly concerned with due process for terrorism suspects. Although, not those being held in indefinite detention in Guantanamo, or being tortured in CIA black sites, or popping up on the "okay to kill with drone strike" list. No, only for those who want to buy guns. Then suddenly, Cornyn is some kind of civil libertarian.
Also, if the Attorney General could prove that the person HAD committed an act of terrorism, that person would be in some prison we've never heard of being waterboarded and God knows what else. And it is of course completely impossible to prove that someone WILL commit an act of terrorism. Or any act. It's not possible to prove that I'm going to finish typing this sentence. So basically, anyone who in in the US and outside of prison walls can have any gun they want. Because Freedom, I guess?
And this is what is being proposed NOW. In the wake of our nation's worst ever mass shooting. This is what those fuckers came up with, more guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed and terrorism suspects. That's the response. To make things even worse.
Apparently, even the Senate Republicans, a vile and loathsome group that includes such walking nightmares as Ted Cruz and James Inhofe, couldn't bring themselves to vote on these, that's how disgusting these two amendments are.
So, we're back to what is somehow, inexplicably, miserably, heartbreakingly considered "normal" in the US. Innocent people being mowed down like Australians at Galipoli is just considered one of those unavoidable unpleasantries by the people who are actually in a position to do something about it. While the rest of us plead for some, any, effort to mitigate the epidemic, our "leaders" kowtow to the death merchants, send "thoughts and prayers" to the victims and shout FREEDOMMMM!!! all the way to the bank. It's sick and disgusting and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.