
Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress - marcosscriven
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736
======
onion2k
I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I think that gun control is
an important issue and limiting gun ownership has a very direct impact on
saving lives. I agree with the law that was being debated. (Aside: I'm
British. I live in the UK. It doesn't directly affect me.)

But...

The point of a democratic government is to debate an issue, vote on it, and
then to enact the result of the vote. Representatives should weigh the
information available, the points raised in debates, and their own
consciences, and come to a conclusion of their own. Direct action like a sit-
down protest undermines and subverts the process of democracy by saying "Do
what we want or we'll make life intolerably difficult for you." That is not
how government should work. Government shouldn't be held to ransom.

In this case it's easy to agree with the protest, but what happens if, say,
the Republicans lose a debate on reducing income tax for millionaires to zero
and organise a sit-in to try to get their own way?

~~~
jimhefferon
But in this case exactly what they are protesting is that the leadership of
the Republican party will not bring the measure up for debate and vote.

~~~
bilbo0s
I realize this may sound like an ignorant question but I really don't know the
rules in Congress.

Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ?

Like the original comment said, the purpose of a body like the congress is to
"...debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote..."
At least, I thought that was how things worked. Is it the case that congress
doesn't even consider debating certain issues ?

~~~
masklinn
> Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ?

It is legal yes. Each house of Congress gets to decide their own rules (by
law), in the House of Representatives that is done by and through the Rules
Committee.

Initially it would just propose general rules at the start of the session then
dissolve, but in the late 19th some realised it could propose bill-specific
"special rules" (requiring a simple majority vote) giving it significantly
more power and control over House proceeedings, and that's basically what it
has been since.

As a result, by controlling the Rules Committee the majority can decide which
bills get to the floor (and when) regardless of their order on the Calendar of
the House, can decide whether the bills can or can not be amended and can
decide how much debate time will be available and who gets to talk.

------
aaron695
I'd wish people would stop going off topic about the stupid gun control debate
and be adults talked about the article on hand.

"Republicans adjourned the House early on Thursday to try to quash the sit-in,
switching off the TV cameras."

"The transmissions via Periscope and Facebook Live were taken up by the C-Span
network, which provides continual coverage of Congress."

It's a interesting world we live in.

The fact cameras in many of the world parliaments are turned off in situations
(not about national security) seems like a hell of a censorship of democracy
we put up with.

Technology seems in part stopping this censorship (There are other examples of
rouge cameras in parliaments leaking things that the plebs are deemed not fit
to see)

------
popey456963
I'm looking at this with a foreign eye, so I apologise for any ignorance on my
behalf, I just find it amazing that so many Americans feel that gun control
wouldn't help with decreasing shootings (Kasey_Junk linked this poll [0]).

Can someone shed some light on the views of these people? Living in the UK,
with rather nice gun control restrictions, means we can't just buy guns at the
local supermarket but of all of the ~ 8 people I know who has wanted a gun,
every single one got a license and went through little to no hassle to get it,
simply filling out a few forms. Yet seemingly because of this, our firearm
related death rate is 0.23 per 100,000, compared with the US' 10.54 (~45x as
many deaths [1]).

[0] [http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-
matters/187511/america...](http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-
matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-
related_death_rate)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The point isn't to prevent shootings. The point isn't to protect your home.
The point isn't to be able to hunt.

 _The point of the Fourth Amendment is that the citizens should have
sufficient arms to be able to form an effective military force._ Anything else
is a side effect.

Could we do it? Well, let's say that President Trump turns into a tyrant,
declares martial law, and suspends all civil liberties. Some fraction of the
military would back the president, some would want to sit it out, and some
would oppose the president. Ditto for the police. But if the citizens decided
that they weren't going to put up with it, they could sway the balance - _if_
the military was divided. Against a united military, probably not - unless
there was foreign intervention.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Argh. _Second_ Amendment, not Fourth.

------
jacquesm
How big a massacre would it take before a gun control law would be carried by
a majority in the US?

Or is it not a matter of sheer numbers, but who gets killed? (For instance:
what if some moron decided to go after a convention of one of the two large
parties?)

~~~
rms_returns
> Or is it not a matter of sheer numbers, but who gets killed?

In the UK, it was the Dunblane incident that triggered this (you can google
it). In the 1990s, some madman with gun just strode inside a high-school at
Dunblane in Scotland and started indiscriminate firing. Many teachers and
students were killed and after this event, the UK government just outlawed the
guns in the hands of civilians.

Maybe, in USA such an extreme event hasn't happened yet, so they have not
banned guns yet.

\--edit--

Corrected period.

~~~
robin_reala
50-60 years? It was the mid-90s. And it wasn’t guns that were outlawed but
pistols.

~~~
rangibaby
Yeah I remember almost exactly when it happened because it (and later
Columbine) set off a lot of media hysteria about violence in video games. I
think there might be consequences to playing violent games on some level (it's
your mission to shoot people) but the way they went about it was wrong-headed
and sensational.

------
buserror
As a shooter in the UK, with a Shotgun Certificate, I don't really understand
why people are so against having some gun control -- I mean the background
check the police did on me before giving me a SGC was fine; quite frankly I
felt safer afterward.

Now of course, there's a case for saying that once they start putting
restrictions in, they will start to creep -- and it's true, in europe now
there's bans on pretty much everything, including fully deactivated weapons
used by the reenactors!

So here goes, two paragraphs and no solution from me!

~~~
jkot
> _in europe now there 's bans on pretty much everything_

Czech republic is pretty liberal (conceal carry, attack rifles...) and we have
lower crime rate than UK.

> _I don 't really understand why people are so against having some gun
> control_

Problems:

1) not everyone lives in a big city, where police is on every corner. In
remote rural areas it takes hours before cops even arrive. Some people simply
need gun for living.

2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be
banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver
on street.

3) People are motivated not to report crimes. There was a case when girl
escaped a rape, but was charged for possession of illegal weapon, and for
using a pepper spray on her attacker. With regulations, it would be best for
her, not to even report that attack.

~~~
elthran
> 2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will
> be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw
> driver on street.

Not completely true. It's not illegal to be carrying a screwdriver/fixed blade
knife/other dangerous implement in public if you have a valid reason for it.
We are not going to arrest an electrician walking down the street, but we will
question the guy in a hooded tracksuit loitering outside the bookmakers with a
screwdriver

~~~
JoeAltmaier
...waiting for their girlfriend, and they just bought the screwdriver to fix
her hair dryer. When 'rights' are relative that way, its just a blank check to
hassle people based on profiling?

------
rms_returns
An anecdote tangential to the main topic: Its well known that not all states
in the USA have the same gun control laws. For instance, in New York, a gun is
banned in the hands of civilians.

Now suppose, you are traveling from city A to B with a flight change in New
York, and suppose you are carrying arms (duly registered) and you checked out
your luggage at New York to catch the next flight, then you are effectively
breaking the NYC law for those few moments!

In fact, I've heard that a lot of NYC cops are just hovering around that
luggage checkout counter to catch and harass as many innocent passengers as
possible!

~~~
wastedhours
As cynical as it might be, then for those few moments those passengers aren't
innocent according to local law.

~~~
rms_returns
But isn't that "breaking of local law" just a technicality? Its not like they
are actually shooting anyone, they are just passing through an airport.

~~~
wastedhours
There are plenty of arbitrary laws, but technicality or not, they're breaking
the law. The same would be true in your scenario if their flight between 2 US
states went via the UK.

~~~
naveen99
It would be funny if some states required you to carry a gun at all times.
Some religions for example require you to carry a blade at all times. Of
course we already have contradictory laws and people are breaking rules no
matter what they do.

------
marcosscriven
Reminds me of this game
[http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/](http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/)

------
marcosscriven
As noted in the article, Periscope was used to broadcast this.

------
pigpaws
so asking a question is now a 'down-votable' offense on HN? WTF people? either
don't answer or point them in the direction of some research. Don't down-vote,
you arrogant fucks.

Seriously people, get over yourselves.

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and
ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want it to be banned and are willing to use the site as intended,
you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016)
and marked it off-topic.

