Slashdot Mirror
C-SPAN Uses Periscope and Facebook Live To Broadcast The House Sit-In (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Washington Post: C-SPAN has made history for resorting to Periscope to live stream a sit-in on the House floor. C-SPAN spokesman Howard Mortman said: "This is the first time we've ever shown video from the House floor picked up by a Periscope account." C-SPAN had to rely on Periscope for a direct feed to House proceedings because these proceedings aren't exactly official. The Washington Post reports: "Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) led a sit-in on the House floor to push for action on gun control, following the failure of four gun measures earlier this week in the Senate. According to an official at the House Recording Studio, the cameras that C-SPAN commonly uses to broadcast House business are 'in recess subject to the call of the chair.' No approved video feed, no problem: C-SPAN has been piping in the Periscope feed from Rep. Scott Peters, a California Democrat." The feed hasn't been as reliable as C-SPAN's official House-proceedings feed. "Well, the Periscope video froze up again," said a C-SPAN anchor. And a bit later: "We're still having some issues with that video feed." At around 3:30 p.m., C-SPAN switched to a Facebook feed where viewers could hear and watch Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) rip the "cowards who run this chamber" for failing to turn on the microphones.
I want to write a lot of interesting and thought-provoking things here, but I'm just stuck on that one thing in the title.
Secret. Government. Proceedings.
Really, guys? Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
A sit in is the equivilant of throwing a temper tantrum when things don't go your way.
Lock the doors and let them starve.
At least we'll be able to vote some fresh blood in. It's the first step in getting anything done anymore.
Someone should give one of those Dems a VidiU.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Democrats are sitting on the floor. Republicans are sitting on their hands. That's what democracy looks like in the 21st century.
good for them. remind me when slashdot posts "news for nerds, stuff that matters" again
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
any of them facing a wall?
Funny how the Democrats didn't think it was so "cowardly" when Nancy Pelosi cut off microphones in 2008 when the Republicans wanted to work on an energy bill.
She hijacked the whole chamber.
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
the Democrats who voted against one of the bills.
I wonder if he put that up. (Need to look up if he was one of those who voted against the bill.)
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Somebody should remind John Lewis that Martin Luther King carried a gun, and was on the FBI watch list in 1963.
Regardless of my views on guns and gun control, I feel as though this needs to happen more often when our government fails to act on important issues. Issues like warrantless searches, etc need to be discussed and action taken. Stop slipping shit into irrelevant bills that have wide effects and discuss the problem. I support discussing the topic of gun control and coming up with ways to combat the ease at which you can purchase some guns. I believe a good start is mandating a wait period of no less than 3 days before a gun (commercial or private sale) with a certain size magazine to be given/sold to an individual. It is already difficult, in terms of paperwork, to acquire fully automatic or silenced guns. I believe all the recent shootings involved semi-automatic (correct me if I'm wrong).
I think because each side is the opposite extreme of the other, they don't even want to begin to listen. Mandate ethics classes for them all. Everyone should at least hear what the other has to say. At that point, a reasonable compromise should happen.
Disclaimer: As a responsible gun owner, I like the ability to buy the type of gun I want just like I can a car. Not apples to apples comparison but brings up a similar question, do you really need a car that can go 100+ MPH?!
Had to search for what "Periscope" is. And from their website, apparently it's another silo in the cloud that can't be viewed at all from a normal computer?
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
And also, why is always democrats trying to do an end-run around the democratic process?
We don't see Trump supporters blocking highway ramps and flipping police cars when a vote doesn't go the way they want. Why do the democrats think that's appropriate?
Riot in the streets when the government does something bad, yes. White cop shoots an unarmed black kid... go for it! But protest and riot when a candidate gets a lot of votes? WTF?
Why is it always Democrats pulling this shit?
Staging a sit in, acting like children, because they can't punish people without due process. These are the elected officials that run our country.
What a time to be alive.
News feed should read as follows:
Elected officials failing to force-feed obnoxious and unconstitutional laws onto the people of America throw a tantrum on the house floor. Broadcasting of this childish behavior is discouraged by the more adult members of the house and senate forcing the emotionally affected to resort to broadcasting their distress on a popular internet streaming service, switching to Facebook when the prior service shut down the feed due to TOS violations.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
They are completely anti American and are violating their oath of office. They promised to protect and defend the constitution. The 2nd amendment is clear enough. It starts with one preamble that justifies it. But the meat of it is clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Keep means to have on your property, Bear means to have in your possession.
Registration and licensing is legal though I would disagree that fees for licenses are.
It is reasonable if you have a fire arm the government can mandate education. You can have the gun but if you fail to be educated they can lock you up. The education is also reasonable in that if you break the law in legal use of it that you can not plead ignorance of the law.
Arms are tools that can harm one or a handful of men. That includes knives, swords, axes, morning stars, and even automatic guns and grenades. Not nuclear weapons or tanks or fighter jets. Not biological weapons such as small pox. Probably tear gas grenades and smoke bombs.
The problem is that constitutional amendments as far a civil rights became the law of the land superseding state statutes. There should have been a constitutional amendment clarifying what past amendments are federally binding and which are state binding as well can requiring future amendments to clarify themselves. The 2nd amendment was meant to only be federally binding. That is why it was so short. The states were to individually decide how to regulate arms.
The only discussion they can have is repealing the 2nd amendment. Anything else is treasonous in my opinion. And to be quite frank I don't see why they are so hesitant to start the movement. Simply clarify in another amendment that the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government and that individual states have the right to regulate them as they see fit. In other words to do what the founding fathers of the 2nd amendment meant.
P.S. The second amendment wasn't about hunting. It was only partially about defending yourself from crime. It wasn't about people being able to rise up in a civil war against a corrupt federal government.
It not even really war, more about people being able to put up a gorilla/terrorist resistance. If one group wants to impose their will against another group then it's going to get really expensive and bloody. It's what the declaration of independence was about. Mistrust of strong governments. With the 2nd amendment if some states wanted to succeed from the USA it would take a long resistance. Imagine if the first US civil war had lasted 50 years. Imagine if even after we had won those states still resisted.
In response to a terrorist attack committed by an ISIS operative who worked for G4S and passed all of the security checks that would have been necessary to legally acquire his weapons under any conceivable gun control plan, the Democrats -- after interrupting a moment of silence for the victims -- want to take guns away from all future victims of ISIS, and they disrupt the proceedings of the federal government. This is aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war.
The founders of this nation explicitly wrote in their other writings that the militia was every able-bodied adult male who was not a conscientious objector (at that time, this exception generally applied to a very small number of Christian ministers). They also explicitly intended that those American militia men (remember the basic definition - most adult men) would have world-class combat weapons. The American long rifles of the day were superior to the arms of the average soldier of the then-best-in-the-world British army.
Out founders allowed private citizens to own field artillery pieces and naval cannons in addition to as many hand guns, long guns, knives, swords, etc (and unlimited ammunition and explosives) as they wanted. Their presumption was that every citizen had the rights to ANY weapons of ANY type and in ANY quanity.
Gun control advocates have long argued against handguns, claiming they are not for hunting and only good for killing people, as though they are something our founders never intended us to have, but most of our founders had handguns and George Washington explicitly wrote that all American men should own both a rifle and a pistol.
The whole hunting argument is totally dishonest; out founders never intended the 2nd Amendment for hunting and you never find them arguing that it is for that purpose - it's like arguing that they intended the free speech rights only for communication between parents and children (a right everybody assumed every person has and which did not need to be listed because no government opposed it). They very explicitly in MANY places outside the Constitution itself explained what they intended. They never wanted a tyrant to arise in America who would do as so many royals in Europe had done for centuries - used soldiers against their own populations. Therefore, they did not want the US to have a permanent "standing army" which a leader could either use against his own population or on foreign adventures. They intended the nation's men to be so well armed that no foreign force would ever be able to invade and conquer. (incidentally, they DID create a permanent navy and marine corps, and would probably have created a permanent air force had there been militarily-useful aircraft at the time). They also expected that someday, no matter how much the Constitution tried to prevent it, the US government could become tyrannical and they explicitly said the people had the right to violently overthrow it, just as they themselves had thrown-off their former monarch.
The 2nd Amendment gun right is the ONLY reason the government observes any of the rest of the document; fear of an uprising. THAT is why advocates of massive government are always calling for gun control and use every argument for it. The simple fact is that the left-wing argument that the citizens should not be able to have weapons like the ones the military uses is absolutely inverted - THE POSSESSION OF FRONTLINE WEAPONS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, AND EXPLICITLY SO TO POPULATION COULD OVERTHOW THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!
Serious Americans who have read what our founders wrote KNOW this. Idiots who just want a massive government that will take care of them at the expense of others, and which they can call upon to force their neighbors to do things, know that there is a limit to government power and scope as long as bureaucrats are too scared to push people too much for fear of an armed public - so they want "gun control"
Gun control is absolutely and fundamentally un-American.
Either the government will fear the people, or the people will fear the government. If you want to live in a land where the government has all the guns, you are free to move to any of a multitude of countries. I want to live free in the one country whose government was founded by culturally protestant Christians who explicitly said the population has God-given rights, among which are the rights of free speech, and religion, and property rights and the right to not be abused by malicious governm
It's impossible to take this group, and Lewis in particular, seriously given the manner in which they have already destroyed their credibility on this very issue.
These are the EXACT SAME DEMOCRATS who have for years been running interference in congress to stop/block the investigation into President Obama's "Fast & Furious" program which intentionally provided THOUSANDS of "assault weapons" to Mexican drug gangs. THOSE weapons have killed hundreds of people including a US Border Patrol officer.
John Lewis has done everything in his power to play-down and/or stop every attempt to investigate that program, and has denounced any Republican who tries to investigate it as a "racist". Lewis may well have been an honorable man back in the sixties when Democrats were still pretending blacks were sub-human... but then he got into bed with that party in exchange for his pieces of silver and he sold his soul in the process.
If there was an honest journalist in the US, that journalist would corner these Democrats and ask them why they have spent YEARS defending Obama's gun-running program, working to block/discredit any investigation of it, downplaying it, and ignoring the river of blood flowing from it that makes the Orlando shooting pale in comparison.
Oh, and Barack Obama has asserted "Executive Privilege" over many "Fast&Furious" program materials, just like Nixon did on Watergate, and refused to hand them over to congress (it'll still be in the courts long after he leaves office). The "Executive Privilege" claim in the US can only be asserted over documents and activities the president himself is personally involved in...
a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Would you object if there were due process to be listed or removed?
How would the due process to be listed work? Someone on the terrorism watch list hasn't committed a crime yet, and they're innocent until they have committed a crime, so how could due process be applied to bar an innocent person from their 2nd amendment rights? Can you suggest any mechanism whereby a suspected "lone wolf terrorist" could be denied a gun purchase through due process? (You can't really charge a lone wolf with conspiracy if they've only made threatening but non-specific comments to their family, co-workers, on twitter, etc.)
If you think that every non-criminal should be allowed to purchase firearms, then just cut to the chase and say so.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
> I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
My first reaction, my gut feeling, is the same as yours. HOWEVER, which of these portions is clearly a bad idea?:
a) Counter-terrorism authorities maintain a list of people for whom they have reason to suspect possible terrorist plans or idealogy, a list of probably dangerous people. (Well under 0.01% of citizens, indicating evidence to suspect).
b) Refrain from publishing that list publicly, so terrorists-in-training don't know for sure if they're on the list.
c) Refrain from selling firearms to these people without further review.
I don't like the general idea of a secret list affecting Constitutional rights. I'm not sure which of a, b, or c I strongly object to, though. Your thoughts?
FWIW, the conditions for speech to not fall under the first amendment is that the speech must advocate "imminent lawless action". So, your co-worker spouting off about how he wants to kill infidels is legal under the first amendment because it is not imminent. He's just advocating lawless action at some unspecified time in the future.
Warren v District of Columbia
When your house is broken into, you're raped, you call 911, the police are no help, and the courts uphold how the police have no obligation to help you...
That's when you appreciate owning a gun.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
I have no problem with the government having secrets, and I have no problem with secret lists. It's pretty-much expected that criminal investigation has to be done with a measure of secrecy in order to succeed. Terrorism is criminal behaviour, so having a list of suspected terrorists is also not a problem.
The problem arises when there are restrictions without due process.
Saying that someone is prevented from flying, for instance, should be done using due process. It should be evidence presented to the judicial side, and the defendant should be able to respond and object.
Killing a citizen, for instance, should not be the result of a secret list(*).
Disallowing a citizen to come home should not be the result of a secret list.
Have a secret list of suspects, that's not a problem. Use that secret list to deprive rights... that's the problem. It's item c) in your list.
We have process for a reason.
And for the record, as many *many* people have pointed out, the chance of being killed by terrorism is vanishingly small in the US. We're eliminating rights in response to a problem that doesn't exist.
(*) Or, for that matter, a secret law. Which was invoked at the time the assassination was carried out.
They didn't attempt to defund Obamacare. They DID defund Obamacare.
Shutting down the government happened because Obama refused to accept their budget without Obamacare spending. Since Obama refused to accept the democratically voted on and democratically chosen budget, the only option left was government shutdown. Which is what happened.
January 20th, 2017 and President Trump's inauguration can't get here soon enough.
And both actions were entirely within the rules.
It's entirely within the purview of the legislature and president to get into these situations. Even though it's bad, it's still legal.
And furthermore, it's expected that the legislature will base their actions on conscience, and the president as well.
I've no problem with either side using their power to do this - it forces us to deal with a problem.
The president doesn't order the police to surround congress, preventing people from leaving unless a vote goes his way.
Yet. He's a democrat, after all.
The subject on this thread is asinine. There is nothing secret about what's going on. The cameras are turned off because the house is not in session. That's something that benefits BOTH sides at various times.
Common sense shows that gun control laws are not effective. All it takes is to think about it for a second. Robbing someone is against the law. That doesn't stop a criminal from robbing someone. Laws are for law abiding citizens. They have no bearing on a criminals activity because if laws mattered to them, they would not be criminals. Making more laws regarding gun control etc will not prevent those that want to use the guns for bad purposes from getting a gun, they will only prevent a law abiding person from getting one.
This is more an example of the Streisand effect than secret government proceedings. The democrats decided to protest by having a sit in and the speaker of the house thought, "Fine, I'll just cut the video feed so no one can see it". It was a dick move and now the speaker of the house has made history by presiding over the first sit in in congressional history.
Apparently he also looked into cutting the power and the air conditioning.
This is all because republicans refuse to pass a bill that would stop people on the no fly list from buying guns.
Yes, they are that insane. In fact they are so insane that the NRA(the gun manufacturing lobby group) has called John Lewis(a civil rights leader since the 60's and one of the participants in the sit in) a terrorist.... for having a peaceful demonstration!
That's what happens when you double-down on incoherent and illogical leftist arguments.
You wrote: "That's because there was not a large regular militia or large standing army. The duty of the militia was to essentially be draftees as necessary." which is problematic for two reasons: [1] they in fact DID form the Continental Army for purposes of fighting the British BEFORE the constitution and without displacing the militias, and [2] very few governments in history have had a problem raising an army without having armed militias... in fact most leaders in history would have been terrified of armed militias for fear that these militias would overthrow them, or resist them when they came to draft people into their armies.
You wrote: " This is completely opposite to the wing nut notion that the right to bear arms is necessary so that the government can be overthrown." which as pointed out in an earlier post was the actual design of the founders....so apparently from your view the founders were "wing nuts". I'll take the "wing nuts" over your ilk any day.
You wrote "Today we have a standing professional army. The need for reserve militias no longer remains." which is VERY INTERESTING, given that you left-wingers are always insisting that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia, which you claim are no longer needed (so *poof* you have just admitted that you lefties do not support a critical element of the Bill of Rights at all). Also interesting because it means you declare the Nation Guards to be no longer necessary...
You wrote "Red Dawn not withstanding," ha, ha, and Star Trek not withstanding, there is no perfect benevolent Starfleet to swoop in and protect people while not interfering with them and their rights. The actual history of the human race shows that tyranny is the norm for human beings and the current tiny two century window of liberty in only a few places is a rare and fragile thing. Try paying a little more attention to history and a little less to bad pulp entertainment (or worse-than-bad in the case of the moronic "Red Dawn" original or remake)
You wrote: "in the event of an invasion there will be enough people who have passed background checks who own guns to bolster the regular militia..." This matters not if there are archives with lists of all the people who are packing, and worse if the lists include where they are and what they have.
You continued with: "...because no on in government is calling for a complete and total ban on private gun ownership." Actually this is a blatant lie. MANY national democrats have called for the disarming of the American people. Many of them, like DiFi (Senator from CA) use a particular gimmick: on some occasions that call for a ban on all handguns arguing that these guns are only for killing people and have no legitimate use, while promising to never go after rifles. Then in front of other audiences they say they only want to eliminate "assault weapons",which they sometimes admit is any semi-auto rifle. In front of other audiences they argue against even shotguns. The only guns these freaks actually support are the guns in the hands of their armed security details and the hands of the government when it want to take thing from people, or round people up, or force people to do things.
The bigger problem with your bizarro left-wing interpretation of the 2nd is that it cannot be reconciled with what our founders wrote. They wanted the people armed so they could resist the future rise of tyranny.... but no militia controlled by that very government (as the National Guard is) cannot possibly fulfill that role because it would be opposing itself. The National Guard cannot possibly be the "militia" of the 2nd ammedment, it's a logical/biological absurdity.
Which lefty argument are you selling?
[a] The 2nd Amendment is referring to the legit and Constitutionally-important Militia, which is the modern National Guard rather than to individuals, but which you wri
One party in the house is attempting to bring attention to the fact that the other party refuses to hold a discussion or a vote on a matter. The second, larger party could easily sink the matter just by voting on it, as they can certainly defeat all the proposals with their majority.
Yet the slashdot voice tells us that the minority is somehow attempting to destroy democracy, with their horrid request for a vote.
As other people (not here, of course) have pointed out, the question that not nearly enough people are asking is what is Paul Ryan afraid of? He knows he has enough votes to quickly vote down all four of the senate proposals. There is no fillibuster mechanism in the house (this is the closest the house can get to it, and it really isn't very close to it), so they can make debate as short as they want. The house can up/down vote each one of these and get all four of them done before lunch if they want to. Instead Ryan and his friends are running away from this, and almost nobody has the balls to challenge him on that and ask why.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You sound like an opinion. But it was a supreme decision, I think dc vs Heller. If you're going to make an argument, you should include the law of the land where applicable.
The militia argument is simply off the table unless you are a supreme court member.
Occupy Wall Street sitting in the streets.
Greenpeace in Nazca shitting on world treasures.
Democrats refusing to do their jobs after losing a vote.
What part of "US Constitution" and "House Rules" don't they understand?
In the aftermath of nearly every big shooting story, lots of Democrats in government run to microphones and cameras and point to Britain and Australia as examples the US should emulate. Both countries did gun grabs.
I bet you'd be outraged if hoards of Republicans routinely ran to cameras and microphones to announce that rights of all individuals to have religious views different from those of Paul Ryan should be immediately revoked. Perhaps you'd be alarmed if Trump was running around saying it was time to end all "due process" rights? (Actually Democrat Senator Joe Manchin has recently nearly said this - he has complained about how inconvenient "due process" laws are...)
Right out of Serenity / Firefly
#browncoat
The subject of this thread refers to the process of being added to the no-fly list which requires and really allows no due process, not to the situation in the House chamber. Thus a Secret government proceeding places you on a list that is then used to deny you your rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that the right to travel within and out of the country is a non-enumerated constitutional right. Thus even denying the privilege of travel by flying without due process is unconstitutional as the ACLU has been trying to argue for a few years now. And now the Dems want to extend this process of stripping rights without due process, via a secret government list, to a clearly enumerated and protected right.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Video stream of a bunch of Congress Critters sitting around wasting space. This is different from normal, how?
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
"Nothing is proceeding". In Congress. This Congress. The one that can't even pass Post Office naming bills without it becoming a full-blown crisis.
Tell the truth, you were laughing as you typed this.
Can't wait to hear what ESR has to say about this. Oh yeah, probably something terrible!
> can't even pass Post Office naming bills without it becoming a full-blown crisis.
Maybe if Hillary becomes President we can name more post offices. In her eight years in the senate, she did manage to get a post office naming bill through, along with two other bills she sponsored. The others named a highway and a historical site. Although she didn't sponsor any other laws in those eight years, she did name those three things.
S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway.
S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York.
This was illegal under a rule passed by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
So tell me again how the Democrats are law-abiding?
You know, I've never heard any proposal to cut off the right to bear arms at the age of 45. Most people would regard it as completely unexceptional for me to buy a target rifle or shotgun or something, and it's been a while since I was a member of the unorganized militia.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)...
âoeThere comes a time when you have to say something, when you have to make a little noise, when you have to move your feet. This is the time."
Sound like an invitation to make him "dance"...
True enough, but no harm can come from correcting an inaccuracy, right?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I agree with your final statement -- it absolutely deserves debate. "What this is about" is that that debate should be going on in the Senate, and it isn't. And focusing on the watchlist question is missing the real problem in another way: There are 4 (four) gun measures up for debate, not all of which have anything to do with the watchlist, and the Senate is refusing to debate (note: I did not say "pass") any of them. Despite the fact that the vast majority of polled Americans disagree.
What you describe is in fact current federal law. See 18 U.S.C. S. 922(n). A person under felony indictment may not recieve a firearm.
A similar law affected me. A pending class A misdeamoner is a bar to a Texas CHL. The deal my lawyer struck with the prosecutor was that the charges would be dropped if I got my CHL, but I couldn't get my CHL until the charges were dropped. I had to get creative.