Should the filibuster over gun control in the United States senate have ended sooner?

  • Goverment: Butt Out

    I believe the government needs to back off. The filibuster over gun control should have ended sooner than it did. It is not the national government's jobs to administer gun control. That should be a state right. Our second amendment grants us the right to bear arms; so in my opinion, the government needs to butt out!

  • Yes, the gun control filibuster should have ended sooner.

    The United States has too much gun violence when compared to the rest of the developed World. The government needs to implement more common sense gun legislation to help reduce gun violence in America. The filibuster over the gun control legislation in the Senate was shameful. It served no purpose except to protect a special interest lobby. In short, the filibuster over gun control legislation in the Senate should have ended sooner.

  • Yes, the filibuster should have ended sooner

    I believe the filibuster should have ended sooner, simply because I don't think that more gun control is necessarily the answer to stopping mass shootings in the United States. I agree that laws pertaining to the sale of assault rifles should be reviewed, but gun control as a whole is not the only issue.

  • Filibusters are what they are

    Filibusters are used to either delay a Senate vote, or to gain media coverage for a politician. They are allowed to run as long as the Senator(s) can remain on his (their) feet, and can be ended by a 3/5 majority vote. This limits the overall time that a filibuster can run. But I can see a purpose for a filibuster, such as making sure Senators are (or are not) present at a particular vote, or to try and sway Senators' votes. Short of eliminating the filibuster completely, there is no "right" length of time for one to run.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.