Today Dems are staging a sit in in the House. Regular readers can probably guess my position on the matter. I don't want to denigrate other people's actions for change, but since the story is being so widely reported and commented on, I feel like I would be remiss in not sharing an opinion.
A sit-in is not legislating.
This is not 1960.
Any concessions will be for a vote that is guaranteed to fail.
Since I was admonished recently for not being explicit about my preferred method to achieve legislative progress, here are the bullet points:
• Have a hearing to determine the most effective and comprehensive changes that should be made Constitutionally and in the public interest.
• Create a bill called something like "Terrorist Weapon Prevention Act"
• Create a bill called something like "The Disarm Terrorists Act"
• The "Terrorist Weapon Prevention Act" will have one intent, e.g. block those on the watchlist from buying guns or other weapons.
• "The Disarm Terrorists Act" will have all the legislative recommendations of the congressional hearing, starting with the one in the "Terrorist Weapon Prevention Act"
• Present the "Terrorist Weapon Prevention Act" to Congress, again and again, publicize it, comment on it, until it is passed, at least in some form.
• Once the "Terrorist Weapon Prevention Act" is passed in some form with a single intent, begin submitting amendments based on the original congressional recommendations, one at a time, until the bill is amended.
• Meanwhile, take "The Disarm Terrorists Act" to every state legislature, in its entirety, making every effort to force votes IN THE STATES.
• Use the bill and the votes on "The Disarm Terrorists Act" in the states to force progress on gun control, or to damage Republican state representatives in local races, turning state legislatures as Democratic as possible.