Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Doesn't wash.

Do you think we should do this for voting? To practice free speech?

Oh! I know ... how about to protest? Look at all those violent people protesting. Seems to me that maybe we ought to screen people before they can engage in protest ... you know, just to be sure.

I will tell you. People wind up on those watch lists for stupid reasons.

Love watching tax dollars hard at work...

a reply to: ketsuko

Now, would you care to explain to me why you think Democrats should be able to divest American citizens of their due process rights AND their 2nd Amendment rights just because some bureaucrat thinks they might be suspicious? And I do include Muslims on this one.

I'm not talking about Democrats. I'm talking about citizens who have brains in their heads.

Investigate them BEFORE they kill, not after, like we are prone to do. It's a risky business.

Besides, they will have due process... eventually.

originally posted by: luthier
But suggesting in a democracy you need to suppress a viewpoint is dangerous.

But no one has suppressed any view, the bills failed to pass, all Four of them.

All 4 pieces of gun-control legislation proposed in wake of Orlando attack just failed in the Senate
www.businessinsider.com...

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

a reply to: luthier

But they aren't politicial activists. They are Congressional Representatives. Those are not the same thing.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko

Now, would you care to explain to me why you think Democrats should be able to divest American citizens of their due process rights AND their 2nd Amendment rights just because some bureaucrat thinks they might be suspicious? And I do include Muslims on this one.

I'm not talking about Democrats. I'm talking about citizens who have brains in their heads.

Investigate them BEFORE they kill, not after, like we are prone to do. It's a risky business.

Besides, they will have due process... eventually.

Guilty until proven innocent. Has a nice ring to it.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Yeah they were worried about Constitutional infringements.

The people laying on the floor want to create Constitutional infringements.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko

Now, would you care to explain to me why you think Democrats should be able to divest American citizens of their due process rights AND their 2nd Amendment rights just because some bureaucrat thinks they might be suspicious? And I do include Muslims on this one.

I'm not talking about Democrats. I'm talking about citizens who have brains in their heads.

Investigate them BEFORE they kill, not after, like we are prone to do. It's a risky business.

Besides, they will have due process... eventually.

And Mateen was investigated prior to ... 3 times. Did it do any good? No. In fact, he carried special licensing for a government contracted security firm which gave him access above and beyond the average.

So this reaction is for naught. It does nothing except impede the law abiding.

a reply to: ketsuko

My 74 year old polish mother in law as well. This women escaped the Nazi's camps with the help of about 40 people when she was 6. Has one lung and believes like nobody I know in the American dream and ideals.

Not that she would buy a gun but it's the absurdity of how these things malfunction.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your joking right?

Name me your favorite politician.

I will give you an example of this.

A political activist is someone who is involved in the political process for the sake of promoting, impeding or raising awareness of a certain issue or set of issues. Political activism typically involves engagement beyond just voting, whether it be through protest, demonstration or lecture.

a reply to: ketsuko

Double

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I see.....due process "eventually". That is unacceptable. You must prove guilt, that is a prosecutors job. A defendant needs to prove nothing. In your world, the defendant would be required to prove they were not going to do something bad. In essence, prove a negative. That is a known impossibility. Sorry, you want that justice, move to Russia, or some other country that practices that approach. Good luck sitting in that gulag awaiting your "trial".

a reply to: butcherguy

children cant buy guns,the mentally ill can unless they have been adjudicated mentally defective a stigmatizing term and mentally ill are more likely to be a victim of violence then the cause www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...

link to pdf ajph.aphapublications.org...

stop letting your fear of what you dont understand cloud your judgement

a reply to: ketsuko

All that tells me is that the background checks failed. There were red flags all over. They were missed.

Look, we've got a problem. We are trying to solve it. This might not be the answer, but we have to TRY. The status quo is failing. It's not 1950 anymore -- the society has changed, it's more dangerous than ever. We must figure out how to reduce the violence. This might fail, but we won't know until we try. We have to do something. To do nothing is to accept failure, and continue to have killers show up in any venue at any time.

We have to try to do something, and at the moment, this seems to be the best effort. It's all we've got.

a reply to: Krakatoa


Man, you gun folks are the biggest drama queens I've ever seen! Gulag! lol!

Probably, in your lifetimes, you will look back on this and realize you were on the wrong side of history. It WILL happen. Eventually. And no, Krakatoa, I won't be in a Russian Gulag. : )

This poor horse I've beaten enough tonight. I think I'll take him somewhere and buy him a vodka and tonic.

Oh and Xue:

a reply to: Krakatoa

Sadly we have been heading down that path a long long time.

I don't know if you remember when they started using DNA and re examining cases but it wasn't good. Lots of people lost years of their lives or were even put to death (best arguement morally against the death penalty) from the movement towards an oligarchy we have been making.

We make up nanny laws and police mandates and then fill prisons with people some of which aren't even guilty of the rediculous laws they were prosecuted for.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Besides, they will have due process... eventually.

My, how tyrannical of you. Stalin and Mao would be proud. I'm sure everyone in those gulags got their due process too ... eventually. Assuming they survived waiting for it, of course.

So now, not only are all in for violating 5, but you are not so happy with Amendment 6 either?

How many of the original Bill of Rights do you think people should be allowed to keep?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

What drama? Are you saying that does not happen in this world in repressive regimes where rights are given and taken away at the whim of a leader? That is, essentially, what you are advocating. You are the one that said, eventually. So, in your mind, you have stated that stripping of a citizens rights is OK if "eventually" they get due process. By the way, enlighten me, how long is an "eventually"?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Training
Education

Those two are the only problem with guns from my POV.

If you want to fix the violence problem in America, perhaps we should be looking at our society as a whole. We can start with an overfunded, overbloated government that keeps people in apathy and poverty.

"Idle hands are the devils' workshop."

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Perhaps your picking a small part of a much larger problem. Remember this link from yesterday?

www.romans322.com...

Who's being dramatic?