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

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I have a magic pill that stops hair loss do you believe me?

a reply to: luthier

See above. Also, this bill would have caught the dude who caused the Confederate flag to come down. He had a drug charge in another state that would have flagged him had there been a national database.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, they DO. There is NO due process to get on the list. Linking the list means that you will be denied this right without ANY due process. Or is that too complex for you to understand? When you have a list that does not require any judicial review, nor redress, no ability to face your accuser, it is without due process. The Constitution (which includes the BoR) guarantees you due process.

So, making the right to keep and bear arms dependent upon your existence on a list the does not require due process to be placed upon is, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Sheesh. It's like explaining to someone what "shall not be infringed" really means.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Stopped him from what?

Killing people?

Killing his mom and stealing her guns?

All this will do is make it slightly harder to buy a brand new gun.

It certainly doesn't stop mass shootings with 100's of millions of firearms in circulation.

a reply to: luthier

Shooting up that Church

a reply to: ~Lucidity

What's odd is how democrats really can't stand DEMOCRACY.

Two sides get a say.

Which ever side has the most votes 'wins'.

The DEMOCRATS LOST.

They need to act like adults instead of pushing the SAME agenda they have been for the last eight years.

And to think.

Just not a few years ago when the Democrats held the trifecta of government.

They could have easily voted away the second.

They did not.

They pushed HEALTHCARE instead.

The no fly list will be abused by both sides of the administration depending on who is in office. Bureaucrats are already calling out white males. DHS says that church over there is preaching hate against marriage, abortion and LGBT, put the members on the list. FBI go get their guns.

a reply to: Butterfinger

The kid killed his mother and took her guns. He had plenty of guns to choose from.

originally posted by: pirhanna

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
So they get paid for protesting? They must work for George Soros then.

This is theater. This is virtue signaling. Virtue signaling occurs in the absence of real virtue to change the basis of an argument from reason to morality, thus triggering emotional reaponses which are much more easily manipulated.

Yep, by linking this to the sit-ins of the Civil Rights Era, they are trying to steal the moral imperatives and authority of that time. In other words, Gun Bans are the next Civil Rights fight of our time in their minds. Now they are already stretching the narrative by equating private bedroom matters to issues of ethnic heritage, but this ought to jump the shark.

But I've been proven wrong with the nightclub shooting where I thought surely everyone would have to finally blame Islamic terrorists for it, but they instead are blaming guns, Christians, and Republicans.

a reply to: luthier

Neo that's again real dumb logic.
Apply that to the Jim Crow laws.

I am sorry, but the Civil Rights fight was about restoring rights denied by law. This fight is about taking away rights guaranteed by law.

There is no equivalent.

a reply to: ketsuko

I disagree with their position but to think the Democrats are doing this without support of their constituates is disingenuous.

I should hope someday my rep or senator does such a thing for my position.

Personally I welcome protest and dialogue. I think they are wrong and covering for all their failings but they are representing the point of view of those that voted for them.

What an embarrassment to the nation these people are.

a reply to: ketsuko

Uh the logic is the same. Just because you don't agree with the position doesn't change the fact it's not uncommon for people to keep fighting after votes are lost.

You also left out the preface that where I said it isn't the same thing now didn't you.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

I disagree with their position but to think the Democrats are doing this without support of their constituates is disingenuous.

Then their constituents are as wrong headed as they are.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure.

But in a democracy you have to respect that people don't all think the same.

Like I keep saying instead of making fun of people we should be explaining how this gun debate is a diversion from failures to solve actual problems creating violence.

Or else the other side is only going to get bigger because the use of tragedy to sway the public is a powerful tool.

Look what Bush could do with going to war without Congress.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure.

But in a democracy you have to respect that people don't all think the same.

Like I keep saying instead of making fun of people we should be explaining how this gun debate is a diversion from failures to solve actual problems creating violence.

Or else the other side is only going to get bigger because the use of tragedy to sway the public is a powerful tool.

Look what Bush could do with going to war without Congress.

Hmmm... lawmakers and constituents protested to retain slavery, pass and keep Jim Crow Laws, pass the Patriot Act, Obamacare, etc... Wrong is wrong and, to be real honest, some levels of wrong deserve a kick to the head and removal from the Democratic process lest the contagions of stupidity infect the majority of society.

(and Bush had Congress' support in those wars. Remember, they were against it before they were for it before they were against it before they were apathetic starting in 2009)

a reply to: luthier

I disagree with their position but to think the Democrats are doing this without support of their constituates is disingenuous.

Nope.

Over 100 millions guns have been sold since the LEFT has gone after guns.

For the record ?

That is More people that voted for Obama in 2012

Gun control isn't the will of the people.

Its the will of those kleptocrats on Capital Shill.

a reply to: luthier

you mean Obama went to war without congress right?

I seem to recall when Bush went into Iraq, congress voted to allow it. Unless you are speaking of a different incident that is escaping my mind at the moment.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sid he go through the channels of the constitution and declare war and have Congress ratify the decision?

Nope

I agree there should be a moral high ground. Hopefully the people themselves with education can take that.

But if the gov starts deciding what parts of democracy it allows that's dangerous.

It may start with good intentions

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes, they DO. There is NO due process to get on the list. Linking the list means that you will be denied this right without ANY due process. Or is that too complex for you to understand? When you have a list that does not require any judicial review, nor redress, no ability to face your accuser, it is without due process. The Constitution (which includes the BoR) guarantees you due process.

So, making the right to keep and bear arms dependent upon your existence on a list the does not require due process to be placed upon is, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Sheesh. It's like explaining to someone what "shall not be infringed" really means.

But the lists already exist. Thank the Patriot Act.

And seeing as they do exist, why not use them for what they were maybe even intended to be used for?

This is not complex logic.

And there is due process to get off the list built into the the bills.