Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

a reply to: neo96

That is a FAILURE of reading comprehension. The second clearly talked about two separate but EQUAL things.

That's what I said. "It says a well-regulated militia, and the right of people to bear arms"

Notice the 'and'?

And I'm unsure as to the point of the rest of what you said. Not very coherent.

originally posted by: neo96

Meant the STATES have the right to have militias. The only 'regulation' implied there is them being combat effective.

Wrong again.

Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of THE CONGRESS:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

;

The militia was a shared power between the Federal government and the States. Checks and balances.

The Founders, unlike some here, were just as suspicious of local governments as the national.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Try again.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

]

www.constitution.org...

First comment:

A restrictive phrase like "well-regulated" has to be understood in historical context. What the framers did not want was armed unruly mobs who can't shoot straight or who don't know what to shoot at. They also didn't want men who would not respond to a call-up or not know where to go or what to do. The problem was usually solved by having the militia units elect their commanders, then having those commanders issue regular training call-ups and organize them into teams, train them, make sure that if the threat is a criminal, that the criminal is arrested and held for trial and not just summarily executed.

Epic FAIL there G.

a reply to: neo96

Excellent response to something I didn't say, claim, imply or anything else.

Do you really think your posting something that has NOTHING to do with what I said is fooling anyone?

Your claim that the militia belonged to the States was WRONG and I showed you why FROM THE CONSTITUTION.

If you're not going to try harder than this, you're taking all the fun out of argumentation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And your point is WHAT ?

The militia was a shared power between the Federal government and the States. Checks and balances.

Where is the check to balance the federal states power when someone wants 'universal background checks'.?

Which is basically people have to prove their worth to the feds.

That is a flagrant ABUSE of power.

And yeah someone is going to have to do better.

a reply to: neo96

My point is that, as usual, you're wrong.

Universal background checks are not tyrannical. Nor do they abrogate the Second Amendment's protections.

It's not a matter of a citizen "proving their worth" it's a matter of making sure that someone buying a weapon is not known to be criminally or otherwise dangerous to the public:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; who is a fugitive from justice; who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802); who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; who is an illegal alien; who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; who has renounced his or her United States citizenship; who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Source - ATF

So which of those individuals should have a gun in your opinion?

Convicted criminals?
Fugitives?
Drug addicts?
The mentally handicapped?
The mentally ill?
Illegal aliens?

Who? Which of these do you want to have free access to firearms?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Universal background checks are not tyrannical. Nor do they abrogate the Second Amendment's protections.

Pure comedic gold.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Universal background checks are not tyrannical. Nor do they abrogate the Second Amendment's protections.

Pure comedic gold.

Tell us who you want to sell guns to Neo that can't buy them now.

Illegal aliens? Fugitives? Mentally disabled folks?

Who's being tyrannized that you want to protect?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny that background check did not exist in this country until that FASCIST CLinton created it.

So for over 225 years there wasn't a problem.

I wonder how Americans every got along without it until the largest arms dealer in the world told their own citizens to prove innocence to them.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny that background check did not exist in this country until that FASCIST CLinton created it.

So for over 225 years there wasn't a problem.

I wonder how Americans every got along without it until the largest arms dealer in the world told their own citizens to prove innocence to them.

Fascinating. To correct you again, the Congress passed the law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates the list.

Who on the list should be able to buy that can't? Why can't you just answer that question? You made the claim that Americans are being tyrannized, just tell us who you'd like to be able to buy that can't!

I know you don't have to, and I know why you're trying to avoid it ... because you can't offer a reasonable answer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh so 'crazy' people and felons are just recent creations in the us.

Not like there weren't any of those before the 90s.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh so 'crazy' people and felons are just recent creations in the us.

Not like there weren't any of those before the 90s.

After all "money is free speech" amirite?

Kelly McGillis( Top Gun, Winess) returned home to find a crazy woman in her home in North Carolina. The woman assaulted her. McGillis who is a lesbian is also a gun owner. She called 911 after being forced to flee and the woman was arrested. So we have the gay community and the acting community with increasing gun ownership. The ruling elite can't like that.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's the same thing that politicians do all the time. They actively legislate AGAINST the people. They won't be giving up any rights or security, just like Obamacare. They will continue to have tax payer funded armed protection, because they think that their rights are more important than our rights.


Take notice gun control people. Quit trusting the "elected" scum to tell you what you should do.

Once again, Congress has to have the same background checks to purchase firearms as any other citizen.

Obamacare has nothing to do with gun control, pro or con, but it is fundamentally based on the plan Republicans fronted for 20 years ... until it passed.

Take notice anti-gun control people ... quit trusting unelected corporate hacks like the NRA and the gun lobby scum to tell you what you should do.

This is proof that democrats don't want to ban guns. If they own guns then they obviously believe in the 2nd amendment. Good going OP.

a reply to: xuenchen



Arguing this is like talking to a drunk, but I will give it another try.

No one is against the 2nd amendment.
No one is against guns.
Many people in favor of gun control and an assault weapons ban are hunters and many responsible gun owners, some in the security business, others just live in rough places and need their weapon for emergencies.

People are sitting in so that the 2nd amendment is honored in the spirit it was written, without leaving out any of the words or provisos. "well regulated" militia. It's not well regulated, not regulated at all.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: xuenchen

I expect as much.

So not only they own.

They hide behind armed security.

What I want to know is why they think THEIR life in more important than Mr. and Mrs. Americans.

On another note. I am pretty sure that is an ETHICS violation.

All lives matter and of course they own guns, its a second amendment right. Nobody is against guns and nobody wants to ban guns.

That's just propaganda fed to you by the NRA and other similar groups who supposedly made an oath to protect our Constitution.

On a side note...here's how good they are at protecting the Constitution of the United States...
Remember the 4th amendment? ITS GONE!! Taken away by a Republican President, while those who supposedly stand to protect it stood by, armed, still none the less, impotent.

That 4th amendment protected Americans from illegal, unwarranted search and seizures.
POLICE and GOVERNMENT AGENTS used to need to suspect you of something before stopping you, frisking you, and seizing your belongings. You had to provide reasonable cause, be suspect, and in some cases a search warrant was needed.
NOW POLICE and GOVERNMENT AGENTS DON'T EVEN NEED A REASON. We're just like Nazi Germany!
Anyone can be grabbed, and strip searched simply for walking down the street.
Our belongings can be seized. They don't need to explain anything to us -
Great job protecting that Constitution! Fabulous....

Republicans have already set a precedent for removing Constitutional protections. THEY'VE DONE IT and yet people fear the Democrats. Democrats have done no similar thing. Never even HINTED at it.

And so, No. You're wrong, and because you're misinformed, you go on to be slanderous, claiming some ethics have been violated. Not sure why the entire thread isn't in the hoax bin. I am sure no retraction will be made by anyone set straight, but fact of the matter is, they are sitting in for gun CONTROL (regulation). They want the words WELL REGULATED to be returned to the Constitution and the second amendment. Someone redacted them. These brave men and women should be praised, not scorned or vilified. They are protecting the Constitution and are the real Oathkeepers.

I don't see how someone owning a gun cannot possibly be in favor of more gun control?

What a stupid thread