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

originally posted by: neo96
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.

We elect representatives to represent us. And that is what they should do.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ~Lucidity

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

WTF are you?

a reply to: SM2

Obama, Bush, Clinton doesn't matter none followed the constitution?

Did Bush declare war?

originally posted by: luthier
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.

Would have stopped him from buying the exact weapons he bought to MURDER people.

a reply to: luthier

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

YEP.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

And YEP

en.wikipedia.org...

Neither was ILLEGAL.

Congress APPROVED.

These very same people passed Obama Care with zero votes from the other side. The time to pass draconian gun confiscation laws was then. Now that they don't have control and they know that these gun control shenanigans would never pass under this congress, they can safely play the snowflake card.

Sitting on the floor is exactly where they belong. They are just missing the jail cell bars and orange jump suits..

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

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.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Well if you believe Diane F. bill would stop mass shootings including one where a kid killed his mom and stole her guns than I guess you would buy anything.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

We elect representatives to represent us. And that is what they should do.

And for everyone that's been paying attention knows that is themselves.

Do you honestly think that gun control is about the people ?

No.

That is about the PARTY, and their power.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ~Lucidity

We elect representatives to represent us. And that is what they should do.

And for everyone that's been paying attention knows that is themselves.

Do you honestly think that gun control is about the people ?

No.

That is about the PARTY, and their power.

Course not. It's about the money the NRA lines Congress's pockets with.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So how does that work?

The NRA pays congress to make laws that ban the very thing they make money off of ?

LOL wow.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Man if you think this is all about the NRA passing out money or some sh*t you had better open your eyes a bit wider to reality.

Learn to hear the threating sounds and indications of a willingness to revolt.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

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.

Oh, so it's expedient now? Yes, they exist. Yes, they do not currently require due process to get on them. Yes there is "some" way to get off of them if you can find out what, have enough $$$ for the legal process, and the time off to do it all. However, Linking them would be unconstitutional....period. You cannot deny a U.S. citizen their right to keep and bear arms without due process....period. Regardless of how, you just can't.

Why is that such a difficult concept to understand. If we make being on the list REQUIRE due process, then we can make progress. Until then no....nada. Even if "it's for the children" or some such emotional drivel.

ETA: You don't have to believe me either. Just watch this and still tell me that is is constitutional.

a reply to: luthier

Quite simply none of the four proposed bills to the Senate would have prevented either Orlando nor San Bernardo. In fact, they would not have prevented Sandy Hook nor Colorado Movie Theater. None of those shooters were on the No Fly List as far as we know.

Sandy Hook was misappropriated guns because he already could not buy them under current background checks for psychological records.

originally posted by: luthier
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

War was not officially declared, but unlike Obama, Bush DID in fact, have congress' approval for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even john Kerry voted yes, in between being against it twice.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I see how it is. None of you all bother scream and rant and rave about the Patriot Act (old news, right?) and the terror and no-fly and watch lists until you think it might inconvenience a few hundred gun purchasers for three days, and maybe even do them a favor by getting them off the list.

Ironic how only the ACLU, an organization most of you lso no doubt despise is the only one trying to address existing concerns about the list.

Nice.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Man if you think this is all about the NRA passing out money or some sh*t you had better open your eyes a bit wider to reality.

Learn to hear the threating sounds and indications of a willingness to revolt.

Alright...let me be clearer about using the collective NRA, as in the NRA being an up front representative for arms manufacturers and sellers and the like, who do more than their share of buying favor too. Better?

a reply to: neo96

See above.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Krakatoa

I see how it is. None of you all bother scream and rant and rave about the Patriot Act (old news, right?) and the terror and no-fly and watch lists until you think it might inconvenience a few hundred gun purchasers for three days, and maybe even do them a favor by getting them off the list.

Ironic how only the ACLU, an organization most of you lso no doubt despise is the only one trying to address existing concerns about the list.

Nice.

Do you know us all? DO you know that I protested the passing of the "'Patriot Act"....and yet it still passed. Way to try to deflect when faced with the truth that does not meet you myopic and emotional view of the situation. What you are suggesting regarding the linking of these lists with the right to keep and bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL....period. There is no argument...it is a fact.

I guess you need to sit cross-legged in your home now in a tantrum (sorry, I mean "protest") sicne you did not get your way.

Open Secrets: NRA

Has your U.S. Congress person received donations from the NRA?