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

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I see how it is. None of you all bother scream and rant and rave about the Patriot Act (old news, right?

Before the Patriot Act.

There was Clintons Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act after Oklahoma that Biden himself says HE wrote.

Before that there was Carters FISA Act.

Then there was CLintons Brady Handgun Prevent Act that created the background check that began Ameircans GUILTY until proven innocent.

Before that there was Clintons Assualt weapons BAN.

Before that there was Johnson's Gun Control Act.

Before that there was FDR and the National FireArms Act.

Gun owners were America's first terrorists.

I am a bit perplexed why Bush is getting brought up considering the proponents of gun control have done MORE damage to American civil liberties than any other group of people in our history.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

More deflections form the leader of the deflectors? Are you willing to be an adult and accept the fact that linking these lists to the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional yet?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Why aren't you still protesting it then?

Do you support the ACLU in its fight to fix the lists? Or do you only care when it's about guns?

No deflecting, just pragmatism. The lists exist for a reason, and this is as good a reason as any.

And again, if you're on a list, this will be a good way to get yourself cleared from it. Fringe benefit.

a reply to: Krakatoa

No one's infringing. So no.

And just because I have a different perspective than you do in no way makes me a deflector.

Try again.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
Yes, I do, at every opportunity. This, is in part, an extension of that protest. I abhor any list to single out someone that does not originate from a judicial review process. What is your excuse? Because it's "easier", and expedient. Yeah, that argument was used before as a final solution in the past. No thanks, I do not want to live in that society.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

It is not infringing at the moment because every one of those amendments to the bills were (rightly so) voted down. But, if they did get passed, it would be CLEAR infringement.

Again, linking these lists with the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. I was yesterday, it is today, and will be tomorrow, and the day after....until such time as the process to be placed upon that list includes due process.

ETA: As for deflecting. Yes, you are. You are trying to point over at the NRA and say it's their fault. Or to the Patriot Act in the past and say, look over there....what about that?

That, my friend, is classic deflection.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

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.

So if he used the shotgun an other semi autos that would be ok?

Pretty sure none of that matters and this nut and the Orlando nut would have killed just a mny people with a gun illegally bought. Or a bomb. He had 5 on him he was going to put on war vets.

No this is more deflection of working on social issues.

Let's see would this stop or hinder guns from pouring in from Mexico? What about help the 50 kids a week that die in Chicago? Or any of the other violent crime problems?

Does it fix bad schools? How about poverty causing organized crime? What about drug addiction? Will it help people find jobs? Does it solve racism and bigotry? How about law enforcement corruption?

No well then maybe we should focus on the causes of the actual violent crime stats.

originally posted by: luthier
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.

No, I am saying that equating it to the Civil Rights fight is wrong. They are not fighting to restore anyone's rights. They are fighting to take rights away. By equating what they are doing to the Civil Rights fight, it claims some kind of moral and legal legitimacy they simply do not have no matter what their constituents may or may not want.

Perhaps the people you should be equating them to are the people who fought to hard to keep those Jim Crow laws in place ... fitting that they were Democrats too.

a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't compare it to civil rights as far as importance. Or rights. I prefaced it saying it isn't the same. It's just something people feel very passionately about.

However the fact that the bill failed in the Senate doesn't mean people give up. Thats all I am saying. I believe people should have the right to voice opinions and protest.

I whole heartedly disagree with gun control.

I think there are a few compromises for safety with ccl and handguns and training to be actually a good shot under pressure especially for gun free zones. Have some well trained people willing to have a ccl that requires law enforcement level (at least) firearms training for high density places.

As far as rifles go they are clear 2nd amendment arms and the most important for resistance to tyranny so I aint touching those.

To be fair those Democrats became Republicans after Johnson. But yeah Dixiecrats were terrible. However they became Republicans and the Christian right with the rev jerry and his crusade against Kennedy and the catholics.

a reply to: neo96

Is this protest about stopping the slaughter of innocent people by radicals from various sides of the terrorist spectrum or is this about gun control?

Because it's funny that I didn't see the Dems do a sit-in just before they gave the green light to invade a sovereign nation in 2003, the result of which was the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis using America made weapons systems and tech.

I respect their right to protest the need for gun control, they just don't realize what such hypocrites they are being by doing so, they should actually be embarrassed.

and of course, they ignore the mental health aspect such that even with their goal being reached of controlling guns, mentally unstable people will still kill so nothing will be achieved by their righteous protesting on the taxpayers time that will stop people from wanting to harm others.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Is this protest about stopping the slaughter of innocent people by radicals from various sides of the terrorist spectrum or is this about gun control?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Isn't their behavior considered subversive? I know, put all of their names on the no-fly and terror watch list without telling them. Then, when they try to vote again to link it to the right to keep and bear arms, they will be stripping themselves of the right to protect themselves. Even better, put all their bodyguards names on it too. After all, they are paid to carry weapons of death in an effort to shoot people trying to get near subversives on the list. They must be stopped. Think of the children it will save.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Isn't their behavior considered subversive? I know, put all of their names on the no-fly and terror watch list without telling them. Then, when they try to vote again to link it to the right to keep and bear arms, they will be stripping themselves of the right to protect themselves. Even better, put all their bodyguards names on it too. After all, they are paid to carry weapons of death in an effort to shoot people trying to get near subversives on the list. They must be stopped. Think of the children it will save.

I actually agree that the no-fly-no-buy aspect is nonsense, but what you posted is ridiculous.

2nd amendment supporters need to find a different approach or you stand to subvert our rights through outright stupidity.

a reply to: introvert

Man Its nice to read your stuff. I always end up getting it from both sides. In reality I as a philosophy major back in the day. I read an awful lot about the bloody, French, glorious, and American revolutions philosophical foundations. I think a lot of people don't understand the liberty and justice for all part.

Yeah it's a dumb debate
That just means it should be easy to win.

You start saying people don't have a right to protest and you head into dangerous water for everybody.

a reply to: introvert

Ridiculous...yes. We agree about something. It is just as ridiculous as linking the lists to the right to keep and bear arms.

BTW: Sarcasm is obvious sarcasm...except to the ill informed.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah it's a dumb debate
That just means it should be easy to win.

It's not easy to win a debate against those that are dumb (stupid).

In fact, you will probably lose such a debate.

a reply to: introvert

Hah true. There is no moderator like back in school.

www.theblaze.com... utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons evidently paul ryan is considering options for how to solve the issue

But as Democrats show no sign of moving, one source close to House leadership told TheBlaze that Ryan was still deciding what his course of action would be, especially as he has a few options to consider. 1. Have protesters forcibly removed Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) told TheBlaze Wednesday that the “disruption” by Congressional Democrats was “beneath the dignity of the House and lacks the respect this chamber is owed” as she urged Ryan to have those participating in the sit-in physically removed. “No member of Congress has a right to hold the People’s House hostage for the sake of a political agenda,” Black said. “I would urge Speaker Ryan to have the Sergeant at Arms remove members who are violating the rules of the House so that order can be restored and Congress can continue its business.”As Business Insider noted, House rules do stipulate that the speaker can clear the House floor by way of the sergeant-at-arms. In fact, the rules explicitly state: “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.” “Except as otherwise provided by rule or law, the Speaker shall have general control of the Hall of the House, the corridors and passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House, and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol.” Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said on social media Wednesday that she has been arrested during multiple protests in the past, including fighting to raise the minimum wage and ending genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and was prepared to be arrested again Wednesday.“She is prepared to do whatever is necessary,” Eric Harris, communications director for Moore, told TheBlaze Wednesday. “We have no idea what’s going to happen,” he added. “It’s extraordinary measures for an extraordinary time.”

this one may be possible but would perhaps be the most extreme option he could employ to solve the issue of the sit in.

2. Cave into Democrats’ demands All it would take would be to simply call for a vote on the bipartisan “no fly, no buy” gun control legislation, multiple Democratic lawmakers and their aides said Wednesday. Harris contended the situation lawmakers found themselves in by Wednesday afternoon was “unprecedented” and said anyone who pretended like they knew what was going to happen was “lying.” The Democrats, Harris said, simply want a vote on the legislation and didn’t speculate on if there was anything else Ryan could do to end the protest other than call for a vote. Another aide to one of the Congressional Democrats leading the charge told TheBlaze that, while she could not speak as spokesperson for those protesting, the lawmakers did want House leadership to “take some kind of action, to bring some common-sense bill to the floor.” “To date, the House has taken absolutely no action to protect Americans,” the aide said. “There are many proposals out there. They are asking the leadership to lead and do its job.” However, Ryan shrugged off the protest as simply a “publicity stunt” during an interview with CNN Wednesday evening that didn’t seem too promising for Democrats who want him to call for a vote on the legislation. “This is not a way to bring up legislation,” Ryan said.

i would call this one highly unlikely as it would not end well for his re-election campaign that i think is coming up either this time or the next election cycle ,so i dont see this happening and being a presidential election year it would be a field day for the press and trump if ryan were to cave to demands.

3. Ignore them until they leave House Republicans are no stranger to sit-in themselves. In 2008, Republicans staged their own sit-in as they were irked that then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to schedule a vote on off-shore drilling. After several hours of Congressional Democrats turning the lights off on their Republican counterparts, reportedly rousing speeches by GOP lawmakers and a rendition of “God Bless America,” Republicans eventually packed it up and went home all on their own. Dr. David Woodard, Thurmond professor of political science at Clemson University, told TheBlaze the removal of the lawmakers by police is not something that would “look good on television.” He recalled that, as a child of the 1960s, the best course of action for Ryan would be to simply ignore the protesters. “Such demonstrations require public attention,” Woodard said. “When nothing happens, it becomes very tired television. The one percent wore out, the Vietnam demonstrators were ignored in occupation and the Civil Rights protests often lost steam if ignored.” And as the House went into recess with the protests, the House cut the microphones and the live camera feed to the sit-in, breaking off C-SPAN’s video broadcast of the event. Many House Democrats broke the rules and decided to livestream their event themselves, but were eventually told by House security to stop recording and publishing videos. But leaving quietly and quickly on their own might not be the case this go-around as Pelosi announced Wednesday that they “will be here as long as it takes, every day.”

this option i think is the most likely to be implemented as it has the least amount of blow back and is far less likely to cause problems for him with his constituents ,and hey it works for a lot of parents when their children decide to throw a temper tantrum so i see this being the option Ryan employs to stop this ,as it would be a pretty boring live stream watching a bunch of old politicians sitting around a mostly empty room live streaming their protest as he has allready turned off the cspan cameras
edit to add . and i guess if he is really feeling vindictive he could just ignore them and THEN use their own tactics agains the democrats when they try to put forth a nominee for supreme court that obama wants and just sit in as well but with the dems not having the option to clear the room all thought i feel that may backfire during an election year but it would be an option that they would have far less ability to fight w the republicans holding the speaker position

originally posted by: introvert

2nd amendment supporters need to find a different approach or you stand to subvert our rights through outright stupidity.

As it stands...It is The Second Amendment of The Constitution.

The ones attempting to subvert rights are those who are attempting to
subvert The Second Amendment.

a reply to: burntheships

The point is if the Democrats can persuade the amendment process to happen and have the votes they have a legal arguement to change the constitution.