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

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

They should follow the rules, or resign.

Maybe they need to go back to the real world, where
they would have to work on their feet, or be fired.

a reply to: burntheships

Dude they are representing the people that voted for them. I don't agree with them but it's not a fascist state one viewpoint gets the say in.

originally posted by: luthier I don't agree with them but it's not a fascist state one viewpoint gets the say in.

This is not your high school smoke in, it is Congress.

They are paid by the people to follow the rules of The House,
if they refuse they should be removed.

a reply to: burntheships

Can we apply that to Congresspersons that won't have hearings for a Supreme Court nominee? That's their job too.

a reply to: burntheships

So what are the rules.

The Republicans have done the same things.

The vote has not happened yet in the house.

The constituates voted for those people running on gun reform platforms.

Again I don't agree but protest and decenting opinions need to be tolerated in democracy

Otherwise the next time the situation may be reversed and you may find yourself helpless.

a reply to: Kali74

They are not hand tied, and do not have to approve anyone.

But yeah if they were so mentally challenged that all they could
do was to sit on the floor, throw em out.

It's a PROTEST. They need flowers in their hair.

I'm delighted with it, personally. 'Bout time they take a stand - or sit - in this case. I don't expect it will accomplish much, if anything, but it's a feel-good moment for me.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burntheships

Dude they are representing the people that voted for them.

That makes some sense because many of their representees do the same thing as the representatives are doing today.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Oh so warm and fuzzy ... look at them protesting over the rights American citizens have. You know things like due process and the right to defend ourselves.

When their paid vacation time comes in a few days I'll bet they move on.

a reply to: xuenchen

All am saying is sure make fun of them even amongst peers and such.

But suggesting in a democracy you need to suppress a viewpoint is dangerous.

Because someday we may have to take the floor and chain ourselves to a podium to force a national conversation on how the politicians circumvented the constitution to make gun control reforms.

a reply to: Kali74

And remember this absurdity with the appointment of the Surgeon General?

After the resignation of Dr. Regina Benjamin in July 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy, to be the nation's next Surgeon General, but the nomination was not advanced until December 2014 due to a delayed confirmation vote in the Senate because conservative lawmakers and the National Rifle Association objected to his views on firearms.

Obama had to appoint an "Ebola Czar" when all that ebola business was going on, because we didn't have a surgeon general.
Because: stupidity

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Oh, so now we're back to Obama getting everything he wants automatically which translates to the Democrats getting everything they want and if they don't, they should just sit on their butts until they do?

Somehow, it doesn't matter what it is ... it all comes back to it being everyone else's fault.

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.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Now now you can't diss one form of protest and accept another.

The person was appointed. No major lawsuits regarding the delay.

If you want to stretch the rules to protest sometimes that's your only chance.

Unfortunately these protest conversations barely ever make it to the people. We just get messages from he ivory tower after they decided what they would do with us.

a reply to: luthier

They would need 38 states to agree to that, and it is quite likely they do not. Seems to me they are tilting at windmills here. After all, what they are asking to do is to vote in a bill that has one (or more) unconstitutional amendments added.

But, that is my opinion.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Oh so warm and fuzzy ... look at them protesting over the rights American citizens have. You know things like due process and the right to defend ourselves.

.... or some people just call it good sense. Common sense. Horse sense. Making it harder for unstable persons and terrorist to purchase guns....more thorough background checks, watch list, no fly list, let me think... hm.

PLEEZE.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Given we know my husband was at one point on a watch list, if this insanity passed, we might actually go try to buy a gun just to see if they do d*** with us just to attempt to provide a test case for legal challenge.

It would be one reason we never thought would get us to go buy a gun ... providing a SCOTUS-potential test case to try to safeguard the COTUS.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I agree.

But if you are a political activist which is perfectly acceptable you have the right to persuade with protest and dialogue.

My whole point of view here with y'all is to find a place we can address some issues that are not in massive contention.

Like mental health, foreign policy, poverty, classism, poor education, dwindling jobs without a plan of retooling and educating for new and emerging markets, drug addiction etc.

originally posted by: burntheships


When their paid vacation time comes in a few days I'll bet they move on.

Or when their paychecks are mailed.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

No, it is unconstitutional....period. Being on a list that requires ZERO due process to be placed on it, then using that list as a means to strip a citizen of their rights is wrong. Emotional responses are irrelevant. It will afecrt EVERYONE in the country. And, BTW, to be put on this list means you are presumed guilty before proving your innocence. Is that how you want "justice" to be in this country?

It's the witch trials all over again. Have we not learned anything in these 400 years?