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

originally posted by: MisterSpock
What a bunch of stubborn fools.

right....trying to get lawmakers on the record as to how they would vote.....what asinine fools they are, asking the republicans to put their money where their mouth is......what are the republicans afraid of?.......why are they such pussies on this, cowering away from the job of voting on legislation......50 plus times voting against Obamacare, but running like rats from a burning ship, on a gun vote. they all must have small hands,too...just like little donnie trumper

a reply to: Gryphon66

I really DO love it when you troll.


Federal Assault Weapons Ban

To which Feinstein was talking about here.



Embedded AGAIN because someone refused to watch it.

And here is the 2012 linked AGAIN. www.feinstein.senate.gov...

Because someone REFUSES to read it.

Here it is in all its's glory.

AND.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013) was a bill introduced in the 113th United States Congress as S. 150 by Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, on January 24, 2013, one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. It was defeated in the Senate on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 40 to 60

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: jimmyx

You do know that they just voted on 4 bills this week right?

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: neo96

Again, asking you to backup your claims is not trolling.

Again, what is the legislation that was passed or even offered to confiscate or ban firearms?

Again, banning assault rifles is not banning (nor confiscating) all firearms.

Again, I don't agree with or support banning assault rifles.

Again, where's the universal confiscation order?

Again, where's the universal ban on personal ownership of firearms?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The CLAIM was 'they want guns'.

Which was proven.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: jimmyx

You do know that they just voted on 4 bills this week right?

www.cnn.com...

Which of those banned all firearms?

Which of those contained a confiscation order for all firearms?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The CLAIM was 'they want guns'.

Which was proven.

You proved Diane Feinstein wants guns.

Bully for you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah Feinstein is a DEMOCRAT with decades of pushing the same crap.

The people that staged a sit in are also DEMOCRAT.

And the ONLY people that want to go around banning made up political terms is DEMOCRATS.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Where did I say they did?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Even an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional now, since SCOTUS ruled on D.C v Heller. here is a copy and paste of the key portion, as I know you will not click on the link

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64."

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice the beginning about banning an entire class of arms. That would translate to this understanding : You can not constitutionally prohibit an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly chose for lawful purposes. that would include the scary weapons you and your ilk do not understand , as the AR-15 is one the largest selling weapons there is.

So, you have 3 choices. You can call a constitutional convention and repeal the second (good luck with that), you can learn to deal with the fact that the second is not going anywhere. Lastly, you could move to a country that shares your views on firearms...like China or Mexico. Because you know restrictive gun laws do so well in Mexico.

The MAIN point isn't being considered or even acknowledged by Diane Feinstein and the majority of Democrats.....and it disturbs me deeply. Until the public knows exactly why and what would put you on this list, NO, you can't make us "petition" the government to prove our innocence for a crime we were never charged with or aware of to begin with.

It's important to remember, this would not only ban assault weapons, which they claim is the "issue" , but ANY guns from being bought by someone on the "list"....IDK......I'm way too much of a "pacifist" to ever use or own a gun, but I absolutely think people have a right to own guns.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Seems like if there is enough info to put you into the list they should be able to get a warrant and prosecute.

Otherwise wtf is the point. Forcing them to go big with explosives?

The most disturbing thing to me is that the casualties of gang violence which make up the serious numbers of gun violence are not addressed at all and never will be by focusing on guns.

a reply to: luthier

Well that would be a great place to start regarding the overall major problem. The government does not want to fix this problem.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Seems like if there is enough info to put you into the list they should be able to get a warrant and prosecute.

Otherwise wtf is the point. Forcing them to go big with explosives?

The most disturbing thing to me is that the casualties of gang violence which make up the serious numbers of gun violence are not addressed at all and never will be by focusing on guns.

Yeah, it's infuriating ...after EVERYTHING we have been basically tricked or forced to give up concerning our "rights".....when you have people "screaming" that the Orlando "terrorist" was a ticking time bomb...basically doing exactly what they have been asked to do, reporting suspicious behavior , which is a slippery slope in itself...but in this case it was a total FAIL...WHY ??

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah Feinstein is a DEMOCRAT with decades of pushing the same crap.

The people that staged a sit in are also DEMOCRAT.

And the ONLY people that want to go around banning made up political terms is DEMOCRATS.

... and what does that have to do with the claimed legislation to ban all firearms and confiscate them?

Nada.

a reply to: JinMI

Of coarse not both sides love the distraction from the fact they are absolutely failing the poor in particular.

Read the preamble and constitution and explain to me how the kids in the ghetto have any of the rights listed. Do they have their property protected? Nope.
For those that are not gang members and trying their hardest to provide this is a failure and a government crime in a sense.
We are at the point in Chicago the national guard needs to be called because law enforcement is so corrupt and violent crime so bad.

Do those kids get a remotely average education?

What about the pursuit of happiness?

What about just plain old life. Nope getting gunned down watching TV.

Yet no vigils. No media telling the stories just used as a stats for gun control.

I am so disgusted. By both sides of this debate and it's embarrassing we have so much organized crime running entire sections of cities.

a reply to: SM2

I'm familiar with Heller; I wouldn't expect you to notice but I regularly quote from that decision.

I don't disagree that the idea of banning any class of weapon is unlikely at this point.

I'll mention again I would be against such bans. My "ilk" notwithstanding. I see you too are untroubled by the facts.

There is no such ban on the table. Not even from Senator Feinstein. If there is, as you point out, it would likely be unconstitutional.

However, universal background checks are NOT unconstitutional. Neither is making it harder for someone suspected of terrorist activities to purchase firearms.

No one wants the Second Amendment to go anywhere. You and your "ilk" are obsessed with that idea. No one wants your guns. Well, except maybe Diane Feinstein ... does she really SCARE you boys that much? LOL. She doesn't even wear pantsuits.

And your last suggestion just crossed my maximum limit on insipid nonsense for the day.

You're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow and somewhat paranoid views on the Second Amendment can just leave the country?

LOL

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well gryph I think we found a case of disagreement though I am pretty sure we can have a calm and pointed discussion.

Personally I think this is a pass the buck and distract from serious problems with some symbolic legislation but I am willing to consider other things.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well gryph I think we found a case of disagreement though I am pretty sure we can have a calm and pointed discussion.

Personally I think this is a pass the buck and distract from serious problems with some symbolic legislation but I am willing to consider other things.

Reasonable disagreement is healthy!

What are we in disagreement about exactly?

a reply to: luthier

I would tend to agree. If all this political soapboxing were for anything useful we might actually see some real, for the better, change in all American lives.
How long will Chicago and every other high crime pocket of the country continue to be ignored? Failures of the government notwithstanding, perhaps if the masses knew how little we needed "them" we as a people would be far better off.