It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: neo96


Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and


Exactly.

I think there might also be some laziness involved with the Arse sitting hypocrites....



Can you (or Neo) please explain what is intimidating or coercive about 76 year old John Lewis sitting on the floor?

Please do. I really want to hear it. Did y'all think Mrs. Warren was going to say mean things? She can be a real firecracker, yessiree.

What intimidation and what coercion? I'm saying that without evidence those are false statements.
edit on 24-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




You mean, like the Republican Congress has done for the past two years?


Political trolling.

POLITICAL TROLLING




The Republican Congress are hypocrites?


Political trolling.




You mean the Republcians were INTIMIDATED because a few people chose to sit on the floor? LOL.





How coercive was the Republicans SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT to get their way on the budget?


POLITICAL TROLLING.


I'm so sorry that you feel that way Neo. I'm just trying to respond to the points that you and others are making.

May I suggest again you ALERT! my posts rather than spamming the thread with off-topic posts?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I have read the amendments to the bills that just got voted down. The 2 from the democrats made no mention nor included due process as part of the linking of the lists as part of the background check process. Both, unconstitutional, and voted down by the republicans. The 2 from the republicans had due process added to the checks, as part of the X days waiting periods. However, the democrats voted those down.

So, we have no movement from either side. So until those lists get due process in place for anyone being considered for the list, any attempt to link them to the background check system, and make it a factor in the decision is unconstitutional.

More on-topic, some of those that participated in the sit-in seem (from the OP) are owners of firearms....and not on any of these lists apparently. See, according to DHS, they do not know who or how many American citizens are on these lists. Or, are they? Are you? Am I?

The only way we can know is to try to fly, or leave/return from this country.


ETA: I forgot to address your denial of thinking all list members are terrorists.

You replied:



Nope. I am pointedly not saying that every person on the Terrorist Database System is a terrorist. How could I know that?

How would you know? Hmmm.... they are in a Terrorist Database or Terror Watch List, makes sense someone thinks they are terrorists. And, since you agree with keeping firearms form terrorists, and these votes were about linking list so terrorists to the background check, you do the easy math here. Your position is pretty clear to everyone but you it seems.

edit on 6/24/2016 by Krakatoa because: Added additional comments



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is the TOPIC.



Democrats don’t want you to own guns, and for that matter, don’t think the constitutional right of due process applies to you, which is why they violated House rules to engage in an hours-long sit-in in the House of Representatives.




But, Heat Street reported Thursday, at least 26 Democrats who participated in the sit-in are gun owners.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is the TOPIC.



Democrats don’t want you to own guns, and for that matter, don’t think the constitutional right of due process applies to you, which is why they violated House rules to engage in an hours-long sit-in in the House of Representatives.




But, Heat Street reported Thursday, at least 26 Democrats who participated in the sit-in are gun owners.




Cool.

Why were you talking about the ACA then?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The bigger question is why is someone spamming the thread with 'Republican'.




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Simple answer: The Arse sitting Democrats violated House rules.

www.nytimes.com...


Democrats — who do not have enough strength in either the House or Senate to pass legislation on their own — have resorted to spectacle to highlight their anger over Congress not taking action to tighten the nation’s gun-control laws.





edit on 24-6-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I have made several posts in the last few days in absolute support of the idea that the first thing Congress needs to work on AND RESOLVE when they get back is the nature of the Terrorist Screening Database, how folks get on it, how they get off of it, fix it and bring it in-line with the Constitution.

Even though, as I understand it, only 1% of the TSDB is composed of Americans ... that's still 1% too many if their Constitutional rights are being denied or abused.

I was opposed to the idea when the Bush Administration set it up in 2003. I think it's insane that thirteen years later we haven't fixed the OBVIOUS issues.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Simple answer: The Arse sitting Democrats violated House rules.





Is there a rule against sitting on the Floor of the House?

Could you provide evidence of that? Thank you kindly.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The bigger question is why is someone spamming the thread with 'Republican'.



Are you offended by the word Republican?

In the US Congress, there are two parties, Democrats and Republicans. IN the issue of the gun control legislation that is a related topic tot hte supposedly "hypocritical" folks who protested, there were both Democratic and Republican plans.

I'm not sure how discussing that is "spamming." Should I alternate between Republican, GOP and The Party of Reagan?

Would that make you feel less intimidated? I'll be glad to do that if it facilitates conversation.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Simple answer: The Arse sitting Democrats violated House rules.

www.nytimes.com...


Democrats — who do not have enough strength in either the House or Senate to pass legislation on their own — have resorted to spectacle to highlight their anger over Congress not taking action to tighten the nation’s gun-control laws.



And the irony is they want unConstitutional laws and will expect everybody to follow the "rules".




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What OFFENDS me is a bunch of gun toting squatters running around telling the rest of us they are better qualified to run our lives than we are.

And political trolls

edit on 24-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Simple answer: The Arse sitting Democrats violated House rules.

www.nytimes.com...


Democrats — who do not have enough strength in either the House or Senate to pass legislation on their own — have resorted to spectacle to highlight their anger over Congress not taking action to tighten the nation’s gun-control laws.



And the irony is they want unConstitutional laws and will expect everybody to follow the "rules".



What's unconstitutional about background checks?

What's unconstitutional about making it harder for terrorists to buy weapons to use against us?




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




What's unconstitutional about background checks?




In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Since you like supreme court decisions so much.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh bollux, the no fly/ terror list is entirely speculative based upon political opinion. You really are bought and paid for it would seem.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

What OFFENDS me is a gun of gun toting statists running around telling the rest of us they are better qualified to run my life than I am.

And political trolls


You must be offended by virtually every GOP member in Congress then. I mean, given the fact that folks in The Party of Reagan are known to be gun-toters, and it seems fair to say that anyone who has sought and been elected to national office qualifies as a "statist" ... and Republicans have long been in favor of promoting "family values" and fighting "drug wars" and so forth ... surely seems to suggest they think they are better suited to run your life than you are.

Geez. I do see your point.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Is there a rule against sitting on the Floor of the House?



Rules do apply.


The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so. www.nbcnews.com...


The legal legislative process failed those Democrats who wished to
subvert The Constitution, so they resorted to disruptive
tactics in attempt to gain "attention".

Even further disgusting that they take a tragedy and try and politicize it.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh bollux, the no fly/ terror list is entirely speculative based upon political opinion. You really are bought and paid for it would seem.


Again I would ask you to prove it. Do you know what the "no fly list" actually is?

I don't appreciate your accusation that I'm "bought and paid for" ... that sounds a lot like you're calling me a shill, which is against T&C. I'm an ATS member sharing my thoughts. I really wish you wouldn't make personal, off-topic comments like that.

What do you know about the "no-fly" list? Why do you think it's "politically" motivated?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are full of it, did you ever answer why we GIVE terrorists weapons, or for that matter cartels? Mexican cartels given weapons by Obama MURDERED AN ENTIRE FAMILY IN OHIO this spring. How do these suggested changes fix the fact that WE are providing these tools weapons? Right or left, you are wrong.
edit on 24-6-2016 by BlueJacket because: Sp

edit on 24-6-2016 by BlueJacket because: Sp



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope they are doing exactly what they were voted in for in 2010, and 2014.

To be the party of NO.

They are actually doing something right for a change as short lived as it may be.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join