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

originally posted by: burntheships

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.

How is sitting on the floor subverting the Constitution again?

You keep saying it but you don't offer any evidence?

Why didn't Speaker Ryan just order them out then if he didn't like where they were sitting?

a reply to: xuenchen

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the

HUGE MANATEE uhhh humanity of it all!

Harry-ignorance-gone-to-seed-traidtor-indeed-Reid?

OF COURSE! It's in his bones and blood to be a raging ruthless Republic destroying hypocrite.

Globalist Shill Patrick Leahy?

OF COURSE! He tries to play it slick and mild mannered often enough but at heart, he's as ruthless a destroyer of the Republic as any other globalist.

originally posted by: neo96
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.

Background checks aren't illegal.

The part of the FEDERAL legislation that required STATE AND LOCAL law enforcement personnel to perform the checks was deemed Unconstitutional due to jurisdiction.

I'm proud of you for actually quoting a SCOTUS decision though.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't care if they own guns.

I don't care if they want to ban guns. In fact, I think those that want to ban guns should loudly proclaim it! They should put signs up in their yard.

originally posted by: neo96
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.

They were elected to do nothing?

I thought they promised jobs bills, repeal of ACA, etc?

(And I thought you said that "Republicans" are off topic ... ???)

originally posted by: BlueJacket
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.

Why should I prove your argument connecting the Cartels to terrorism for you? That's your claim, your job.

It's off topic here though. We're talking about 26 gun owning Democrats accused of being hypocrites for some reason, no one has been able to prove that in six or seven pages though.

I'm starting to believe that it's just not true.

a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice deflection, thats how I know you'rea stooge. The proof is everwhere, nice try though.

originally posted by: xuenchen
And the irony is they want unConstitutional laws and will expect everybody to follow the "rules".

Oh the Irony...
And someone was objecting to calling it hypocrisy.



Hypocrites on so many levels....

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice deflection, thats how I know you'rea stooge. The proof is everwhere, nice try though.

So now we're back to "it's true because everyone knows it's true."

You fundamentally misunderstand what we're doing here, it seems.

Thanks for the chat.

a reply to: neo96

Funny thing is, if a fat anti-gun sissy wants to go on a diet, he makes everyone else eat less.

hahahahahahahaha

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why should I prove your argument connecting the Cartels to terrorism for you? That's your claim, your job.

Congressional report ties Middle East terrorists to Mexican drug cartels

Cartels Help Terrorists in Mexico Get to U.S. to Explore Targets; ISIS Militant Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir Among Them

Mexican Cartels Smuggle Terrorists into U.S. Through Rural Texas Border Region

Terrorism, Drug Trafficking, and ISIS: When Wicked Worlds Collide

Drug cartel-terrorist ties known in 2001

ISIS, Mexican Drug Cartels Teaming Up?

That was real 'hard' to look up. I think I broke a nail doing it.

It's rather apparent that someones job here is just TROLLING other posters.

ABSOLUTELY, INDEED.

The entitlement of the elite mentality is incredible . . . haughty, arrogant, ruthless, tyrannical . . . almost always . . . certainly eventually, always.

That anyone would argue otherwise on this thread is a testimony to how extensive the propaganda lobotomies have succeeded. Outrageous.

For some relief from the mind-numbing idiocy of all such . . .

these VERY humorous one liners may be helpful. However . . . several are not for polite company:
.
www.pinterest.com... rce=31&utm_term=1&utm_medium=2012

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why should I prove your argument connecting the Cartels to terrorism for you? That's your claim, your job.

Congressional report ties Middle East terrorists to Mexican drug cartels

Cartels Help Terrorists in Mexico Get to U.S. to Explore Targets; ISIS Militant Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir Among Them

Mexican Cartels Smuggle Terrorists into U.S. Through Rural Texas Border Region

Terrorism, Drug Trafficking, and ISIS: When Wicked Worlds Collide

Drug cartel-terrorist ties known in 2001

ISIS, Mexican Drug Cartels Teaming Up?

That was real 'hard' to look up. I think I broke a nail doing it.

It's rather apparent that someones job here is just TROLLING other posters.

Hey thanks Neo ... perhaps the other poster who made those claims will thank you too. Although, I don't put much faith in propaganda from fringe right-wing media sites. I appreciate the effort though.

You keep making this TROLLING accusation and I'd like to ask you to stop. I'm just interacting in the thread out of interest, not unlike you are.

Wouldn't you say that those items are off-topic though? Didn't you clarify that the topic was the 26 members of Congress who are supposedly so hypocritical because they own guns???

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

This makes zero sense. The native Americans did not have guns until we sold, gave and traded them to them. In fact the fact they were armed is one of the reasons we even have a second amendment so that the local militia could fight off gun totting natives. Of course not all of them liked them, many of the considered such a weapon dishonorable and not a weapon of a true warrior. Not that guns are much used against cannons.

As for op. most gun owners in polling has showed support for better gun regulation. That does not make the hypocrites any more than car owners supporting safe driving laws makes the hypocrites. Then again maybe you just do not know what the word hypocrisy means?

a reply to: neo96

I assume that prior to that post . . .

you donned your

"jousting with brick walls" helmet on.

No need getting even minor brain damage trying to help the willfully blind see even a hint of a glimmer of light. It's just a futile and frustrating effort.

The time might be more profitably spent watching paint peel.

LOL.

a reply to: MrSpad

Are you straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?

It seems fairly simple, to me.

The "elected" Dems are wholesale--more of them and at more intense levels and more comprehensively

dyed-in-the-wool--traitorous globalists, tyrannical, suicidal idiots.

For them to enjoy the protection of guns while denying them to their citizens

is an OUTRAGEOUS LEVEL AND TYPE OF HAUGHTY HYPOCRISY--whatever sensible definition is used.

a reply to: MrSpad

As for op. most gun owners in polling has showed support for better gun regulation.

I wasn't asked. Neither was MOST PEOPLE.

In fact the people that 'support' is most likely those that have never bought one.

As the saying goes people VOTE with their wallets.

Over 100 million guns sold tell the truth to everyone.

The 'majority' doesn't.

Only those kleptocrats on Capital hill.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
They would only be hypocrites if they obtain their firearms through illegal methods or are purchasing the weapons they want restricted such as an ar15.

LOL.. As they roll 10 deep with body guards with sub machine guns.. They don't need an AR15 but you are just the type of person they like out there rooting for their hypocrisy..