Dems conduct sit-in over gun laws

[*bfine32*]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-stage-sit-in-for-gun-vote-on-floor-of-house-of-representatives-2-172052038.html

Quote:Civil rights icon and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., led House Democrats through a Wednesday sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives to demand a vote on gun control legislation.

Democrats are pushing for a vote on the so-called “no fly, no buy” bill, which would prevent those on terrorist watch lists from purchasing arms. The measure gained public traction after a gunman killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando on June 12.

In a speech on the House floor prior to the sit-in, Lewis said he held “executive sessions” with himself on several occasions to ponder what it would take to spur Congress to action on gun violence legislation.

What are our thoughts on this?

[Belsnickel]

I think bringing a bill to a vote would be good. That is what they are asking for, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

I am more concerned about Speaker Ryan cutting media access to the chamber. I never like when that occurs on the hill.

[*bfine32*]

(06-22-2016, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think bringing a bill to a vote would be good. That is what they are asking for, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

I am more concerned about Speaker Ryan cutting media access to the chamber. I never like when that occurs on the hill.

Not sure asking is the correct term; however, I agree a vote should be taken, From what the article says, not only did the Dems cut the media when they controlled the house; they also cut the lights. I'm not sure how I feel about POTUS chiming in with his support of this breech of protocol. 

[BmorePat87]

I doubt anyone who is up in arms about this is going to sway Republican leadership to hold a vote. That said, why not vote?

Also with Matt on cutting media access. People will see it either way, best not to look like the "villains".

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2016, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure asking is the correct term; however, I agree a vote should be taken, From what the article says, not only did the Dems cut the media when they controlled the house; they also cut the lights. I'm not sure how I feel about POTUS chiming in with his support of this breech of protocol. 

I know both sides tend to cut the access when stuff like this happens, and it irritates me every time. I haven't paid any attention to comments from the WH on this. The extent of my knowledge is there is a sit in after failing to bring bills to the floor for universal background checks and denying guns to those on terrorist watch lists, and Speaker Ryan cut off media access. That's what I caught on the radio today driving to and from NOVA.

[StLucieBengal]

It's a terrible bill to vote on... Shouldn't be voted on considering there is no metric for on/off of the no fly list.

Define that and then vote.

[SunsetBengal]

Not concerned at all. This is just the latest attempt to use a terrible event, in order to get more of our freedoms taken away. If they would focus on enforcing the laws that we already have on the books, chances are there would be no need for "new legislation".

I mean, let's back up a year, or whatever it has been since the White kid shot up the Black folk in their church. Didn't it come out later that he actually should have been denied a sale? Wasn't it in fact the fault of someone on the enforcement/background check side that dropped the ball? I mean, wasn't Sandy Hook (if you believe that it really happened), the fault of the Mother, for allowing access to her son that had mental issues?

So, if the Democrats want to sit in and pout together, let them! Our Founding Fathers wrote the bill of rights for a reason.

[*bfine32*]

(06-22-2016, 07:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's a terrible bill to vote on...  Shouldn't be voted on considering there is no metric for on/off of the no fly list.  

Define that and then vote.

(06-22-2016, 07:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not concerned at all.  This is just the latest attempt to use a terrible event, in order to get more of our freedoms taken away.  If they would focus on enforcing the laws that we already have on the books, chances are there would be no need for "new legislation".  

This is where I disagree with many conservatives and a few liberals (kinda). I have zero issue with added restrictions to purchase handguns and semi-automatic rifles. I think owning a weapon is a right, not a privilege and ownership comes with great responsibility. 

I do agree with Sunset that the ultimate answer in enforce current laws and increase punishment; however, my biggest issue with this given situation is POTUS taking the side of those that failed to follow protocol. Sometimes you must realize that your voice is the minority, no matter how passionate you are about the cause.  

[THE Bigzoman]

There's no due process involved in being put on the no fly list.

You cannot remove someone's rights (in this case to bear arms) without due process.

Therefore, **** off democrats.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-22-2016, 08:07 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: There's no due process involved in being put on the no fly list.

You cannot remove someone's rights (in this case to bear arms) without due process.

Therefore, **** off democrats.

Wasn't there a democrat last week taking about how due process is keeping them from getting anything done.   

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2016, 08:07 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: There's no due process involved in being put on the no fly list.

You cannot remove someone's rights (in this case to bear arms) without due process.

Therefore, **** off democrats.

While I disagree with your delivery, you have a valid argument that I hadn't considered. Any law that would pass would be shot down in the courts.

[THE Bigzoman]

(06-22-2016, 08:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I disagree with your delivery, you have a valid argument that I hadn't considered. Any law that would pass would be shot down in the courts.

It's all in good fun.


I don't have a vendetta against liberals or anything. I'd consdider myself more of a John Stuart Mill classical liberal type.


Why is my text suddenly Italics?

[Millhouse]

So if the sit-in works, will it help reduce homicides by guns in places like lets say umm Chicago?

I'm always in favor of looking for ways to help keep guns out of people's hands that shouldn't have them, like mentally red flagged, ex felons, terrorist suspects, etc. But at same time there is an underlying culture out there that breeds a lot of violence in numerous certain areas of the country. That is where the sit in should be directed at if they really want to curb down on gun violence out there. imo.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-22-2016, 10:05 PM)Millhouse Wrote: So if the sit-in works, will it help reduce homicides by guns in places like lets say umm Chicago?

I'm always in favor of looking for ways to help keep guns out of people's hands that shouldn't have them, like mentally red flagged, ex felons,  terrorist suspects, etc. But at same time there is an underlying culture out there that breeds a lot of violence in numerous certain areas of the country.  That is where the sit in should be directed at if they really want to curb down on gun violence out there. imo.

Seems like this is attempt at a mere vote on the topic is a logical first step. They'll point to the members of the house against such a bill saying they're breaking terrorism yada yada. 

I'd prefer we don't allow guns in the hands of people on watch lists, but have to agree with those here that state due process is required to enable them to clear their names.  

I just don't like the idea that the NRA restricts any gun related legislation from even having its day on the floor. 

[Millhouse]

(06-22-2016, 10:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Seems like this is attempt at a mere vote on the topic is a logical first step. They'll point to the members of the house against such a bill saying they're breaking terrorism yada yada. 

I'd prefer we don't allow guns in the hands of people on watch lists, but have to agree with those here that state due process is required to enable them to clear their names.  

I just don't like the idea that the NRA restricts any gun related legislation from even having its day on the floor. 

I dont like that either with the NRA. If it was up to some of them, they would let anyone buy guns out of vending machines.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2016, 10:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I just don't like the idea that the NRA restricts any gun related legislation from even having its day on the floor. 

Absolutely. Hell, we can't even spend money on researching the topic because the NRA lobby is that powerful.

[*bfine32*]

How many "assault weapons" votes did the Dems bring to the floor when they controlled the house?

[*Nately120*]

(06-22-2016, 10:05 PM)Millhouse Wrote: So if the sit-in works, will it help reduce homicides by guns in places like lets say umm Chicago?

I'm always in favor of looking for ways to help keep guns out of people's hands that shouldn't have them, like mentally red flagged, ex felons,  terrorist suspects, etc. But at same time there is an underlying culture out there that breeds a lot of violence in numerous certain areas of the country.  That is where the sit in should be directed at if they really want to curb down on gun violence out there. imo.

In all fairness Chicago gang violence is as much proof that guns don't protect you from bad guys with guns as much as it is proof that gun control doesn't work.

If most of America were the Chicago slums then the Chicago homicide rate would be a lot more applicable to the rest of the country.

[tigerseye]

The store owner warned the FBI and they didn't do anything. (Except for afterward try to take all mention of ISIS out of the conversation- glad they changed their mind.)

They need to use what is in place instead of always asking for more gun laws.

Obama and the gov. needs to stick to what is the actual problem. (Sharia/ Ratical Islam/ ISIS)


THE ACTUAL PROBLEM:

Islam preaches the murder of gays.  (cause)

Islamist murdered 49 gays.              (effect)


THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

We need more gun control. (eventhough what is available is not being utilized)

We need to vote on gay job reform (what?)


Putting more gun control in place will only effect law abiding citizens. These people do not give a ship about our laws.

You know how I know because they're MASS MURDERS and they don't give a ship.

You make more and more gun control laws all your doing is making it harder on the people who obey laws.

If you make more gun laws, these people will smuggle guns in (like drugs), buy them on the black market or have somebody buy them for them (a friend or whoever they can pay to do it).
 
You think that it is only against extremists/terrorists. Who is an extremeist?a radical? . I know over the top right. Unfortunately our worlds changing and not for the better.

The government is chipping away at our Constitution everyday by using events just like this and people are lining up to go along with it. 

Sounds crazy right but our leaders actually swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. That use to mean something.

Anyway, Have a good night and God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!

[BoomerFan]

(06-22-2016, 08:07 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: There's no due process involved in being put on the no fly list.

You cannot remove someone's rights (in this case to bear arms) without due process.

Isn't the easy ability to move around the country being infringed by a no fly list? Call it freedom of expression. I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but it seems like no fly lists are problematic to begin with. 

All that said, constitutionally protected rights already see pragmatic compromise in other laws and have for a long time and that's OK. We have more civil liberties protections than at any point in history.