Democratic sit in, Is it gonna work?

[Gen4Glock21]

No and it shouldn't work. The irony is all these democrats bitch and moan about violations of peoples rights, yet they want to essentially eliminate a really big one called due process with this no-fly list shit.

[Ghostpanther]

Probably not. Gun ownership has a lot of strong support in the US. Also we already have pretty strict gun laws. The problem is criminality, not firearms per se.

Exactly. What we need is for stronger enforcement of the gun control laws we have now.

[Gamdwelf]

I sure hope they get their way and get to fuck both the 5th amendment and the 2nd.

Fuck due process.

[stomination]

Nothing the Democrats put up for vote pertaining to gun control will ever pass in a Republican held congress.

Even the Republicans put up some votes for gun control and those got shotdown as well by Dems. This is just both sides trying to be the winner of voters and not about actually doing gun control. Both sides know that any bill they make will be taken to court and have a huge chance of losing.

[nacixems]

nope not going to work...

[Shadowferal]

I sure hope they get their way and get to fuck both the 5th amendment and the 2nd.

Fuck due process.

Nope.
Not going to happen.

[Ghostpanther]

None of which changes the fact that gun sales and ownership can be regulated by government, without violating anyones' rights.

There are two opposing camps when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment. One espouses the belief that the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" means that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

Common sense dictates that it can easily be regulated. Period. The only reason it has not, is due to the fact that the most powerful lobbying group - the NRA - has the GOP in their back pockets. A majority of Americans now believe that we need stricter gun control laws. Of course the GOP does not care what Americans want. They have repeatedly proven that with their actions over the last 15 years.

States can regulate gun ownership, but they can not outright ban ownership of all firearms to a citizen who has not did anything to forbid them to. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the subject back in the 1980's when Chicago tried to ban handguns for private ownership. They shot the city's ordinance down as being unconstitutional. They also ruled the 2nd amendment can be used by a citizen for self defense reasons apart from a militia.

Scholars opinion does not mean jack shit as far as the right of the people to exercise that right. The ruling of the Supreme Court does. After the ruling the city of Chicago had to change their law to allowing citizens to possess handguns within their home. Same thing basically happened in DC. So even states/cities are limited as to what extent they can regulate firearm ownership.

[stomination]

It won't work now, but since a vast majority of Americans are in favor of the measure, it may help down ballot races in the Democratic Party's favor.

We have no clue if its a vast majority or not. Many people don't sit on social media and talk about these things all the time.

[Vyxn]

A bunch of fucking children throwing themselves on the floor throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted



- - - Updated - - -

It won't work now, but since a vast majority of Americans are in favor of the measure, it may help down ballot races in the Democratic Party's favor.

because the vast majority don't have a clue how you get on the list to begin with
they think that some evidence you know probable cause that you could be a possible terrorist is used to get on the list but once you tell them just simple suspicion can get you on the list they change their mind and claim that isn't right

[petej0]

Democrats staging a sit in to remove due process should not work. Stripping people of due process should never be allowed by anyone. That's some repugnant shit.

It is amazing how both parties have shifted 180 degrees on the no fly/ watch list. When the Bush Admin expanded it after 9/11 the Dems and the ACLU were livid because it was limiting peoples liberties without due process. Now they are embracing the use of these lists to limit the civil liberties of people because it now fits an agenda.

I especially love how John Lewis is one of the people involved in this "Protest" seeing how he was/is on a no fly list along with many others who have mistakenly found their way on this list.

How about this, how about they fix the process of getting on and getting off the terror watch list before you limit the civil liberties of people on it. Do that, then come back and talk to us.

[Vyxn]

It is amazing how both parties have shifted 180 degrees on the no fly/ watch list. When the Bush Admin expanded it after 9/11 the Dems and the ACLU were livid because it was limiting peoples liberties without due process. Now they are embracing the use of these lists to limit the civil liberties of people because it now fits an agenda.

I especially love how John Lewis is on the people involved in this "Protest" seeing how he was/is on a no fly list along with many others who have mistakenly found their way on this list.

How about this, how about they fix the process of getting on and getting off the terror watch list before you limit the civil liberties of people on it. Do that, then come back and talk to us.

because when Bush implemented it there was no rights being violated you don't have a constitutional right to fly, but you sure in the hell of a constitutional right to purchase a gun and for that right to be removed you need due process you need probable cause argued in front of a judge or jury.
do you think it would be correct for law enforcement to enter your house and search it with no warrant out of simple suspicion you are a terrorist?

[Utinil]

If the Democrats were serious about wanting to enact change to gun control, they would vote "YES" on the proposed Republican bill which puts an extra 3 day hold on gun purchases by people on a "watch list" during which time the government must prove they are a danger. The Democrats could then push for additional laws to make it harder afterwards. By voting no on this bill, they are effectively saying that there primary concern is making sure that the Republicans don't get credit for doing something. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Republican plan is perfect, because 3 days really isn't enough time, but isn't something better than nothing?

[petej0]

because when Bush implemented it there was no rights being violated you don't have a constitutional right to fly, but you sure in the hell of a constitutional right to purchase a gun and for that right to be removed you need due process you need probable cause argued in front of a judge or jury.
do you think it would be correct for law enforcement to enter your house and search it with no warrant out of simple suspicion you are a terrorist?

It doesnt matter if flying is a constitutional right or not, you were limiting the civil liberties of people without due process. Do you think it would be correct for New York State Government to say you can no longer be employed in that state because you got listed on some arbitrary Watch List?

This is the slippery slope everyone is always talking about. First, its "You cant fly", then its "You cant own a firearm", next it will be "You cant rent a car" or "You cant work certain jobs."

[Vyxn]

It doesnt matter if flying is a constitutional right or not, you were limiting the civil liberties of people without due process. Do you think it would be correct for New York State Government to say you can no longer be employed in that state because you got listed on some arbitrary Watch List?

This is the slippery slope everyone is always talking about. First, its "You cant fly", then its "You cant own a firearm", next it will be "You cant rent a car" or "You cant work certain jobs."

I'm not claiming I agree with the no fly list what I'm pointing out it is legal because you dont have the right to fly no rights were being violated unlike taking away the right to purchase a gun

[petej0]

I'm not claiming I agree with the no fly list what I'm pointing out it is legal because you dont have the right to fly no rights were being violated unlike taking away the right to purchase a gun

I know, I am just saying everyone should be against it, Republican Party, Democrat Party, the American Public. To see Republicans and Democrats flip flop positions on it based solely on agendas is pretty sad and I cant believe the Public is falling for this outrageous side show.

[Ghostpanther]

I know, I am just saying everyone should be against it, Republican Party, Democrat Party, the American Public. To see Republicans and Democrats flip flop positions on it based solely on agendas is pretty sad and I cant believe the Public is falling for this outrageous side show.

The democrats are just trying to take advantage of the emotion high spike for more gun control after a mass shooting. They know that high will settle down after a few months when people are thinking instead of allowing their emotions dictate. It is a opportunity they could not resist jumping on.

[upirlikhyi]

Do you really think even if they passed a law making every legal gun against the law they would have people give them willingly? It will be a civil war

[Naxere]

Temper tantrums rarely work.

[Rukh]

Do you really think even if they passed a law making every legal gun against the law they would have people give them willingly? It will be a civil war

This sort of alarmism doesn't help. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to discuss firearm regulation without someone jumping to the "they want to ban all guns!" argument?

[upirlikhyi]

This sort of alarmism doesn't help. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to discuss firearm regulation without someone jumping to the "they want to ban all guns!" argument?

It would be. My point wasnt to say they are going to ban all guns I forgot to quote what I meant to respond to. I am all for some gun control but I also think carry permits should be easier to get