Democratic sit in, Is it gonna work?

[petej0]

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 nice to talk firearm regulation with people who know what they are talking about. People who dont use buzz words like "Semi-Automatic", "High Capacity", "Assault Weapon" or "Military Style" to appeal to emotion. People who want to focus on preventing the types of "mass shootings" that HAVE happened. Not use the "mass shootings" that HAVE happened to pass other types of regulations.

[Kretan]

It would be nice to talk firearm regulation with people who know what they are talking about. People who dont use buzz words like "Semi-Automatic", "High Capacity", "Assault Weapon" or "Military Style" to appeal to emotion. People who want to focus on preventing the types of "mass shootings" that HAVE happened. Not use the "mass shootings" that HAVE happened to pass other types of regulations.

The problem with your statement is that one side of it is just incorrect while the other is not. Those buzz-words are actual descriptions commonplace in describing them. The idea of "taking our guns" is incorrect and completely unsupported at any level beyond conspiracy. These two arguments are not the same thing.

[Blur4stuff]

well if it doesn't work this time, no worries. there will be at least a dozen or so chances throughout the rest of the year.

perhaps even republicans will be willing to do something once the pile of bodies gets high enough. not sure how many it will take.

[Wildtree]

Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew of this. SENATORS, acting like a bunch of children when they don't get their way.

1. You know those aren't the Senators, right? It's the house of representatives.
2. What history lessons have you learned in school? Since when were the founding fathers a bunch of guys sitting around singing cumbaya and giving each other handjobs?
The men in charge of the country at it's creation were at least as much divided as the two parties are today

[Vyxn]

1. You know those aren't the Senators, right? It's the house of representatives.
2. What history lessons have you learned in school? Since when were the founding fathers a bunch of guys sitting around singing cumbaya and giving each other handjobs?
The men in charge of the country at it's creation were at least as much divided as the two parties are today

and when did the founding fathers ever threw them selves on the floor and threw a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted
never read they did that in any one of my history books

what the spoiled petulant children did was establish a immature precedent. anytime one side doesn't get what they want they can sit on the floor and throw a fit. is that the way you want our government to work?

[TZucchini]

what the spoiled petulant children did was establish a immature precedent.

Oh Vyxn. It's like you're never right about anything.

The sit-in evoked memories of a protest by House Republicans in August 2008 to push for a vote on offshore drilling. When Pelosi, then the House speaker, adjourned the House for Congress' summer recess, a handful of House GOP members remained as the lights and microphones inside the chamber were turned off and House cameras, controlled by the speaker's office, were switched off.

[Pangean]

Oh Vyxn. It's like you're never right about anything.

The sit-in evoked memories of a protest by House Republicans in August 2008 to push for a vote on offshore drilling. When Pelosi, then the House speaker, adjourned the House for Congress' summer recess, a handful of House GOP members remained as the lights and microphones inside the chamber were turned off and House cameras, controlled by the speaker's office, were switched off.

It's like Vyxn is the Bill Kristol of the forum.

[Wildtree]

and when did the founding fathers ever threw them selves on the floor and threw a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted
never read they did that in any one of my history books

what the spoiled petulant children did was establish a immature precedent. anytime one side doesn't get what they want they can sit on the floor and throw a fit. is that the way you want our government to work?

Do you really want the embarrassment to have a foreigner lecture your on your own history?
But then, since it's you, there isn't a lot left to embarrass.

What the dems did now has precedence throughout history of democracy. It is democracy how it's suppose to work.
To have a minority use any and every tool at it's disposal to express their opinion in a peaceful non-violent way.
It is the exact same thing - by outcome - as a filibuster that goes on forever and ever, when a congress member reads Dr Seuss in it's entirety, except for staying on topic.

[Vyxn]

Oh Vyxn. It's like you're never right about anything.

The sit-in evoked memories of a protest by House Republicans in August 2008 to push for a vote on offshore drilling. When Pelosi, then the House speaker, adjourned the House for Congress' summer recess, a handful of House GOP members remained as the lights and microphones inside the chamber were turned off and House cameras, controlled by the speaker's office, were switched off.

did they sit on the floor did hey scream and and chant like democrats did? did those republicans keep the house from conducting any other business like democrats attempted to do? your failed attempt of an equivalence is laughable at best

[dacoolist]

There are plenty of common sense gun laws on the books.. The problem is they're not enforced. There are plenty of laws that would put a serious dent in the amount of crime committed with guns, the problem is a full on ban and confiscation is the end goal for these filthy politicians (especially when their families are protected by people WITH GUNS..).

You have these people sitting here crying their crocodile tears when a full on gun ban doesn't go their way.. Sure it looks good on paper, a TON of stuff does.. But who decides who gets to keep weapons, and who gets to loses their weapons.. Politicians that are protected? GTFO

[Blade Wolf]

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?

I guess applying the same rules for cars as guns would be to much to ask? How long does it take to get a car license versus a gun license?

There are plenty of common sense gun laws on the books.. The problem is they're not enforced. There are plenty of laws that would put a serious dent in the amount of crime committed with guns, the problem is a full on ban and confiscation is the end goal for these filthy politicians (especially when their families are protected by people WITH GUNS..).

You have these people sitting here crying their crocodile tears when a full on gun ban doesn't go their way.. Sure it looks good on paper, a TON of stuff does.. But who decides who gets to keep weapons, and who gets to loses their weapons.. Politicians that are protected? GTFO

That's some heavy tinfoil.

[Wildtree]

There are plenty of common sense gun laws on the books.. The problem is they're not enforced. There are plenty of laws that would put a serious dent in the amount of crime committed with guns, the problem is a full on ban and confiscation is the end goal for these filthy politicians (especially when their families are protected by people WITH GUNS..).

You have these people sitting here crying their crocodile tears when a full on gun ban doesn't go their way.. Sure it looks good on paper, a TON of stuff does.. But who decides who gets to keep weapons, and who gets to loose weapons.. Politicians that are protected? GTFO

idk what you talking about.
No one wants a full fledged ban.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess applying the same rules for cars as guns would be to much to ask? How long does it take to get a car license versus a gun license?

A lot longer.
It's also harder to get a puppy. Literally.

[dacoolist]

idk what you talking about.
No one wants a full fledged ban.

The law states that anyone on this 'list' is unable to own a gun.. WHO makes the list? Who decides who and how they get on this 'list' - it creates the ability for a full on gun ban for massive amounts of people just because someone doesn't want guns in a certain area. It's fucken ridiculous.

[Blade Wolf]

idk what you talking about.
No one wants a full fledged ban.

- - - Updated - - -

A lot longer.
It's also harder to get a puppy. Literally.

Deadlier than any mortal weapon!

[petej0]

The problem with your statement is that one side of it is just incorrect while the other is not. Those buzz-words are actual descriptions commonplace in describing them. The idea of "taking our guns" is incorrect and completely unsupported at any level beyond conspiracy. These two arguments are not the same thing.

Yes, those buzz words are correct, but they are used to provoke the emotions of people who arent that knowledgeable about guns. When I hear about shootings it is a "handgun" or a "semi-automatic rifle". Rarely, is it described as a "semi-automatic handgun". They back it up with arguments like "Nobody needs a military weapon." They are trying to paint a picture in the publics mind that people own fully automatic weapons the kind you see in movies. This is just not the case and disingenuous.

[Vyxn]

The law states that anyone on this 'list' is unable to own a gun.. WHO makes the list? Who decides who and how they get on this 'list' - it creates the ability for a full on gun ban for massive amounts of people just because someone doesn't want guns in a certain area. It's fucken ridiculous.

only law enforcement is involved no judge no jury
it would be the same as allowing a cop to bust in your house to conduct a search with no search warrant issued by a judge. just his suspicion was all that was required

[dacoolist]

I guess applying the same rules for cars as guns would be to much to ask? How long does it take to get a car license versus a gun license?



That's some heavy tinfoil.

I love how you libs always say strawman and tinfoil in every fucking reply when you can't think of anything else. GTFO with comments like this

[Wildtree]

The law states that anyone on this 'list' is unable to own a gun.. WHO makes the list? Who decides who and how they get on this 'list' - it creates the ability for a full on gun ban for massive amounts of people just because someone doesn't want guns in a certain area. It's fucken ridiculous.

The law states nothing. There is no law. That is the whole point of the matter.

[dacoolist]

only law enforcement is involved no judge no jury
it would be the same as allowing a cop to bust in your house to conduct a search with no search warrant issued by a judge. just his suspicion was all that was required

I think it's great right, hey just ban guns everywhere, if you BAN guns - Criminals will NEVER BE ABLE TO GET A GUN.. I think we should ban cars, shit people die every single 30 minutes from car crashes, shit may as well ban them.

[Blade Wolf]

I love how you libs always say strawman and tinfoil in every fucking reply when you can't think of anything else. GTFO with comments like this

What the hell are you smoking? First time i've ever used tinfoil and i've never said strawman either but then again you sound like a classic gun nut who believes that the slightest gun control equals a complete ban.