Democratic sit in, Is it gonna work?

[petej0]

that isn't a link to the bill that was just a liberal bias description of the bill

Its the closest I could get. I cant find the bill numbers or the text. Liberal or not both sides submitted two bills and all four were voted down pretty much along party lines. Which says two things. There really is no rush to pass anything by either party. Second, the media continues to blame republicans for the gridlock even though the Dems are just as complicit.

[Deathcries]

Which is why we should support distributing nukes to the general public too. /sarcasm

Knowing the difference between firearms and ordinance for 100 Alex.

[Roxinius]

last time i checked you dont give into toddlers throwing a tantrum because they didnt get their way

[Nfinitii]

Its the closest I could get. I cant find the bill numbers or the text. Liberal or not both sides submitted two bills and all four were voted down pretty much along party lines. Which says two things. There really is no rush to pass anything by either party. Second, the media continues to blame republicans for the gridlock even though the Dems are just as complicit.

That was my take away from all of this also, thanks for the article. In terms of terrorism, gun control is a very small piece of the puzzle imo. They will find a way to kill regardless what u do. I wish there was more talk about fixing intelligence to catch those that r here and preventing more from coming in. It's not acceptable that this guy was investigated by the FBI so many times and he still is able to pull off this kind of attack.

I do think it's silly that democrats r so focused on gun control but r willing to bring in Syrian refugees that Isis has said they infiltrated, and our own intelligence agencies have said Isis will infiltrate and that they can't vet the refugees. Who knows how many terrorist will get in.

[Dadwen]

that isn't a link to the bill that was just a liberal bias description of the bill

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.
And a Democratic option that sought to bar all gun sales to those individuals on the terror watch list failed 47-53, the second time the proposal went down to defeat after a mass shooting. California Democratic Sen.

Hmm I don't know reading that link the Republican one comes off sounding the most legal.

[petej0]

That was my take away from all of this also, thanks for the article. In terms of terrorism, gun control is a very small piece of the puzzle imo. They will find a way to kill regardless what u do. I wish there was more talk about fixing intelligence to catch those that r here and preventing more from coming in. It's not acceptable that this guy was investigated by the FBI so many times and he still is able to pull off this kind of attack.

From what I read awhile ago, he had a gun that he used as part of his security job. So regardless, unless the FBI was tracking his every movements he would have been able to kill people. Everyone wants to jump on the FBI, including me, yet the more I look at it, what more could they have done? The guy passed numerous background checks during his employment with the security firm and even passed a psychological test. From what I read he was under investigation for stuff he said, who hasnt said some stupid shit? I would like to think the FBI wants to stop terror plots as part of a larger "See we are doing good" self congratulatory action. Yet if they didnt find enough actionable evidence with this guy, then maybe there really wasnt much to go on. We are, after all, looking at this after the fact and all trying to play arm chair QB.

[Zoranon]

Hmm I don't know reading that link the Republican one comes off sounding the most legal.

That is not too surprising on this subject. Dems refused it since they claimed that it would apparently be too much for FBI to come with probable cause...

This coming from the same folks who said due process is a problem...

[Nfinitii]

From what I read awhile ago, he had a gun that he used as part of his security job. So regardless, unless the FBI was tracking his every movements he would have been able to kill people. Everyone wants to jump on the FBI, including me, yet the more I look at it, what more could they have done? The guy passed numerous background checks during his employment with the security firm and even passed a psychological test. From what I read he was under investigation for stuff he said, who hasnt said some stupid shit? I would like to think the FBI wants to stop terror plots as part of a larger "See we are doing good" self congratulatory action. Yet if they didnt find enough actionable evidence with this guy, then maybe there really wasnt much to go on. We are, after all, looking at this after the fact and all trying to play arm chair QB.

It that situation the FBI probably couldn't have done more, that doesn't make any more acceptable. I'm just saying I would like to c talks about giving the FBI and other agencies the power to do what they need to do and prevent more terrorists from coming in.

[Boathouse]

Isn't this the same thing as a kid sitting down in an isle at a store because mommy wouldn't buy them a toy? That's what it looks like.

[Torgent]

Isn't this the same thing as a kid sitting down in an isle at a store because mommy wouldn't buy them a toy? That's what it looks like.

No, this is someone sitting down in their work and protesting because their colleagues refuse to have a conversation regarding their duties.

[Almaric]

'Murica is fucking hillarious, or it would be if you weren't shooting eachother so often.

[petej0]

It that situation the FBI probably couldn't have done more, that doesn't make any more acceptable. I'm just saying I would like to c talks about giving the FBI and other agencies the power to do what they need to do and prevent more terrorists from coming in.

I agree with what you are saying, but lets face it. This guy was American born with no criminal past and an honorable career. He is the "good guy" that went "bad" and there isnt much you can do to stop that.

[Gorgodeus]

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.

The court makes rulings based on their beliefs. Hence why there is always a big hoopla when it comes to the nomination process. It will simply take a swing in the courts political leanings because gun control is nothing more than a political fight.

[Ghostpanther]

The court makes rulings based on their beliefs. Hence why there is always a big hoopla when it comes to the nomination process. It will simply take a swing in the courts political leanings because gun control is nothing more than a political fight.

Of course. But meanwhile the Americans get to exercise their right based on that ruling. Not on some scholar's opinion. :P

[Spectral]

I can't imagine why or how these sorts of ridiculous spectacles change anyone's mind. Apparently there is some precedent for it, but it just looks like childish nonsense to me.

[TheTaurenOrc]

I can't imagine why or how these sorts of ridiculous spectacles change anyone's mind. Apparently there is some precedent for it, but it just looks like childish nonsense to me.

I think the purpose is to force them to show their true colors.

In the Senate, they forced a vote and all the Republicans voted against the bill. So now the Democrats can use that against them in election campaigns.

In the House, the Republicans decided they would prefer to have an extra week vacation instead of voting. You couldn't ask for more dirt.

[Flutterguy]

Clearly not dedicated enough to sit through their vacations. What would the poor dead children of Sandyhook think?

[Roxinius]

No, this is someone sitting down in their work and protesting because their colleagues refuse to have a conversation regarding their duties.

yet just monday they voted down a proposal that gave them what they wanted they have no room to bitch

[Logwyn]

To be fair to the people most of these buffoons on both sides run unopposed and have gerrymandered (cheated) districts making it near impossible for them to lose.

Agreed. Time to bounce them... but alas how?

[Tempguy]

No. You forget this is a job where you literally don't even have to show up or do anything.

However, kudos on the Dems for finally sticking up for something. I am sick of the Republicans pulling little fuck fuck games to get their way and it's about time they got a taste of how it is.

Next step is to Filibuster the fuck out of every Republican legislation brought up. Fuck em.


How is that for all the folks who think I am Conservative/Rep just because I disagree with your liberal slant? Independent FTW.