PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Conduct Sit-In on the Floor of the House



Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 08:51 PM
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.

cont.

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

I think that in light of the last few years' mass shootings, adddressing gun control in some form is needed. I am not in favor of letting terrorists or violent people buy guns. That said, the "No Fly, No Buy" bill curtails American's 2d Amendment rights without any sort of due process of law in accordance with the 5th and 14th Amendments. If this is done IRT the 2d Amendment ... what other rights will be offered up without due process?

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 09:15 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-stage-sit-in-for-gun-vote-on-floor-of-house-of-representatives-2-172052038.html

I think that in light of the last few years' mass shootings, adddressing gun control in some form is needed. You're making the assumption that "gun control" would have stopped the shootings.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 09:19 PM
You're making the assumption that "gun control" would have stopped the shootings.

No, I didn't say that ... I said addressing gun control is needed. I don't think gun control outright would have stopped the shootings per se.

I think researching the problem of gun violence (something currently barred from being paid for by federal funds) is a good idea ... to see if there is a better way of legislating and licensing legal gun purchases.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 09:40 PM
No, I didn't say that ... I said addressing gun control is needed. I don't think gun control outright would have stopped the shootings per se.

I think researching the problem of gun violence (something currently barred from being paid for by federal funds) is a good idea ... to see if there is a better way of legislating and licensing legal gun purchases.My issue with the research is that they want it going through the CDC. What sense does that make? There are better avenues to be used and would probably be successful.

Voting is a right...gun ownership is a right. Take those people who we don't allow to vote and make them the same ones not allowed to own/purchase guns. The revocation of Constitutional rights should have the same standards.

I'll give you a quick synopsis on gun control/violence. People do it because it's a quick way to get notoriety. It's always been that way. Hell, go back to the Old West...who are the most famous outlaws? The gunslingers...James gang, Billy the Kid, etc. Each time it gets reported it gives the next kid a reason to go shoot something up.

We live in a society of 15 minutes of fame, of Twitter and Instagram where people want to be famous/infamous and don't care what stupid shit they have to do it. No amount of gun "control" is going to change that. Sit down with any psychologist/psychiatrist and ask them why kids act out. The answer is almost always the same...it's because they want attention. What do we do? We give the shooters the attention. We play the game, then wonder why it happens.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 09:54 PM
My issue with the research is that they want it going through the CDC. What sense does that make? There are better avenues to be used and would probably be successful.

Voting is a right...gun ownership is a right. Take those people who we don't allow to vote and make them the same ones not allowed to own/purchase guns. The revocation of Constitutional rights should have the same standards.

I'll give you a quick synopsis on gun control/violence. People do it because it's a quick way to get notoriety. It's always been that way. Hell, go back to the Old West...who are the most famous outlaws? The gunslingers...James gang, Billy the Kid, etc. Each time it gets reported it gives the next kid a reason to go shoot something up.

We live in a society of 15 minutes of fame, of Twitter and Instagram where people want to be famous/infamous and don't care what stupid shit they have to do it. No amount of gun "control" is going to change that. Sit down with any psychologist/psychiatrist and ask them why kids act out. The answer is almost always the same...it's because they want attention. What do we do? We give the shooters the attention. We play the game, then wonder why it happens.

I agree, the CDC may not be the best route. Maybe they get a piece of the action IRT mental health disorders ... don't know.

I also agree, some people are looking for their 15 minutes and attempt to go down in a blaze of glory (commence my Bon Jovi singing now).

I think the current lack of anything is sticking our head in the sand and ignoring a problem.

I think the bill the House Democrats want a vote on today is a bad bill that curtails due process:

-If you end up on a no fly list you can't buy a gun. On the surface, sounds good ... then I ask:

1. How does one get nominated for the no fly list?
-That is murky and not really well defined.
2. What are the criteria to be on the no fly list?
-Some of it is public, some of it is not based on 'sources and methods'.
3. Who approves the names on the no fly list?
-What person or board approves the list? When is the name revisited?
4. How are people notified they are on the no fly list?
-They aren't ...
5. How does an individual appeal being on the no fly list?
-That is murky, not well defined and incumbent on the individual to hire a lawyer to prove themselves innocent (the opposite of our principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

I am not a fan that someone without a criminal conviction could have their 2d Amendment right suspended.

The Senate vote on 4 measures last week ... all failed. The one that to me made the most sense would require a 72 hour waiting period if an individual on a no fly list wanted to buy a firearm. In that 72 hours it was the job of the Dept of Homeland Security to petition a judge for an injunction to prevent the individual from buying the firearm. If the government failed to file the petition for injunction or if the judge disagreed the individual could finalize the purchase of the firearm. Not perfect ... but better than a complete suspension of judicial due process.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 11:33 PM
Nice to see that someone in Congress is actually working...no matter how stupid they're being.

efmbman
06-22-2016, 11:56 PM
-If you end up on a no fly list you can't buy a gun. On the surface, sounds good ... then I ask:

1. How does one get nominated for the no fly list?
-That is murky and not really well defined.
2. What are the criteria to be on the no fly list?
-Some of it is public, some of it is not based on 'sources and methods'.
3. Who approves the names on the no fly list?
-What person or board approves the list? When is the name revisited?
4. How are people notified they are on the no fly list?
-They aren't ...
5. How does an individual appeal being on the no fly list?
-That is murky, not well defined and incumbent on the individual to hire a lawyer to prove themselves innocent (the opposite of our principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

That's my objection to the whole thing. In fact, I believe the entire no-fly list thingy should be declare unconstitutional and disbanded. If the feds (or whoever) has evidence to support an investigation, then investigate. Use a judge to get a warrant and then arrest. File charges... you know the deal. No need to re-invent the wheel - we have an established process for dealing with criminals. The massive knee jerk reaction to 9/11 (including the PATRIOT Act) is horrible in my opinion.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 12:24 AM
Nice to see that someone in Congress is actually working...no matter how stupid they're being.

They work a lot ... even when Congress is not in session.

The Member I worked for ... I did not agree with most of her positions, but her work ethic was higher than most of what I see in corporate and military folks.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 12:24 AM
Nice to see that someone in Congress is actually working...no matter how stupid they're being.

They work a lot ... even when Congress is not in session.

The Member I worked for ... I did not agree with most of her positions, but her work ethic was higher than most of what I see in corporate and military folks.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 12:27 AM
That's my objection to the whole thing. In fact, I believe the entire no-fly list thingy should be declare unconstitutional and disbanded. If the feds (or whoever) has evidence to support an investigation, then investigate. Use a judge to get a warrant and then arrest. File charges... you know the deal. No need to re-invent the wheel - we have an established process for dealing with criminals. The massive knee jerk reaction to 9/11 (including the PATRIOT Act) is horrible in my opinion.

As I understand it (not a lawyer) is the reason the no fly list can exist is that there is not a right to air travel, it is a privilege and that privilege can be denied for security. Is short of due process but does not deny a right (can still travel, just not on a plane).

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 12:27 AM
That's my objection to the whole thing. In fact, I believe the entire no-fly list thingy should be declare unconstitutional and disbanded. If the feds (or whoever) has evidence to support an investigation, then investigate. Use a judge to get a warrant and then arrest. File charges... you know the deal. No need to re-invent the wheel - we have an established process for dealing with criminals. The massive knee jerk reaction to 9/11 (including the PATRIOT Act) is horrible in my opinion.

As I understand it (not a lawyer) is the reason the no fly list can exist is that there is not a right to air travel, it is a privilege and that privilege can be denied for security. Is short of due process but does not deny a right (can still travel, just not on a plane).

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 02:48 AM
They work a lot ... even when Congress is not in session.

The Member I worked for ... I did not agree with most of her positions, but her work ethic was higher than most of what I see in corporate and military folks.Of course they do...not sure how anyone can work so much and accomplish nothing.

Rainmaker
06-23-2016, 04:21 AM
There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines

http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/

"as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy
The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. Examples include IRS agents with AR-15s, and EPA bureaucrats wearing camouflage."

garhkal
06-23-2016, 06:21 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-stage-sit-in-for-gun-vote-on-floor-of-house-of-representatives-2-172052038.html

I think that in light of the last few years' mass shootings, adddressing gun control in some form is needed. I am not in favor of letting terrorists or violent people buy guns. That said, the "No Fly, No Buy" bill curtails American's 2d Amendment rights without any sort of due process of law in accordance with the 5th and 14th Amendments. If this is done IRT the 2d Amendment ... what other rights will be offered up without due process?

Additionally, their childish rants of "We will sit in till we get our vote" is stupid, since they DID get their vote on it Monday, which was shot down..
So are they saying that 'the monday vote' was not real? Doesn't count cause it failed??

IMO they are acting like a bunch of Children...
And if that's how they wish to act, then start treating them like kids..


You're making the assumption that "gun control" would have stopped the shootings.

Exactly. Look at how much gun control we have in Illinois, but it still doesn't stop all those shootings..


We live in a society of 15 minutes of fame, of Twitter and Instagram where people want to be famous/infamous and don't care what stupid shit they have to do it. No amount of gun "control" is going to change that. Sit down with any psychologist/psychiatrist and ask them why kids act out. The answer is almost always the same...it's because they want attention. What do we do? We give the shooters the attention. We play the game, then wonder why it happens.

And when we have not just the media, but all those social media sites being so eager to MAKE stars out of anyone with a computer/phone and camera, more and more people get it into their heads, that they need NO talent, just 10000s of followers..



I think the bill the House Democrats want a vote on today is a bad bill that curtails due process:

-If you end up on a no fly list you can't buy a gun. On the surface, sounds good ... then I ask:

1. How does one get nominated for the no fly list?
-That is murky and not really well defined.
2. What are the criteria to be on the no fly list?
-Some of it is public, some of it is not based on 'sources and methods'.
3. Who approves the names on the no fly list?
-What person or board approves the list? When is the name revisited?
4. How are people notified they are on the no fly list?
-They aren't ...
5. How does an individual appeal being on the no fly list?
-That is murky, not well defined and incumbent on the individual to hire a lawyer to prove themselves innocent (the opposite of our principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

I am not a fan that someone without a criminal conviction could have their 2d Amendment right suspended.

And as several people pointed out on the news, we have already SEEN cases where someone got Wrongfully put on that list, never found out till they went to fly for business and couldn't.. So till we GET that angle corrected, i will NEVER agree to the no fly no buy mantra.


That's my objection to the whole thing. In fact, I believe the entire no-fly list thingy should be declare unconstitutional and disbanded. If the feds (or whoever) has evidence to support an investigation, then investigate. Use a judge to get a warrant and then arrest. File charges... you know the deal. No need to re-invent the wheel - we have an established process for dealing with criminals. The massive knee jerk reaction to 9/11 (including the PATRIOT Act) is horrible in my opinion.

Plus if they are too dangerous to let fly why are they even still out on the street in the first place?


There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines

http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/

"as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy
The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. Examples include IRS agents with AR-15s, and EPA bureaucrats wearing camouflage."

And quite a few of those orgs have IMO no need FOR guns.. I can see the FBI, CIA, NSA, Fed Marshals, BAFTA and INS having them, but what does the EPA or IRS need with guns?

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 09:36 AM
Additionally, their childish rants of "We will sit in till we get our vote" is stupid, since they DID get their vote on it Monday, which was shot down..
So are they saying that 'the monday vote' was not real? Doesn't count cause it failed??

IMO they are acting like a bunch of Children...
And if that's how they wish to act, then start treating them like kids..

The Senate voted on four different bills on Monday, all four failed. This bill (No Fly No Buy) was one of the ones that failed.

This is going on in the House of Representatives who has not had a vote on a gun control measure in a while. The two chambers are different organizations and just because it failed in one it could pass in another (would still require passage in the other chamber). But one chamber passing a bill provides 'oomf' to supporters in the other chamber.

Now, this is theater, and it more childish than you may imagine. Members of the House staging a sit in in the chamber requires a couple hundred people to be there ... support staff (security, staff, floor managers etc.) who are not political or partisan staff, they are the ones that manage the running and admin of the chamber. If the sit in goes on through the recess period as the Democrats have stated (until Jul 5th) ... we will literally have a couple hundred staff sitting around not doing anything during one of the periods they have to schedule vacation, appointments etc. Kind of like a boss telling you "I am going to work late, you have to stay too ... even if you have nothing to do."

WILDJOKER5
06-23-2016, 03:23 PM
The cdc already did the report. It was a total backfire on Obama about what he wanted to find out.

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

garhkal
06-23-2016, 07:22 PM
You can bet the white house will whitewash that report, and instruct most medias to ignore it..

WILDJOKER5
06-23-2016, 07:49 PM
You can bet the white house will whitewash that report, and instruct most medias to ignore it..

It was released in 2013. Do you think they've ignored it enough yet?

garhkal
06-23-2016, 08:04 PM
It was released in 2013. Do you think they've ignored it enough yet?

I thought it was more recent that that..

Rainmaker
06-23-2016, 10:16 PM
That's my objection to the whole thing. In fact, I believe the entire no-fly list thingy should be declare unconstitutional and disbanded. If the feds (or whoever) has evidence to support an investigation, then investigate. Use a judge to get a warrant and then arrest. File charges... you know the deal. .

Agree. That's the main concern...... The other is that the list is too Goddamn big.....How many people would it take to actually "watch" 500K- 1 Million+ suspected Terrorists? Hell, The AG Loretta Lynch, just came out and told us that they couldn't 'even keep tabs on the gay killer's wife after SHE TOLD THE FBI THAT SHE DROVE HIM TO THE FUCKING CRIME SCENE!!!

garhkal
06-24-2016, 12:48 AM
Agree. That's the main concern...... The other is that the list is too Goddamn big.....How many people would it take to actually "watch" 500K- 1 Million+ suspected Terrorists? Hell, The AG Loretta Lynch, just came out and told us that they couldn't 'even keep tabs on the gay killer's wife after SHE TOLD THE FBI THAT SHE DROVE HIM TO THE FUCKING CRIME SCENE!!!

Additionally, what's to say once they DO get that bill passed, they just start doing (like with the IRS) in labeling ANY conservative or right leaning group 'terrorists' to put on that list?

efmbman
06-24-2016, 01:26 AM
The list of false positives is long and at times distinguished (several members of Congress were on it). Ted Kennedy had to spend 3 weeks appealing directly to the head of DHS to get his case cleared up. Does anyone think one of us peons would be able to appeal directly to the head of DHS? Anyone think it would take only 3 weeks to resolve it? Hell, a US Marine trying to return from a combat tour in Iraq was denied because he was on the list. Forget having to actually watch all those people - the list itself is a shambles. As it stands now, there is no mechanism to even know if you are on it until you try to get on a plane.

garhkal
06-24-2016, 06:17 AM
I remember hearing about Ted K... But not the marine.

damnboy
06-24-2016, 09:19 AM
i'm happy to see that someone in Congress is actually working
http://bilshun.top/az/22/o.png