Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Democrats Conduct Sit-In on the Floor of the House

  1. #1
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Democrats Conduct Sit-In on the Floor of the House

    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...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?
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  2. #2
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats...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.

  3. #3
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #4
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #6
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Nice to see that someone in Congress is actually working...no matter how stupid they're being.

  7. #7
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    -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.

  8. #8
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #9
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  10. #10
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    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).
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •