|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 22, 2016 21:10:38 GMT
not reading any of the thread, but I read the story. I do NOT applaud them, because the No Fly List is seriously flawed. I think that needs to be fixed before anything like this legislation could ever hope to cause any positive changes-- if they passed the 'no fly, no guns' legislation without changing anything about the no fly list, the only thing it will do is create more chaos.
And a question-- how many of the recent (or not so recent) mass shooters or terror suspects / criminals actually were ON the no fly list?? I think the answer is Zero, isn't it?? So how would this legislation have prevented any of those from occurring?
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 22, 2016 21:10:57 GMT
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 22, 2016 21:30:09 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. Are you really surprised? It's always been the "horrible and outrageous if the other side does it but perfectly reasonable (in fact laudable) if my side does it". This is precisely the reason I rolled my eyes so much of the so-called political out rage I see here
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 22, 2016 21:31:51 GMT
Are you really surprised? It's always been the "horrible and outrageous if the other side does it but perfectly reasonable (in fact laudable) if my side does it". This is precisely the reason I rolled my eyes so much of the so-called political out rage I see here Both sides do it and it's asinine. No one can get their way. Compromise!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:25:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 21:36:32 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. I think you may be confused here. Those of us who support the sit-in to vote/ discuss gun control in the House are pretty much the same ones who want the Senate Republicans to do their job and hold hearings and have a vote for President Obama's Supreme Court pick. In other words the Democrats want the Republicans to do their fucking job! Clear?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:25:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 21:46:10 GMT
I actually read the four bills voted on in the Senate. And all 4 were flawed to some degree.
If the Republicans were willing to do their jobs the next step would be for the two sides to get together and reach a compromise. That is what Susan Collins is trying to do. She has Senators from both sides sign on. However I have a better chance of winning that $300m lotto then she has bringing her bi-partisan bill to the floor for a vote because gasp it might pass. The fact is not many Republicans are going to let any gun control bill pass this close to a general election in case it pisses off their benefactor the NRA.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 22, 2016 21:46:16 GMT
Yea, clear as mud
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 22, 2016 22:01:39 GMT
Why are we not upset over the democrats who voted down the other two gun proposals??? Four bills were put up for vote, democrats are responsible for voting down two of them. So really both parties are at fault at this point in time. There is no way a 100% democratic proposal will be voted in. There is no way a 100% republican proposal will be voted in, so why not start working towards a middle ground instead of staging sit ins, filibusters, tweets and robocalls?? I am equally upset at both parties for what they didn't do yesterday. They are all behaving like toddlers.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 22, 2016 22:02:49 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. Why is that interesting. That's a giant bunch of crap that they pulled too.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 22, 2016 22:34:40 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. Not really. The House Democrats are doing this precisely to force a vote. Of course it would fail, but House members would be forced to take a position. This could be used against some of them in November. I totally agree mollycoddle. The sit in is to force a vote. The refusal to even consider a candidate for a vote for the Supreme Court totally different and not related. Republican's are refusing to do that just because they don't want a democrat to appoint-period. It's s shame that she doesn't know the difference.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 22, 2016 22:43:30 GMT
Story here
I applaud them. Somehow, something is going to change. I saw this on the 6:30 world news and my heart went out to all of them. G-d bless each and every one of them.
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Jun 22, 2016 22:51:52 GMT
Would you be applauding if the GOP had done this? As monklady123 said , it totally depends on the issue. And that's the problem, you hated when the GOP played games last year, well those on the right agreed then like you agree now. It's wrong no matter which side is doing it and it's sad that you can't see that. I would be fine with no fly no buy if there was due process BEFORE someone was added to the list, a person should not have to incur a cost to exercise their constitutional rights (isn't that the argument on id to vote) and there are mistakes, heck even Ted Kennedy was on the list for a while. As long as congress continues to play childish games nothing will get done.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Jun 22, 2016 23:14:59 GMT
Would you be applauding if the GOP had done this? I would. I'm independent. I'm tired of both sides not working together. They disagree just so that someone won't say they sided with the other, and then we wonder why nothing gets done. I'm sick of the NRA, who I didn't vote for, making decisions for me.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Jun 22, 2016 23:17:39 GMT
Partisan theatre. If they were really serious, they would be in bi-partisan meetings trying to hash out the differences in details so they could come together for real legislation. Instead, they want to create election year theatre. Sure. And why aren't they in bi-partisan meetings? Why do I suspect the GOP refused? They are having a temper tantrum and turning off the tv for crying out loud. Now we are in competition to see who can be the biggest child? Absurd.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Jun 22, 2016 23:20:29 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. I'm not supporting this, but I'm more irritated that the GOP response was to essentially throw a fit and unplug the TV. If you know my history, you know that I don't believe that protests are effective methods of getting anything done. But the GOP could have responded better.
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Jun 22, 2016 23:21:31 GMT
Would you be applauding if the GOP had done this? TO FINALLY DO SOMETHIG ABOUT THE GODDAMN GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY? ? Yes. If the GOP staged a sit in to try and get the Dems to vote for any kind of sensible gun measure yes I would applaud them. But they're not. So no applause for them. Right to bear arms-constitutional right. Abortion-not a constitutional right. So if the GOP held a sit in to get abortion rights restricted you would be all for that, after all it would save childrens' lives. Just because you agree with what they are protesting does not make it right and it is the height of hypocrisy to be okay with it when you agree, but it's horrible if you disagree.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 22, 2016 23:24:06 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. I think you may be confused here. Those of us who support the sit-in to vote/ discuss gun control in the House are pretty much the same ones who want the Senate Republicans to do their job and hold hearings and have a vote for President Obama's Supreme Court pick. In other words the Democrats want the Republicans to do their fucking job! Clear? And it's funny that it's just so easy to lump everyone into one sweeping insult!
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Jun 22, 2016 23:27:30 GMT
And that's the problem, you hated when the GOP played games last year, well those on the right agreed then like you agree now. It's wrong no matter which side is doing it and it's sad that you can't see that. I would be fine with no fly no buy if there was due process BEFORE someone was added to the list, a person should not have to incur a cost to exercise their constitutional rights (isn't that the argument on id to vote) and there are mistakes, heck even Ted Kennedy was on the list for a while. As long as congress continues to play childish games nothing will get done. I'm not sure specifically which GOP game you're referring to. If it's the refusal to vote on a new justice, it's comparing apples and oranges, IMO. The GOP refused to do their job (and as far as I know, they still are). The democrats here, OTOH, are sitting in, not to block anyone from doing their job, but to actually attempt to reach across the aisle and get the GOP to work with them to reach some common-sense changes -- which some might say would be doing their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 22, 2016 23:31:23 GMT
TO FINALLY DO SOMETHIG ABOUT THE GODDAMN GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY? ? Yes. If the GOP staged a sit in to try and get the Dems to vote for any kind of sensible gun measure yes I would applaud them. But they're not. So no applause for them. Right to bear arms-constitutional right. Abortion-not a constitutional right. So if the GOP held a sit in to get abortion rights restricted you would be all for that, after all it would save childrens' lives. Just because you agree with what they are protesting does not make it right and it is the height of hypocrisy to be okay with it when you agree, but it's horrible if you disagree. That's a different point. The democrats don't refuse to to hold a vote they (wo)man up and vote, and let the American people know their view. Nothing is going to be perfect, but not doing anything at all hasn't worked.
|
|
|
Post by southerngirl on Jun 22, 2016 23:37:09 GMT
So interesting that those that are supporting this sit in are also the same ones that opposed the refusal to vote on a Supreme Court candidate. Are you really surprised? It's always been the "horrible and outrageous if the other side does it but perfectly reasonable (in fact laudable) if my side does it". This is precisely the reason I rolled my eyes so much of the so-called political out rage I see here I am so confused by this comparison. In both cases you mention, the Democrats want a vote. In both cases, the Republicans are refusing to allow a vote. So of course those who are supporting the Democrats that are demanding a vote now are the same ones who opposed the Republicans refusing to vote back then, that's completely logical and not any kind of double standard. Basically they are supporting the side who wants a vote and opposing the side who doesn't want a vote - the exact same party in both situations. As an independent, I get that. I am always in favor of a vote. I believe it is their job to hold votes, whether they will vote for or against the bill, or candidate, or whatever - they need to hold the vote.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 22, 2016 23:38:57 GMT
One side is sitting in because they want to work, the other side has been refusing to work for months (years?). How people can't discern the difference is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jun 22, 2016 23:50:09 GMT
TO FINALLY DO SOMETHIG ABOUT THE GODDAMN GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY? ? Yes. If the GOP staged a sit in to try and get the Dems to vote for any kind of sensible gun measure yes I would applaud them. But they're not. So no applause for them. Right to bear arms-constitutional right. Abortion-not a constitutional right. So if the GOP held a sit in to get abortion rights restricted you would be all for that, after all it would save childrens' lives. Just because you agree with what they are protesting does not make it right and it is the height of hypocrisy to be okay with it when you agree, but it's horrible if you disagree. Abortion is a constitutional right. Roe v Wade made that clear. It's also why there is continuing litigation over states efforts to restrict the right. Same way there has been and continues to be continuing litigation about restrictions on the right to own arms.
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Jun 22, 2016 23:55:47 GMT
The Grasseley amendment are you #$%^&* kidding me well who in their right mind would vote on that - that puts guns in the hands on someone that may cause harm what the $%^&*( I thought we were trying to prevent not make it easier - urg.
As I am reading them none of them are even close to what we need and I am all for people being able to buy guns but keeping them out of the hands of those that shouldn't. Those are a joke and I cannot believe I am saying this but if the above descriptions are accurate I don't see why anyone would not vote for the Feinstien amendment and I don't think I have ever agreed with anything she has said - I also think the Murphy one sounds good. I am assuming there must be something else weird in the bills to keep them from getting voted on. I just don't see why this is so hard - get the basics down - at least something and then add more later but get something done - this is nuts. Quit putting crap in the bills and right one and everyone will feel better. Now do I think any law is going to keep someone that really really wants a gun from buying one nope because they can get them illegally. California just made it so that some guns thefts don't even get you more than a slap on the wrist.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 23, 2016 0:02:12 GMT
There will never be a compromise or anything done. Our representatives are just as polarized as the people they represent.
Aside from a few independents, the lines are strictly drawn: To Democrats: their side is always right and any action or non-action they take is applauded while vilifying the Republicans for everything. There is always a "distinction" for why it's ok when they do something and not ok when the other side does it. In short, if it's done by the Dems, great. If it's done by the Republicans "OMG..what an outrage".
And frankly, the Republicans are the same way.
The inability of people on this board and in this country to look to work together instead of "my way or the highway" is merely reflected in our elected officials.
We all are guilty.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jun 23, 2016 0:04:12 GMT
TO FINALLY DO SOMETHIG ABOUT THE GODDAMN GUN PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY? ? Yes. If the GOP staged a sit in to try and get the Dems to vote for any kind of sensible gun measure yes I would applaud them. But they're not. So no applause for them. Right to bear arms-constitutional right. Abortion-not a constitutional right. So if the GOP held a sit in to get abortion rights restricted you would be all for that, after all it would save childrens' lives. Just because you agree with what they are protesting does not make it right and it is the height of hypocrisy to be okay with it when you agree, but it's horrible if you disagree. Far more children's lives will be saved by gun control than by barring abortions.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jun 23, 2016 0:06:24 GMT
Would you be applauding if the GOP had done this? If it was over Gun laws I would.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 23, 2016 0:07:13 GMT
So, therefore it's ok to kill them by abortion? Isn't one child's life just as valuable as anothers? What number is an acceptable number of deaths? More children are killed in car accidents than by guns. Should we prohibit children riding in cars? After all far more are killed that way than by either guns or abortion.
While I am in favor of some gun control, the above comment is, IMO, ridiculous. It doesn't need to be an "either/or".
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 23, 2016 0:09:47 GMT
The republican amendments were a joke. Don't you think that if the government could legally prove someone did, or will, commit terrorism that that individual would already be in custody, and not sitting around tying to purchase a gun? C'mob, that's just garbage. So no, I don't blame the Democrats for voting that one down because frankly it was stupid.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 23, 2016 0:15:41 GMT
None of the proposals, including the Dems, were likely to be agreeable to both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Jun 23, 2016 0:16:52 GMT
There will never be a compromise or anything done. Our representatives are just as polarized as the people they represent. Aside from a few independents, the lines are strictly drawn: To Democrats: their side is always right and any action or non-action they take is applauded while vilifying the Republicans for everything. There is always a "distinction" for why it's ok when they do something and not ok when the other side does it. In short, if it's done by the Dems, great. If it's done by the Republicans "OMG..what an outrage". And frankly, the Republicans are the same way. The inability of people on this board and in this country to look to work together instead of "my way or the highway" is merely reflected in our elected officials. We all are guilty. I think when I was younger this was true but for me I guess I am not that strict on party lines anymore. While I am pretty conservative I find myself a lot more liberal than I used to be - more of a let people live and let them do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I am conservative economically though. I guess at this point I just want people to do what is right for the country vs the stupid party line or because they are getting paid by a lobby to vote a certain way. Do I think any law is going to change things and mean there will never be a mass shooting? no - even if we had the strictest laws around because the guns are already out there - no law is going to remove them all from criminals but will unarm those of us that have a constitutional right to have them - we don't currently own guns but I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as they were safely stored. I do think that the right law may protect someone that is just pissed off at someone and wants to do harm to them is they have to wait or if there is something else that comes up on their record to prevent it - can they buy illegally sure but most people won't have a clue how to buy that way. Obviously this latest act was well thought out over a long time so most likely he still would have been able to buy guns even if these laws were passed - since he wasn't on a watch list he could wait the 10 or 30 days whatever and still have purchased them.
|
|