81
Democratic members of Congress, including Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., center, and Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., left, participated in sit-down protest seeking a vote on gun control measures, today, on the floor of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Rep. John Yarmuth via AP)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., paused to speak to the media as he headed to the House chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, today, to show support for the sit-down protest, seeking a vote on gun control measures on the floor of the House.
COURTESY BRIDGET BOWMAN / CQ ROLL CALL
U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D, Hawaii) coordinates the delivery of a care package of food and drinks Wednesday to Congressional Democrats who were staging a sit-in on the House floor to demand action on gun control bills.
Proud to be with my colleagues on the House floor to call for action on gun violence #DisarmHate https://t.co/epaGyDHhyH
— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) June 22, 2016
WASHINGTON » Hawaii U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard joined rebellious Democrats who staged an extraordinary round-the-clock sit-in on the House floor Wednesday to demand votes on gun-control bills, shouting down Speaker Paul Ryan when he attempted to restore order as their protest stretched into the night.
Hirono joined more than a dozen Democratic senators, including Minority Leader Harry Reid, and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who had waged a nearly 15-hour filibuster last week to force votes in the Senate on gun legislation. Those votes failed on Monday night.
Hirono sent out tweets to her followers saying that she was “proud” to be with her colleagues and that she returned to her office after spending more than an hour on the House floor.
Gabbard also tweeted that she was on the floor.
The stunning and unruly scene was broadcast live to the world from Democrats’ cell phones, feeds picked up by C-SPAN after Republicans shut down the network’s cameras.
The sit-in was well into its 10th hour, with Democrats camped out on the floor stopping legislative business in the House, when Ryan stepped to the podium to gavel the House into session and hold votes on routine business. Angry Democrats chanted “No bill, no break!” and waved pieces of paper with the names of gun victims, continuing their protest in the well of the House even as lawmakers voted on a previously scheduled and unrelated measure to overturn a veto by President Barack Obama.
Ryan attempted to ignore the outbursts and announce the business of the day, pounding down his gavel over shouting. “Shame! Shame! Shame!” Democrats yelled, but Ryan left the lectern and the voting continued. Then Democrats began singing “We Shall Overcome,” still holding up the names of gun victims.
The scene presented a radical, almost shocking departure from the normal orderly conduct of the House. Around 3:15 a.m. Thursday Republicans adjourned the House until after July 4th over Democrats’ protest and ignoring their demands, but Democrats stayed on the floor.
Republicans hoped to present themselves as soberly attending to business and Democrats as disruptive. Democrats said they would stay until Republicans yielded to their demands to hold votes on bills to strengthen background checks and prevent people on the no fly list from getting guns in the wake of last week’s massacre in Orlando, Florida.
“Are they more afraid than the children at Sandy Hook?” asked Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., referring to the 2012 shooting that killed 26 people, including 20 elementary school children, in Newtown, Connecticut. “What is so scary about having a vote?”
Rep. John Lewis, a veteran civil rights leader, asked what Congress has done, then answered his own question: “Nothing. We have turned a deaf ear to the blood of innocents. We are blind to a crisis. Where is our courage?”
Ryan dismissed the protest as “nothing more than a publicity stunt,” and in an interview with CNN, made clear there would be no vote.
“We’re not going to take away a citizen’s constitutional rights without due process,” he said.
The protest began around 11:30 a.m., interrupted briefly when Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, tried to start the House’s work at noon. The customary prayer and Pledge of Allegiance went ahead, but Poe was forced to recess the House when dozens of Democrats refused to leave the well.
By evening, 168 House Democrats — out of 188 — and 34 Senate Democrats joined the protest, according to the House minority leader’s office. One after another, they spoke of the need for gun control and talked of constituents who had been killed.
Scattered around the House floor were signs reading “Disarm Hate.” Visitors watched from the galleries. A crowd of several hundred gun control advocates gathered outside the Capitol and cheered as Democrats addressed them.
Congress remains gridlocked over gun control, a divide even more pronounced in a presidential election year. The sit-in had the feel of a 1960s-style protest, as some lawmakers sat on the floor, others in their seats.
Republicans had staged a similar protest in 2008. Democrats controlling the House at the time turned off the cameras amid a GOP push for a vote to expand oil and gas drilling. Republicans occupied the floor, delivering speeches after then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the House on its August recess. Pelosi ordered the cameras turned off.
Republicans ultimately forced the drilling provision to be attached to a stopgap spending bill.
C-SPAN, a cable and satellite network that provides continual coverage of House and Senate floor proceedings, does not control the cameras. They’re run on authorization by legislative leaders.
Although the cameras were turned off Wednesday, lawmakers relied on social media to transmit video, using Facebook, Twitter and Periscope. C-SPAN broadcast live video streamed on Periscope and Facebook from lawmakers’ accounts. Democrats posted the Capitol’s main telephone number, which was overwhelmed, and urged constituents to call and request a vote. They also encouraged tweeting under the hashtag #NoBillNoBreak.
Democratic senators joining the protest included Minority Leader Harry Reid, Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who had waged a nearly 15-hour filibuster last week to force votes in the Senate on gun legislation. Those votes failed Monday night.
Proud to be joined by Sens. @CoryBooker and @maziehirono on House floor to demand action on gun violence.#disarmhate pic.twitter.com/UinLl5l7dB
— Grace Meng (@RepGraceMeng) June 22, 2016
Gun control is NOT the answer. People control is!
Both.
Heard and saw deranged humans shooting off guns….but not guns shooting off guns.
A cheap stunt.
If the sorry a s s e d Repubs cave into this mob rule stunt, no wonder Don Trump is such a roaring success.
Have there ever been so gutless a bunch of weenies as Congressional republicans?
Keonigohan, agreed. Sen. Hirono is childish joining the sit in. It must be a joke that Sen. Hirono wants to sit on the House floor.
“Rise up Democrats, rise up Americans,”
Obviously two distinctly separate groups – – what an admission by Dems!
thos…and I thought it was a deranged RADICAL MUSLIM that killed 49 & injured 50+..btw..he was a registered Dem who supported hiLIARy and you too.
I just heard a clip of a Democrat say, the want better “vetting” for gun ownership! WoW! Imagine me, these Democrats won’t do a sit in to “Vet” Syrians with no paperwork!
“We’re not going to take away a citizen’s constitutional rights without due process,” he said.”
I think Ryan has a good point here.
If you can ban guns from people on a watchlist which is constructed by white house bureaucrats, then you can disarm anyone who might object to your dictatorial takeover.
This seems exactly what some Democrats are after.
It is a little like what they did with IRS persecution of conservative non-profits.
Look up a list of mass shootings in the U.S., and you’ll see they were almost all done by semiautomatic firearms. Why semiautomatic rather than fully automatic? Because gun control has severely limited the dissemination of automatic weapons to the general public. Start restricting powerful semiautomatics in the same way as fully automatics, and watch the killings drop. There’s no reason why anyone needs to fire 5.56×45mm ammunition out of a 30-round magazine.
Is there any reason you “need” freedom of speech?
Perhaps that too should be restricted.
Free speech is required for the dissemination of thoughts and ideas that help foster the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness by the public. There are restrictions on freedom of speech, which extend to defamation, libel, fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, copyright, and so forth. Where there is an important public interest outweighs individual liberties, restrictions will prevail.
Whatever primitive thrills you get by firing a 30-round magazine of high-powered ammunition is significantly outweighed by demands of public safety. You can still hunt and defense yourself with a lower-capacity firearm that uses less powerful ammunition.
Are you even trying? A high schooler could have made a stronger argument than trying to analogize firearm usage to free speech.
Freedom of speech? By all means, speak your mind. Just be sure to do it in person, or by letter. Also, freedom of the press is about hand-cranked flatbed presses. Not high speed automatic printing presses that can spit out more than 20 magazines or newspapers a second. After all, the Founders never expected people to communicate with phones, computers, television, or radios.
RichardCory says: … There’s no reason why anyone needs to fire …. &c &c &c
thos asks: Is there any reason you “need” freedom of speech?
To which RichardCory responds Free speech is required for the dissemination… &c &c &c
You still don’t get it, do you.
The Constitution protects your God given rights of free speech (1st Amendment) and self defense (2nd Amendment) without any regard for any “need” or “requirement”. Once you start questioning anyone about their “need’ or “requirement” for a Constitutionally protected right, you open the door to government tyranny. Your fundamental rights do not require justification and if you act as if they do, you are tossing away the expensive Freedom that was purchased for you with the hope, prayers, blood, sweat and tears of our patriotic ancestors.
High-powered firearms with high-capacity magazine are made to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to instrumentalities of mass murder. By your logic, the government should not be allowed to stop people from owning anti-aircraft artillery or nuclear armaments. After all, we shouldn’t question why anyone would “need” these things, according to you. It’s their God-given right to own any weapons to kill and destroy anyone they want at any time, hmmm?
“The government of today has no right to tell us how to live our lives. Because the government of 200 years ago already did!” ~thos
Please tell that to the U.S. Military and law enforcement units purchasing such equipment. As for citizens, restricting ownership by the law abiding isn’t the answer. A nut job could do more damage with a bunch of fertilizer and other chemicals.
Banning crack cocaine and crystal meth works to an extent, however there will always be folks getting their hands on the stuff. A person or group of people committed on gaining access to firearms (or any other implement) to do harm to others will get their hands on the stuff. Had more law abiding been properly trained and carrying firearms, they could have shot back rather than run and hide.
With regards to the crack comment, do you suggest we remove restrictions on prescription drugs too, since it is clear that people will get their hands on them anyway?
The fertilizer comment, well, yes, someone could do harm that way, but Columbine, Aurora, San Bernadino (although I think they had a bomb too), and Orlando were all guns though, right? So, how does that relate to your comment?
Rick, virtually ALL firearms are semi-automatic. Defending oneself from a home invader, for example, with a single shot/load weapon would be somewhat suicidal.
Winston: It takes one shot to put down a home invader if you know what you’re doing and confronted with. The fact of the matter is, what is the percentage that you will have to use your weapon on a home invader in your lifetime, unless you reside in a crime infested area.
It only has to happen one time.
Must be sad to live in fear.
Better to be safe then sorry. Have no fear.
If you are trying to protect yourself with a pistol that is not semi-automatic, then you have to manually load each bullet before you fire it.
Does not seem very effective.
Gun control is PART of the answer. Most American support reasonable control of deadly weapons. I congratulate Hirono and Gabby. But where is Schatz?
GUN control is NO part of the answer.
Profiling, stop-question-frisk, surveillance of mosques, &c. are all part of a full spectrum effort applied to the task of identifying and controlling dangerous PEOPLE to lessen their ability to harm others.
Confiscating the fire arms of the law abiding will only worsen the violence.
Ah, so instead of controlling guns, we should just be bigots and racists instead. Gotcha.
It is not much of an argument to use name-calling like bigots and racists.
In addition, the use of words like these presumes you know the character and intents of an other person, a godlike ability.
An antidote is to stick to a discussion of the facts without leaping up into the abstract, illusory world of isms and phobias.
I want to protest against gun control in Hawaii too. I want to carry a concealed weapon, but cannot get a permit. That is discrimination!
No, that’s a call for yours and the common good. If you shoot the way you post you’d miss every target aimed at and you’d have swiss cheesed your own foot a dozen times over.
Part of controlling people is not giving dangerous weapons to those with a demonstrated proclivity to violence towards innocent people. It’s common sense.
Pull up a chair and sit on the floor.
Why didn’t the Democrats do a sit-in for Kate’s Law?
Because Democrats don’t believe there are illegal immigrants, only “undocumented” ones. That and “undocumented” immigrants are future Democratic party voters.
All under the guise…eh…for the sake of humanity.
So silly. These are our leaders. No wonder China and Russia licking their chops, ready to take over the world.
OK – now children Lay your Little Heads down and have your nap.
If their goal is truly wanting to save lives, why don’t they have a sit in to ban abortion? that would save thousands of American lives every day.
Looks like because the democratic party thinks its ok to kill with a scalpel, just not with a gun. How hypocritical is that? So then seems logical that gun control to save lives really isn’t their goal, its really just a rallying point to disarm the second amendment and leave our citizens defenseless against the criminal element already in our midst.
Oh please. No comparison between the two, thanks to the hypocrisy of republicans.
No, the comparison is to limit the devices that doctors use for abortions. Medical devices that can also be used to help and to save lives. Abortion = Genocide/Terrorism & Guns = Scalpels.
killing is killing.
killing 55 million absolutely innocent babies has desensitized people to the violence that is involved. killing 55 million innocent babies makes it easier to justify any killing others.
I think you have a point.
Some say if you can kill a baby you can kill anyone.
Peter, perfect comparison between the tools to kill, the gun and the scalpel. Both are mis-used to take a life.
What about the hypocrisy of the liberal democrats? They want to control guns (guns don’t kill, people do) but have no problem allowing people to use abortion as birth control and kill innocent babies.
Sorry Keolu, the hypocrisy rests with republicans who had the chance to outlaw abortion but chose not to. This was after GW stole the presidency and republicans controlled the entire government from 2001 to 2006. But guess what? They chose not too. I guess republicans at the time still believed in the individual and less government?
Because a collection of fetal tissue that hasn’t even developed a nervous system is not a person. I award you 0 points for your low-effort troll bait.
Who the [redacted] are you to “award” anything, eh?
I am the Local Governance and Citizen Participation Specialist. You can’t beat that.
Sez you.
Yet, killing a mother who carries that collection of fetal tissue is considered double-homicide. I award you the trophy for your hypocrisy!
That’s an impressive collection of sources you have provided to back up your claim.
RichardCory is the babooze of the day so far. “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.”
Now, now, that’s cheating. I was asking the other gentleman to back up his argument. It’s no fun if you do his homework for him.
Nice straw man there, Rick. Fetal tissue is routinely collected from much more advanced babies.
Actually, it was a straw fetus.
RichardCory, life begins at conception, period. One female egg fertilized by one male sperm equals life. In humans, 23 chromosomes from the female joins 23 chromosomes from the male equals a new life.
According to kuroiwaj, people with 45 chromosomes (Turner syndrome) do not qualify as human lives because they are missing a chromosome.
Might be time to brush up on your biology, son.
RichardCory, right on, correct on Turner syndrome individuals. They are missing part of or the entire X chromosome and have a disease filled life. And, my course was in genetics at the U.H. with Dr. Jimmie Smith. Most of my genetics courses were with plants (Horticulture).
Lazy Mazie joining a sit in? Is that what she does everyday?
lay down and be swept away……….
Building up her Golden Parachute.
She was only there for an hour!
These politicians will not be there to help you in a crisis. Creative measures to identify perpetrators who need to be confined and terrorists that need to be deported are needed and they cannot come up with any. There are more than enough gun laws that are just not being enforced because of inadequate and incompetent personnel. The justice system is soft and unfortunately laws protect the guilty as well as the innocent. Insanity continues with more gun laws. We need to be politically incorrect to correct the corruptions.
two of the bills voted down yesterday were republican bills. who voted against them? the democrats. so i guess only democrats can submit bills that make us safe. bunch of BS. these measures will never be enough for them. the democrats won’t be happy until you cannot buy a gun or ammo anymore. then it will be confiscating the guns you do have. no way. crazy. outrageous some will say. really? Hillary has already said that is exactly what she wants to do. that is already the goal of the anti gun lobby and many democratic politicians. the appointment of one or two leftist supreme court judges will put all gun rights in jeopardy. if you are a gun owner, get ready for the onslaught.
This is silly. More guns laws will not help stop those who are lawless. This is all just political theatre at its finest as nothing gets done and the anger is misdirected.
How well has it worked in Chicago? NOT AT ALL!
OUCH!
Mazie Hirono doing what she does best–sitting on her a** at the U.S. Capitol and doing absolutely nothing of any enduring value to Hawaii’s people.
Mazie is invisible!
Good for you Mazie. Thanks!
She went to the wrong house by mistake. Nothing new here.
Political talking point – automatic weapons are already banned for sale in the U.S. Do we think people who break the law are inclined to follow a new one?
No.
Democrat Socialist goal: only the government and criminals have fire arms.
What could go wrong?
Oh look at all the DemoBrats throwing tantrums like little kids who couldn’t get the toy they wanted. Time to take your nap and everything will be all better when you wake up!
Two of the four gun control bills were actually sponsored by Republicans and torpedoed down by Democrats.
One bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would have strengthened the national background check system, encouraging states to send more updated information to the FBI. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.
Another bill, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would have given the attorney general the power to potentially block someone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun. Even the NRA supported this bill. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it again failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.
So here we have two Republican-backed gun control bills which, while not perfect, do “something.” But Democrats nearly unanimously voted them both down.
The Senate democrats are being incredible hypocrites.
It was voted down because it was not a total gun confiscation/ban. That is what the Democrats are working towards. They have a fantasy of being able to declare guns illegal, period and no more problems. I think the Libertarians and Republicans function more in the real world on this issue.
I actually liked Sen. Cornyn’s proposed bill. There’s is a list that would only temporarily restrict someone legal right to bear arms, and would provides them with a legal recourse if they felt they were wrongly included on the list. It put the burden of proof on the attorney general to give a judge a compelling reason to block a gun sale within 3 days.
http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/kosen-rufu.html
May sound cliché but happiness within yourself – one person at a time will lead to world peace. We probably will not see that in our lifetime however, mankind can achieve it.
MHO – more gun control will not solve this. Sitting in will not solve this.
I begins with the “man in the mirror”
“It begins……..”
How long has this “one person at a time” thing been going on and are we any closer to “world peace”?
No? Then evidently Buddha was wrong with that one.
My bad…I misread your comment. Can’t delete it though.
No worries, Thank you. 🙂
Hasn’t worked much in Myanmar. Even locally, the Buddhists at their temple in Kunia Loa don’t seem too upstanding and decent.
No surprise here with Maize. She does what she is told and it has served her very well.
Sure wish we had someone with a brain representing our state in the senate. Unfortunately Senator Schatz is not any better than Maize.
Tulsi Gabbard has been way better but wonder how long before she is co-opted and will have to tow the line. I do hope she is not engaged in anything untoward
as everyone in Congress and the Senate and probably nearly everyone holding political office is under surveillance of one kind or another by the NSA and other spy agencies
of the government. They know who is doing what to who etc and such information is very useful as a control mechanism.
Obama..”JUMP!”…mazie, tulsi, brian, mark (and soon hanabusa I suspect)..in unison “HOW HIGH?!”
just in..tulsi joined the azzsitters as well.
Lazy just went so she could be seen with Tulsi. Everyone was asking,”Who is that?”
I’m sorry for all the violence but it is not guns and not the NRA. The left wingers fail to realize that our American freedom is in jeopardy from the globalist. We are at war. The massacre in Orlando was not about a deranged killer but about Radical Islamic Terrorist. These terrorist are laughing at us for our political correctness naive attitudes. We don’t need the Federal government dictating and mandating our freedoms.
He still shouldn’t have legally been able to purchase a weapon like the AR 15 – but he was.
When you mess with the Constitution and our Declaration of Independence than you allow anarchy to rule the day. The globalist want to destroy America and if you open your eyes and do the research, all the kukai passed during the Obama administration reflects the direction our country is going. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican but saddened by the direction of our Republic.
When The Constitution was created Ak15 was not even in their mind. It was not created with mass killing devices in mind.
Correct. It wasn’t created with the technology in mind at all. It was created to preserve the individual freedom of being able to protect one’s self.
Winston: You totally missed the point because you’re unable to see outside of the box…totally rapped up on what the 2nd amendment is all about. By making amendments to the 2nd amendment (gun control)…the Democrats are not taking away your right to bear arm and protect yourself. Law abiding citizens will be able to purchase guns, so why are the Republicans refusing to vote? What are they so afraid of? When you take everything into consideration, some say it’s the person or the gun that’s killing people..but in reality, it’s Congress that’s responsible for these mass killings. Having a moment of silence in their chambers every time there is a mass killing and not do anything about, is proof that they really have no concern about the citizens of this country and it’s all about themselves.
kahuku01 says: “so why are the Republicans refusing to vote?”
The democrats voted lockstep AGAINST to quite reasonable bills which were introduced by republicans. One bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would have strengthened the national background check system, encouraging states to send more updated information to the FBI. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.
Another bill, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would have given the attorney general the power to potentially block someone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun. Even the NRA supported this bill. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it again failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.
So here we have two Republican-backed gun control bills which, while not perfect, do “something.” But Democrats nearly unanimously voted them both down.
The Senate democrats are being incredible hypocrites.
Despite all the rhetoric that people kill people, not guns. Having mass killing aperatus such as the AK15 available to the public makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We do not want this available to mass killers. I have nothing against the right to bear arms. But I do have something against the sale of mass killing weapons.
KaneoheSJ: I’m glad to see that there are some people that are sensible and is telling it as it is….facing reality! The fact of the matter is, if ever any family member of a Republican member of Congress did get shot and killed by a lunatic using an AK15 or any semi-automatic weapon, his or her voice will be heard loudly about gun control. Until such incident happens to a Republican, business as usual…it’s all about themselves and not about what the majority of the American people are fighting for. Just a bunch of lame Ducks…do nothing elected officials.
First, pray tell what is an AK15?
Second, jerry cans of gasoline and a butane torch can be used as “mass killing weapons” ~~ as can automobiles for that matter.
thos: How about sticking to the subject..gun control, semi-automatic weapons, not bringing up something out of the norm. Cans of gasoline and a butane torch may become a subject of discussion if it continued to cause mass killings, other than that, don’t try to go way out in left field and come up with things that make you sound ignorant. Don’t try to make it more difficult especially when you won’t be able to justify what you’re talking about.
Best to ask thos about the Le Mat he carried proudly in The War.
Gasoline is not formulated for the sole purpose of killing, and neither are butane lighters, nor automobiles. Guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing.
Childish and a waste of taxpayers money.
Exactly what is childish about possibly potentially saving many lives? Standing by and not doing anything about the mass killing of our children is NOT an alternative.
Question:
Exactly what is childish about possibly potentially saving many lives?
Answer:
Sitting on the floor like a child who cannot have his way throwing a temper tantrum.
You actually believe highly paid public servants wasting time and money on this cheap, clap trap publicity stunt is potentially saving many lives?
No wonder the Dems find it so easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the credulous saps who uncritically accept such blatant feel good humma humma.
Bust out the pepper spray. Clear the area. All pau.
Do you really think throwing a tantrum and sitting on the floor helped anyone? Their theatrics didn’t save any lives.
“Standing by and not doing anything about the mass killing of our children is NOT an alternative.”
They didn’t do anything when the fact of Planned Parenthood selling body parts from fetuses came up. As a matter of fact, they voted to give them taxpayer funds to continue.
Despite all the rhetoric that people kill people, not guns, making mass killing weapons available is just asking for it. Even a clean-record-holding citizen has a potential to become unstable due to mental health issues that are not seen. Having mass killing aperatus such as the AK15 available to the public makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We do not want this available to mass killers. I have nothing against the right to bear arms. But I do have something against the sale of mass killing weapons.
KaneoheSJ: You’re absolutely right! You’ve got the whole gist of the main issue that is the cause of majority of mass murders and the LA bank robbery in 1995…Semi-automatic weapons, and it’s not about doing away with the 2nd amendment. It’s difficult to explain to people that have a one track mind about banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition. Either they have a low comprehension level or limited use of common sense. Too bad there’s all kinds that we have to deal with.
Again, what is an AK15? Do you have the first clue what you presume to speak about?
KaneoheSJ, pls describe the AK-15? I scored expert on the M-1, M-14, 81mm Mortar, and qualified with the M-16. Was on a small bore 22 CAL ROTC rifle team and U.S. Army Reserve rifle team with the M-1. Was awarded an SKS 57 Chicom Assault Rifle (Cleared from ATF/FBI Vietnam) and handled the AK 47. But, have never heard of a AK 15.
When Obama became President in 08 he had a majority but nothing got done. In 12 he lost the majority and nothing got done. What’s the difference who they elect for President?
President Elect Trump will begin to explain that to you in a few months.
according to state department marie harf all we need to do to stop the violence is give these radical islamic terrorists a job.
attorney general loretta lynch says the best response to radical islamic terrorists is love and compassion.
why all the fuss over gun control?
the nobel peace prize winning obama administration has resolved the issue: give the radical islamic terrorists a hug and a job and all will be kumbaya.
Who is Hirono?
who cares
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”Sure smells like infringement to me.
We have no militia, nor need one.
We may need one if HiLIARy gets in.
We are at war buddy with the Radical Islamic Terriorist. This is not about gun control. We are faced with militants who have infiltrated our population to kill Americans. There is no political correctness but plain black and white war.
More posturing politicians on both sides. What a waste.
The fact of the mater is, if the Republicans in congress refuses to go along with the bill on gun control, this country shouldn’t have to put up with their cat and mouse game. Each 50 states, state legislature should take it upon themselves and pass their own state bill on gun control. Heck, if these clowns can’t work across the aisle and come to a mutual agreement, it’s time that states make their own laws. If the country keeps on asking congress to do something about gun control and the same old bickering continues, it’s time that all 50 states act by the people, for the people.
A couple of things. Many states have a bunch of people who feel federal gun laws don’t go far enough, but there are a bunch of states who whose voters feel the federal gun laws are already too restrictive as it is.
And it’s not just the “awful old republicans” who are resistant to changing gun laws. The democrats al voted lock-step and by rigid party lines AGAINST some reasonable gun reforms. The problem? They were introduced by republicans.
One bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would have strengthened the national background check system, encouraging states to send more updated information to the FBI. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.
Another bill, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would have given the attorney general the power to potentially block someone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun. Even the NRA supported this bill. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it again failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.
So here we have two Republican-backed gun control bills which, while not perfect, do “something.” But Democrats nearly unanimously voted them both down. Now they’re sitting down on the floor of the Senate, making a spectacle of themselves after passing up the opportunity to begin strengthening gun laws. Who do they think they are fooling?
The Senate democrats are incredible hypocrites.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment:
“The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia…Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”
But, Justice Ginsburg explains, “When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So…the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”
Delivered by Scalia; joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Did Mazie forget she was a Senator. I know I did.
Both sides are at fault here. They should at least agree to pass a bill requiring thorough investigations when a person suspected of being a “terrorist” or having “terrorism” ties tries to buy a gun.
I sympathize with the sentiment.
But it reminds me of how Stalin dealt with dissidents.
Obviously, anyone who disagreed with his brand of communism was mentally unbalanced.
Obviously, mentally unbalanced people should be locked up for their own good.
It would require a very careful definition of terrorist, but who would make the ruling?
As Ryan states, if we do this we must preserve due process, it cannot simply be up to the administration to manage this list.
It’s too bad Jim Jones isn’t still around. The moron liberal Democrats today could follow him like the pied piper then drink the Kool aide. Oh wait, that’s right, they have Hillary Clinton and the rest of their mutual admiration society hell-bent on destroying us. Meanwhile, everyone’s drinking the liberal Kool aide.
Both doing what they always do,