House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control


#1

Rep. John Lewis, one of the last living icons of civil disobedience during the civil rights movement, was leading a sit-in on the House floor Wednesday in an effort to force a vote on gun control.

“Now is the time for us to find a way to dramatize it, to make it real,” Lewis, D-Ga., said. “We have to occupy the floor of the House until there is action.”

Lewis and roughly 40 House Democrats stood briefly to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a couple dozen visitors in the gallery looked on.

“No bill, no break,” the Democrats chanted loudly before returning to the floor.

The protest is not being televised because the House has not formally gaveled into session. House members took to social media to lodge their protests using the hashtags #NoBillNoBreak, #NOMORESILENCE

Link:
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-democrats-hold-sit-gun-control-n597041


#2

Wow. A mass temper tantrum from our government leadership. :stuck_out_tongue:


#3

Blaming the NRA seems like a reasonable response to a Muslim, Hillary Clinton supporter gunning down a bunch of gays,


#4

An honorable tradition to protest current laws and behaviors. Kudos to the men and women ‘standing up’ for their beliefs.


#5

:thumbsup:


#6

Agreed. It’s a step in the right direction. Frankly I hope they shut the Congress down until the body acts on gun legislation. Enough is enough.


#7

Yes, they need to enact legislation to actually address the lessons learned from mass shootings and terrorism

  • More resources towards mental health and ability of close family members with consultation of psychiatrists to commit folks with serious mental issues and violent tendencies.
  • Prohibit any public space gun free zones and make private companies/corporations liable for denying folks ability to defend themselves.
  • A national shall-issue CCW permit given various states resistance to allowing citizens the effective means to defend themselves. Or, I guess as above if we can’t prohibit gun free zones at the state level at least make city/state government liable for injuries/fatalities from criminal attacks if they prohibit folks having the means to defend themselves.
  • Prohibit any restrictions no magazine sizes.

…that’s for a start.


#8

Or better yet, ban all detachable magazines larger than 10 rounds since there’s no legitimate reason a private citizen needs a magazine that large (if you can’t hit your target with ten rounds you have no business shooting a gun in the first place). Also disagree with you on the gun free zones and forcing private parties from allowing guns. Your right to bear arms does not extend to private property just as your right to free speech ends on private property. And schools and other similar locations should always be gun free inside the walls and fences.

Your ideas on rebuilding the mental health system that Reagan dismantled however is a great idea.


#9

And here in lies the problem, progressives tend to view legislation in the terms of how it can be used to restrict rights, not expand them. Freedom is bad because it allows people to choose to do things that progressives don’t like.


#10

I hope so too since I think the House at least won’t allow any more infringements of our rights. When government isn’t ‘working’ we all benefit.


#11

I’m glad my reps are all pro-gun control so I don’t have to write any letters. I was a bit peeved with Seth Moulton when I found out he was going to vote for Hilary despite his county going w/ Bernie. This made me get over it:

http://cdn.bearingarms.com/uploads/2016/06/Seth-Moulton.jpg


#12

Setting aside the ludicrous assertion that there’s no conceivable reason a private citizen needs a magazine larger than 10 rounds, how, exactly, do you plan to enforce a ban on a rectangular shaped tube of metal with a spring in it? That’s all a magazine is. They’re not that hard to make. Regarding “gun free zones”, the Pulse was a gun free zone. How did that work out for them? You know where I never hear of a mass shooting, at a gun show or an NRA convention. How can that be? With all those guns, those places should look like a John Woo or Quentin Tarantino movie, and yet, they don’t. Even accidental shootings there are incredibly rare. If stopping mass shooting is your goal, “gun free zones” don’t work, why keep trying them?


#13

Why 10? Why not 11? Why not 9?

Arbitrary numbers are arbitrary. Plus, why do the cops use them? If they can’t drop a criminal in 10, I guess they have no business shooting guns.

Also, I have 40 AR 30 rounders. One of the lowest numbers of folks I know. Last week one single distributor moved 43,000 Magpul 30 round PMAGs in one day.

Government can’t find and deport a couple million illegals. You think they can get all our mags? Good luck. :thumbsup:


#14

Yes, a guy who volunteered to serve in an illegal war has moral authority. He’s probably personally caused the deaths of more civilians than any NRA member.

At least that’s what Democrats have told me since 2003, anyway.


#15

Does Mr. Moulton realize that no civilian can own that gun? I’ll admit that it is technically possible: One has to pay $200, register with the federal government to request the right to apply for registration, submit multiple forms of ID, get the application to the federal government approved and signed by the local chief of police, wait for a non-automated background check, wait even longer for the actual application to be processed, hope it isn’t denied - which they can do for any reason - and then pay a few thousand more for the firearm itself…


#16

My 2 year old had a similar reaction when I would not let her have a snack because it was almost time for dinner; she sat on the floor and whined.


#17

And what pray tell do you need with 40, 30 round magazines? And 10 is an arbitrary number. But I’d argue it’s a compromise one since people like yourself are apparently hell bent on having large capacity magazines where people like myself see no value in having more than a 5 round mag. If you can’t hit your target in less than 5, and really is more than 1, you probably don’t have any business shooting a gun.

As for cops they don’t need them either because yes as you say if they can’t drop a suspect in 10 they’ve no business shooting at him either. Our police force has been heavily over-militarized and that needs to stop as well. The police arming themselves with military surplus equipment has been part of the overall problem. It is one of many things that spurs nutjobs to then arm themselves even further than they already have.

As for getting rid of what’s out there. Two prong way to go about it. One, offer mandatory buy backs with fair market value buy offs of the now illegal items akin to eminent domain. And two, couple that with steep fines and penalties if you’re caught with them after a set enforcement date if you’re caught doing anything but turning them in for payment.


#18

To borrow a now-popular designation, our guns wouldn’t be “illegal”, they’d just be “undocumented”. :smiley:


#19

He is a Congressman, so we really can’t expect him to know what he’s talking about.


#20

Suppose he wants to hit the target more than 5 times, like when he’s target shooting. When I’m target shooting with my AR-15, I generally throw 200 rounds down range. I really don’t feel like loading and packing 20 magazines when I can do it with 7. I suspect he needs 40 magazines because over time the springs wear out. Rotating the magazines extends their life.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.