Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest over guns

WASHINGTON — Rebellious Democrats shut down the House’s legislative work on Wednesday, staging a sit-in on the House floor and refusing to leave until they secured a vote on gun control measures before lawmakers’ weeklong break.

Why should the NRA's Representatives vote? They already know what the NRA wants. That's why they're in Congress.

They aren't telling Republicans HOW to vote, they just want to vote. Isn't this how democracy works? I support - not tolerate, but support - gun ownership for hunting, target shooting and personal protection. I also support gun licensing (based on proof of training, fingerprinting and thorough background check). I support no fly/no buy. I cannot even imagine a legitimate civilian use for a gun that can shoot more than 10 rounds without stop & reload.

I'm tired of the NRA and it's profit motives masquerading as an issue.

Way to go! Screw this twisted, sick orthodoxy of the ghouls!

#ENOUGH

"I'm tired of the NRA and it's profit motives masquerading as an issue." - comments

The actual perversion of Democracy is criminal in its intent.

The NRA's iron fist over Congress assures no funding for research, no cross cooperation between Departments and, of course, Bought Legislators from Washington to Wawa.

The sole purpose is to deny the American People their Freedom to design gun control as they see fit and necessary for Public Safety.

The NRA has silenced that voice in Congress.

So, this occurs in the wake of Orlando. Where you had a Muslim American armed with an AR-15 slaughter 50 at a gay bar

Notice how the news in America primarily is about gun control? Not gays. Not Muslims.

Guns.

I have.

We have won.

Democrats tying up congress in order to force it to do its job. A refreshing contrast with Republicans tying up congress to prevent it from doing its job. Nice.

A refreshing contrast with Republicans tying up congress to prevent it from doing its job.

Well said.

The Koch brothers and the gun industries, among other right wing reactionaries, are probably going to have to pay their muppets and puppets in congress (and in GOP party headquarters) even more to try to block voting.

@kc: NRA do not vote in Congress. Only congressmen and congress women vote in USA Congress.

Come November they will stop "disrupting", and as they do every election season, they will don hunting clothes, and pose for photos with rifles and shotguns for their campaign posters. You will not see any of these men actually sponsor or pass any gun control legislation.

All of this "disrupting" is just a show to placate their anti-gun constituents, who are angry. But in a country with 200,000,000 or so guns, even those politicians in blue states need the votes of gun owners to stay in office. A great many democrats are gun owners, so this is not a left-wing/right-wing issue as many would like to paint out. Why do you think that there have been no national gun control measures passed in recent memory? The NRA has nothing to do with it, the vast majority of gun owners are not members of the NRA, many gun owners in fact hate the NRA.

But due to the shooting in Orlando, and the empty threats of more regulations, we are very likely to see gun sales records broken yet again. President Obama has been very good for the gun industry, they have made more money during his presidency than at any time in recent memory.

Democrats tying up congress in order to force it to do its job. A refreshing contrast with Republicans tying up congress to prevent it from doing its job. Nice.

Which in both cases, neither side got anything accomplished and more evident as to why congress has an 8% approval rating.

The number of Americans who die because they can't afford medication no doubt exceeds the figures from gunshot deaths several-fold. And lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry spend far greater amounts than the NRA buying support from members of Congress, no doubt including plenty of Democrats. It's an inherently corrupt system any way you look at it.

But even if congress should manage to ram through meaningful gun legislation, there'd be a huge surge in AR-15 purchases before the law goes into effect. The expression "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" comes to mind.

Perhaps a long-term plan aimed at weaning Americans away from their gun culture might be of benefit. (For instance toning down gratuitous violence in movies and TV. I watch US detective shows on the cable TV here and am appalled by the amount of death and destruction passing for "entertainment" that can be crammed into a 1-hour drama.

But Congress DID hold votes on 4 gun control bills. The Democrats voted against 2 of them. Where do they get off claiming that it's all the Republicans fault?

Also what's with the obsession with the NRA on the part of the left. God forbid citizens be allowed to lobby Congress, I guess neoliberals only like it when corporations are afforded that luxury.

The NRA doesn't have to be particularly big. Their job is to protect an amendment, something that's already extremely difficult to change. On top of that, they have a lot of politicians on their side. Something like 88% of the public supported expanding background checks, which obviously includes a hell of a lot of gun owners, but it still stood no chance of passing.

Notice how the news in America primarily is about gun control? Not gays. Not Muslims.

Despite labels painted by accidents of birth paint, we are all human.

We bleed the same blood.

More lazy Democrats sleeping on the job -but at least they showed up to vote.

More lazy Democrats sleeping on the job -but at least they showed up to vote.

Funny, if the GOP filibuster, they're obstructionists, if Democrats do it, they're standing for something. I can't stop laughing. Democratic hypocrisy knows No bounds. This is why, they're going to lose.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate and Trump hit her hard the other day about her ties to Wall Street and her dubious foundations where we the public don't have access to any of it. The thing that Trump needs to do is start bringing in donors and attack her as hard as he can, he can definitely get her on violating the constitution, her oath to execute the office of the Secretary of State with honesty and integrity and Benghazi as well.Trump can really beat her down on that.

Democrats tying up congress in order to force it to do its job. A refreshing contrast with Republicans tying up congress to prevent it from doing its job. Nice.

What you fail to realize is that many of these men were elected because they oppose gun control, so in effect, they are doing their job. And as they hold the majority, they have the power to do as their constituency wants. And their constituency does not want gun control.

People complain about the republican congress, and how it refuses to work with the president and democrats. But back in 2008 democrats held the presidency and both houses of congress. Had the president and his fellow democrats had done a good job, they would never have lost their majorities, right? As Obama himself told the republican congress back in 2008, "elections have consequences", and refused pointblank to work with the republican minority in congress. That was an absurdly cocky and egotistic thing to say, and the republican congress has never forgotten it, and since 2010, when Obama lost his majority, they have made him eat those words over and over again. Out of spite they will drive him out of office in 2016 with as few accomplishments as possible. This is not their fault, it is the fault of a weak and incapable president. You may disagree, but the situation as it stands now shows that fact to be self-evident.

People seem to think that democracy is only fair when it supports their beliefs and ideals, but one has to live with the fact that other people may not share those beliefs and ideals, and these other people may make up a majority, and they may elect a congress which does not do what you want. You may not like it, but that is democracy at work. This goes for people in both parties.

It is not the republicans' fault that they are in power, it is the fault of the democrats, who didn't do a good enough job to keep their seats. The democrats cannot blame the republicans for inaction, they can only blame themselves for putting the republicans in power.

But due to the shooting in Orlando, and the empty threats of more regulations

If you think this is just an empty threat of more regulations, what would real one look like to you? All they are asking for is stricter access. Is it so unreasonable to deny guns to people on the no-fly list?

President Obama has been very good for the gun industry, they have made more money during his presidency...

He advocates common sense restrictions that the majority of Americans are for, and gun nuts rush out to buy more guns... That's not a problem with Obama, it's a problem with rampant idiocy in the US.

More lazy Democrats sleeping on the job -but at least they showed up to vote.

How is delaying their weeklong break lazy? It's painful how simple logic seems to fly past you guys...

Funny, if the GOP filibuster, they're obstructionists, if Democrats do it, they're standing for something.

A filibuster is delaying or preventing a vote... What the Democrats are doing here is demanding a vote...

I can't stop laughing.

Please stop laughing, and start paying attention.

"Despite labels painted by accidents of birth paint, we are all human.

We bleed the same blood."

True, but part of the problem here is whose blood some think it's ok to decorate the walls with.

Tells you a lot about both parties: The Dems are staging a sit in over the inaction of the Senate and the House to stop terrorists from getting and using weapons on American soil; weapons that have killed THOUSANDS of innocent lives every year. The Republicans? They staged a similar sit-in over the right to dig for oil and make the 1% richer while harming the environment, and on guns they are too scared to vote because they are morally bankrupt and have already taken money from the NRA, but know that they are going to be hurt in the next elections.

How is delaying their weeklong break lazy? It's painful how simple logic seems to fly past you guys.

I'm sorry, they put everything off so long. Harry Reid blew off over 305 GOP legislations, they WERE busy doing that, everything else, they were lazy at, ok, so not I corrected that small detail.

A filibuster is delaying or preventing a vote... What the Democrats are doing here is demanding a vote.

Which pretty much comes to about the same result, nothing was accomplished.

Too, too funny!

He advocates common sense restrictions that the majority of Americans are for, and gun nuts rush out to buy more guns... That's not a problem with Obama, it's a problem with rampant idiocy in the US.

I suggest everyone go out and buy a gun. Learn how to use it.

Obama, Kerry and Hillary want to allow in islamic refugees into the US ( . . talk about "rampant idiocy in the US.")

So arm yourself. Protect your home, loved ones and your way of life. This incumbent administration and the next one (Hillary, probably) will NOT protect you.

Rather, they just preach you should be more and more "tolerant" in your own country.

Now some have stopped running scared and shown true courage. Excellent. I just wish it had been more of a mix from both sides.

Wc626: "Obama, Kerry and Hillary want to allow in islamic refugees into the US ( . . talk about "rampant idiocy in the US.")"

And you'd fight for their right to get guns once they're in, even if you weren't full of hot air and paranoid about who's being let in and who's not.

Wc626JUN. 23, 2016 - 12:25PM JST I suggest everyone go out and buy a gun. Learn how to use it. Obama, Kerry and Hillary want to allow in islamic refugees into the US ( . . talk about "rampant idiocy in the US.") So arm yourself. Protect your home, loved ones and your way of life.

You don't think advocating civilians take an armed response to the mere support of refugees that happen to often (but not always) be a different religion from you crosses a line?

"Had the president and his fellow democrats had done a good job, they would never have lost their majorities, right?"

Wrong - what happened was the fallout from the economic crisis and ensuing recession brought on by Bush, Paulson, Geitner et all who flushes 700 billion down the rathole to protect an elite group that includes all politicians, and fewer than 1% of voters. Obama's failure in 2008 was that he reached across the aisle to the GOP instead of steamrollering them when the dems had both the house and the senate.

They staged a similar sit-in over the right to dig for oil and make the 1% richer while harming the environment, and on guns they are too scared to vote because they are morally bankrupt and have already taken money from the NRA, but know that they are going to be hurt in the next elections.

Question, how can Hillary be for the people, when she's almost as rich as Trump and her cozy relationship towards Wall Street. Yeah, Dems care about the environment, so much so, they let the rest of the country fall to s***!

It looks like this group of democrat congresspersons is taking a cue from the occupy movement, maybe next time they could bring their drums and pots and pans.

And you'd fight for their right to get guns once they're in, even if you weren't full of hot air and paranoid about who's being let in and who's not.

No smith. I wouldn't fight for them once they're in. They do not belong in America period. What are Obama, Kerry and Hillary thinking? America is becoming more of a zoo by all this liberal leadership and their policies.

The rich gulf nations should help out these refugees, not Americans. Americans for Americans first.

@CrazyJoe, you pretty much summed it up for me. Exactly my sentiments.

On a side note, just yesterday there was a gun store robbed of 29... count 'em 29 weapons. To add insult to injury (and blatant stupidity) their store security camera wasn't working (unless the robbers disabled them on purpose).

I'm wondering just how secure was their store for someone to be able to break in.

He advocates common sense restrictions that the majority of Americans are for,

If the majority of Americans wanted more restrictions, then there would be more restrictions. "Common sense" is a relative term, and is not common at all. The reason why no national gun control measures have been passed since the Clinton era is because there is not public support for them. It was during the Clinton era that the democrat party lost the majority they held since the 60's. That is the reason why no new regulations will be enacted. If the majority of Americans do in fact agree with you, then they would have made their point clear at the ballot box long ago. They haven't, have they? And they will not in the next election either. The group of democrats protesting are those from districts where guns are heavily regulated (and which somehow still manage to be the most violent districts in America), so they have nothing to lose in their protest. The majority of democrats in the congress are keeping their mouths shut, as election day is only a few months away, and if they vote for any gun control measure, they are more likely to lose their seats than keep them.

Tell me, what has been the results of the gun bans in the UK and Australia? How much has violent crime decreased? How much has the murder rate declined? The correct answers are "none" and "not at all." And if banning guns does not change either of these statistics, then what is the point? Is it common sense to pass laws which do nothing at all to improve safety and reduce crime?

Obama, Kerry and Hillary want to allow in islamic refugees into the US ( . . talk about "rampant idiocy in the US.")

It's not a given that Islamic refugees are terrorists. Some might be, but most are fleeing them. That's what screening is for. But the majority of the Republican party would put guns in the hands of screened and suspected terrorists before limiting access to guns in any way. Rampant idiocy.

Which pretty much comes to about the same result, nothing was accomplished.

When one side refuses to do anything in either scenario, yes the result is the same. Are you really so dense that you can't see the difference between taking a break to prevent action and delaying a break to take action? Are you actually for selling guns to suspected terrorists? Let go of your "Dems are dumb hypocrites" mentality for just a second and use your common sense.

But the majority of the Republican party would put guns in the hands of screened and suspected terrorists before limiting access to guns in any way. Rampant idiocy.

Wrong again. The majority of republicans don't want them coming onto our soil in the first place.

True, but part of the problem here is whose blood some think it's ok to decorate the walls with.

And making guns easier to purchase than Kinder Surprise is aiding and abetting those people, be they killing for a religious, political or any other agenda.

But the majority of the Republican party would put guns in the hands of screened and suspected terrorists before limiting access to guns in any way.

In America aliens are not permitted to buy guns or own guns. And as owning a gun is a constitutional right which citizens have, and America is a country where one is innocent until proven guilty, you cannot prevent someone from buying or owning a gun who is a legal citizen who has never committed a crime.

In the case of the shooter in Orlando, he had a state license to own and carry a gun, which meant he underwent a strenuous background check. These licenses require fingerprints, photographs, and safety tests. The shooter was a US citizen who had a clean background, and as he had not been charged with aiding terrorists, or anything else, he was able to obtain a license and to buy guns.

By taking away or regulating the constitutional rights of citizens who have not committed a crime, you are opening a can of worms which may not be possible to close again.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with guns, but with how suspected terrorists are dealt with. And even that is difficult because the first amendment gives citizens the right to say whatever they want to whomever they want, whenever they want, even if the person they are speaking to is the leader of the islamic state.

You can live in a free state which is not perfectly safe, or you can live in a perfectly safe state which is no one is free. I would prefer to live in the free state, and take my chances.

If the majority of Americans wanted more restrictions, then there would be more restrictions. "Common sense" is a relative term, and is not common at all.

Polls show that the majority support stricter regulations and don't support access to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines for anyone but law enforcement. Seems like the common sense is common. Do you disagree?

The reason why no national gun control measures have been passed since the Clinton era is because there is not public support for them.

The reason why there's no public support is because Republicans distort any attempt to pass the above common-sense measures into things like "Obama is coming to take your guns" and rubes fall hook, line, and sinker. And the Republicans have the nerve to accuse the Democrats of making the shooting tragedies a political issue.

Tell me, what has been the results of the gun bans in the UK and Australia? How much has violent crime decreased? How much has the murder rate declined? The correct answers are "none" and "not at all."

I don't buy that violent crime and murder has stayed the same, but let's say they did. When's the last time you heard of a mass shooting in the UK and Australia though? How often do they occur in the US? How often do we hear about cops shooting unarmed suspects in the US vs the rest of the world? Because that's related too. If cops have every reason to believe anyone is armed in the US, it's natural instinct to shoot first.

Is it common sense to pass laws which do nothing at all to improve safety and reduce crime?

Tell that to the families of the people who died in the Orlando club, the Aurora movie theater, the children in Sandy Hook, etc. etc. Crime and mass shootings are two different things. It's common sense to try to do something rather than nothing when confronted with a problem. Let me guess, let's do something about mental health? Because the GOP loves tax-consuming social welfare programs, right?

Wrong again. The majority of republicans don't want them coming onto our soil in the first place.

And nutjobs that are born and raised in the US like the Orlando shooter? They're OK?

"And making guns easier to purchase than Kinder Surprise is aiding and abetting those people, be they killing for a religious, political or any other agenda."

Couldn't agree more. I just wish more people would look at the whole picture rather than deny, deflect and obfuscate when their raw nerve is touched. To take the filthy massacre in Florida as an example, the gun-lovers can't bring themselves to see guns as part of the problem and religious apologists can't bring themselves to see religion as part of the problem. A depressing state of affairs and one which will get people killed.

You can live in a free state which is not perfectly safe, or you can live in a perfectly safe state which is no one is free. (sic) I would prefer to live in the free state, and take my chances.

That’s reductionist sloganeering for binary-world ideologues, along the same lines as Bush 43’s ‘You’re for us or you’re for the terrorists’, but maybe not as bad as New Hampshire’s ‘Live free or die’’. Ideologues want to present existence as having two choices: their beliefs or wrong. But many of the rest of us would prefer to see issues in their full complexity and be allowed to select from an array of possibilities as situations arise.

In the free state I prefer to live in, I’m allowed to make choices, and I’m safe where I live knowing my volatile neighbor, even though he may be a flag waving WASP and a 7th generation US American citizen, doesn’t have access to a semi-automatic .50 caliber weapon which he can choose to use from the many others in his private arsenal of weapons.

Freedom, to me at least, is more complex than own-guns / don’t own guns. There’s a whole lot of grey out there - if you’re willing to look.

Polls show that the majority support stricter regulations and don't support access to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines for anyone but law enforcement. Seems like the common sense is common. Do you disagree?

Polls are irrelevant to reality, and capable pollster can come up with a predetermined result for his poll. If polls really did indicate the truth, then politicians would support more gun control. The present reality belies the poll results. Do you disagree? I was a law enforcement officer for 10 years, and I will tell you now that many law enforcement officers are less stable than normal citizens. And in America, citizens have the same rights and powers as police officers and even soldiers. Any American citizen has the right and power to arrest and detain a criminal. Magazine capacity is rather irrelevant, "assault rifles" as you call them, are used in a very small amount of shootings. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and common handguns are used in most shootings. And by definition, an "assault rifle" is an automatic weapon, which are not sold to citizens.

The reason why there's no public support is because Republicans distort any attempt to pass the above common-sense measures into things like "Obama is coming to take your guns" and rubes fall hook, line, and sinker. And the Republicans have the nerve to accuse the Democrats of making the shooting tragedies a political issue.

How many gun deaths occur in America? About half as many as occurred when Bill Clinton took office. The number of shootings, murders, and violent crime in America is at near record low levels right now. There is no common sense measure when that measure will not make any meaningful difference in crime, violence, or murder. You may not agree to people have the right to keep and bear arms, but this right is penned in the same ink as the others, and if you can restrict or regulate one constitutional right, it sets a strong precedent do to the same to others. The first amendment is arguably far more dangerous to the safety of Americans than the second amendment. The freedom to say and associate with whom we please can be abused to cause calamities of the likes which happened in Nazi Germany, and I not right?

I don't buy that violent crime and murder has stayed the same, but let's say they did. When's the last time you heard of a mass shooting in the UK and Australia though? How often do they occur in the US? How often do we hear about cops shooting unarmed suspects in the US vs the rest of the world? Because that's related too. If cops have every reason to believe anyone is armed in the US, it's natural instinct to shoot first.

I was being generous in my comparison, if you look closely, you will see overall that violence and murder have increased in this countries, not just remained static. You don't have to "buy" anything, crime statistics are public record, take a look for yourself.

Tell that to the families of the people who died in the Orlando club, the Aurora movie theater, the children in Sandy Hook, etc. etc. Crime and mass shootings are two different things. It's common sense to try to do something rather than nothing when confronted with a problem. Let me guess, let's do something about mental health? Because the GOP loves tax-consuming social welfare programs, right?

You don't need a gun to commit mass murder, remember the nut job who killed 8 people in Akihabara with a rented van and a knife a few years ago? If I wanted to kill 50 people and couldn't get a gun, I would go to a home center, buy a insecticide sprayer, put $2 in gasoline in it, and a $2 butane lighter. The instrument of death is irrelevant, and though mass shootings don't often occur in places where guns are banned, crime statistics show that people have no problems killing by other means.

The problem with having rights of any kind is that rights can be abused. We allow people to drive cars, hundreds in America will be killed today in car accidents, thousands will be hurt. We allow people to smoke, and smoking will kill nearly half a million people this year. You cannot punish everyone, or take away their rights due to the action of an individual, or even a group of individuals.

If polls really did indicate the truth, then politicians would support more gun control.

Whether you trust polls is up to you, but very few of the decisions made in Washington have anything to do with what people want. The blame lies with both parties on that one.

https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/

And by definition, an "assault rifle" is an automatic weapon, which are not sold to citizens.

Fine, semi-automatic rifles then. Either way, there's no reason for anyone to have them or "irrelevant" large-capacity magazines, unless you want to shoot up a lot of people quickly and efficiently. If you need that much shots to take down a deer or a criminal, you really don't have any business with a gun.

but this right is penned in the same ink as the others, and if you can restrict or regulate one constitutional right, it sets a strong precedent do to the same to others.

What are you talking about? We restrict and regulate constitutional rights all the time. Freedom of speech has it's limits (shouting fire in a crowded theater, libel, etc.). We restrict the second amendment itself by banning grenades and other "arms."

As much as you pro-gun people love to bring up the second amendment, very few of you seem to know a lot about it. A very strict (i.e., limiting) interpretation of it was upheld until the 1970s. We don't have to do away with it, just go back to it's original interpretation. The founding fathers couldn't have anticipated the weapons we have today and were smart enough to leave room for reasonable interpretation. Maybe they overestimated us.

The freedom to say and associate with whom we please can be abused to cause calamities of the likes which happened in Nazi Germany, and I not right?

Wow, you went there... Despite Trump, I don't think we're anywhere near Nazi Germany yet. We can take a look at the first amendment when we do, but really, you're skipping a lot of steps between free speech and Nazi Germany...

I was being generous in my comparison, if you look closely, you will see overall that violence and murder have increased in this countries, not just remained static. You don't have to "buy" anything, crime statistics are public record, take a look for yourself.

OK, but you didn't answer my questions. How often do mass shootings occur in those or any other industrialized country? How often do cops in other countries shoot unarmed suspects? And again, I think random shootings by nutjobs are different from other violent crimes, but that's my opinion. You can actually take some measures to protect yourself against the later.

You don't need a gun to commit mass murder, remember the nut job who killed 8 people in Akihabara with a rented van and a knife a few years ago? If I wanted to kill 50 people and couldn't get a gun, I would go to a home center, buy a insecticide sprayer, put $2 in gasoline in it, and a $2 butane lighter.

Here's that argument again... Why do you want to make it easier for crazy people to kill a lot of people? Because getting a gun would be easier than everything you mentioned and gives you a better chance of success.

We allow people to drive cars, hundreds in America will be killed today in car accidents, thousands will be hurt. We allow people to smoke, and smoking will kill nearly half a million people this year.

And this argument... Cars are pretty heavily regulated and have the added benefit of moving us around when they're not be used to commit murder. Laws on smoking get stricter every year. Yadda, yadda, yadda... What do you propose we do about the epidemic of random shootings?

You cannot punish everyone, or take away their rights due to the action of an individual, or even a group of individuals.

Just admit that you don't mind that hundreds (maybe thousands) of innocent men, women, and children have to die every year so that you can keep your hobby, illusion of protection, "constitutional right", means of compensation, or whatever reason you love your guns.

I wish the Dems were this diligent when Congress discussed the bailout bills for the banks. This Dem sit-in all happening just to fast and coordinated. Or why don't they have the same diligence when it comes to Chiraqe, putting more cops on the streets and stopping the gang violence. Nope! Lets blame it on the white middle class family people cuz its just so easy now. Pathetic leadership screaming about issues that are way down the list from jobs and healthcare.

We’re not going to take away a citizen’s constitutional rights without due process

Exactly. The right to kill in times of peace.

The Republican party is disintegrating faster than I thought.

hundreds in America will be killed today in car accidents

How many deliberately?

You cannot punish everyone, or take away their rights

How about the right to dance, watch a movie or attend attend elementary school?

ENOUGH of the people-hating gun lovers. #NoBillNoBreak

"@kc: NRA do not vote in Congress. Only congressmen and congress women vote in USA Congress." - comments

For some, this may be new information, politics are sometimes practiced in plain sight.

The Public Record shows the direct influence of the gun lobby over U.S. Congress.

The record also shows gun lobby's control in State Legislatures. These facts are readily available.

More importantly, the comparison of 'Big Tobacco' with the 'Gun Lobby' would help inform the ways and means of industry influence in the U.S. Congress.

Both industries, while promoting and marketing deadly products, have placed Legislators in their debt, and under threat, to assure Legislation that protects profit while penalizing every Man, Woman and Child in the States.

So, for what it is worth: "@kc: NRA do not vote in Congress."?

Really? One only has to review the record and watch the Republican Party high tail it off the reservation and into the loving arms of the NRA back home.

(the weirdest bedtime story, ever)

Funny, if the GOP filibuster, they're obstructionists, if Democrats do it, they're standing for something. I can't stop laughing. Democratic hypocrisy knows No bounds. This is why, they're going to lose.

Right bassyfunk, the democrats will lose because the public can't stand the idea of would be terrorist NOT having a chance to get real weaponry. THAT is sick! Why everyone, including terrorists should have a gun--new repig value here it seems.

And nutjobs that are born and raised in the US like the Orlando shooter? They're OK?

Of course not. The FBI, obviously, dropped the ball on Omar. Sure he was born & raised in US. . . but lets face it. His loyalty was to his false & wicked religion and not with America.

. . . This is why we must (all) unite against radical islam. It must be destroyed. Trump will do a temp ban, profile and conduct surveillance on the mosques. It's the only way to be sure.

He also said he would "bomb the hell outa' them" and bring back waterboarding. Put boots on the ground. Get in their face. Fight fire w/ fire. . . . they're already doing that to us. We need to push back too.

Tell me, what has been the results of the gun bans in the UK and Australia? How much has violent crime decreased? How much has the murder rate declined? The correct answers are "none" and "not at all."

To prove your point, just today, in Germany a masked man with a gun and ammunition belt opened fire in a cinema complex in the small western German town of Viernheim, near Frankfurt, injuring between 20 and 50 people and barricaded himself inside.

Germany has some very strict gun laws. So this posturing in the US Congress is really not doing a thing. The weekend of the Orlando shooting, 8 people were killed and 32 other injured in Chicago alone. Chicago, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation, and some of them were found to be unconstitutional. I am willing to say with 99.99% certainty, that the shooters in the Chicago area, were all persons who would not be able to legally purchase a gun due to a prior criminal record.

So grandstanding on this issue is not going to solve anything. We have laws on who can buy a gun and where you can take them. Even in places in the US and in Germany where gun laws are strict, bad people will do bad things with guns. Funny, I wonder will they state the reason for the mass shooting in Germany. I suspect that the motivations behind the shooter there, are probably similar to the shooter in Orlando.

A start MUST be made, and it must be made NOW. The common sense thing to do.

(the weirdest bedtime story, ever)

With that, I would have to agree.

They should have roped off the restrooms with an hired armed guard after hours. Just like the Dems did with national parks when they couldn't get their debt ceiling raised. At least in this instance only the Dems would be inconvenienced not the tax paying public.

This is the kind of thing that gets lib Dems like me fired up ad ready to go.

Repeal or Amend!

....or let's make this Islamist terrorist tragedy very politically divisional and raise money to boot! While 49 families are used to raise DNC cash.

This is the kind of thing that gets lib Dems like me fired up ad ready to go.

And likewise, how the US Chief Justices split have just blocked Obama's immigration plan from taking effect gives me a woody too.

When one side refuses to do anything in either scenario, yes the result is the same. Are you really so dense that you can't see the difference between taking a break to prevent action and delaying a break to take action?

I want to ask that question to liberals, are they all dense that they think that whenever they THINK they are standing up to something that THEY think is important is important, but want to call conservatives obstructionists when they do the same thing, even if it includes SHUTTING DOWN the government? The point is, whether one side is taking a break or the other side believes in stopping the government to reach a certain goal, the basic goal is the same, how that objective is met is irreverent, but I know the Dems will come up with some stupid excuse to make a case that what THEY are doing is for a serious and just cause. Well, that argument is falling on deaf ears. Democrats and liberals need to stop whining whenever they can't get what they want, they say the same thing to conservatives, so when the shoe is on the other foot, it's not nice, is it?

Are you actually for selling guns to suspected terrorists? Let go of your "Dems are dumb hypocrites" mentality for just a second and use your common sense.

Are you guys for NOT wanting to go along with identifying and calling out radical Jihadism for what it really is?

Are you guys for NOT wanting to go along with identifying and calling out radical Jihadism for what it really is?

Ahh, right-wing PC speak rears its ugly head again.

Obama already dropped the mic on this sound bite. Using the term doesn't further the efforts whatsoever, and on the contrary hampers efforts.

Again the gun issue is a political issue between parties rather than a social and cultural issue tied in with realistic appraisal of the situation, circumstance and environment.

Obviously, no one wants to be die or be killed by violence regardless of the weapon used. Also, no one wants to be poisoned or die of a deadly disease or illness. But then, no one wants to die of accidents or natural disasters either.

The fact is that weapons exist and guns happen to be the most handy and deadlier as well as the most obviously violent and bloodier even compared with swords and knives. It much more obvious of violence compared to poisons such as drugs and diseases. So therefore, most people have used it as a social and political issue which the media and the politician like to exploit.

Guns are both defensive as well as offensive weapon regardless of the power and capacity of that gun. It depends on who is using it and for what purpose and reason.

The issue here is not the gun or the possession of the gun as much as the people who "use" it.

The second issue is the "purpose, intent and reason" that gun is used; which determines humaneness and brutality as well as legal and illegal and ultimately acceptable or unacceptable and the moral judgments based upon each individual's personal values and beliefs.

So where do we control?

The possession or the person? The gun or its possession? The guns themselves?

Where and how much can we using laws and the enforcement of those laws can actually control?

The ATF has been doing for years.

The problem now is the people... so the issue is who do we want in this country.

"So where do we control?" . . .

"The problem now is the people... so the issue is who do we want in this country." - comments

It may be helpful to point out the Nazi asked this same question. The comment above reduces appropriate and necessary control of deadly weapons into a thinly veiled racism. Clever.