Leader Of Dem Sit-in Was On No-Fly List Himself

[JakeStarkey]

FairandBlance with Taz are wrong on this issue. Period.

RW is correct.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, since you can't place armed guards around every possible place humans may congregate, restricting a weapon that allows you to mow down dozens in a short timeframe makes the most sense

It makes no sense at all. 84 people have been killed in mass shootings this year in this country, 84 out of 300,000,000, and not all have been done with what you people like to call assault weapons.

Over 300 people have been murdered this year in Chicago alone, but where is the Congressional sit-in on that? There isn't one because these 300 murders have been over a period of six months instead of all at once. Well, what the hell is the difference? 300 dead people is 300 dead people. The only reason you guys aren't throwing a fit about that is because the media isn't hyping it up because those weren't committed by "big, scary" weapons.

This entire argument is emotional, not fact based and not rational and as far as these idiot Congressmen ago it's a power play for control. That's why you people are expending all of this energy over 84 people while ignoring all the other senseless deaths that occur.

Want to start restricting the distribution of handguns too?

I'm game

Of course you are. You're a bed wetter. I don't see a reason to restrict any of these because they aren't the problem and I don't live my life in constant fear like you people do. Gun deaths are merely a symptom of a larger disease.

I'm not the coward who needs a gun to "feel safe"

 

[rightwinger]

Well, since you can't place armed guards around every possible place humans may congregate, restricting a weapon that allows you to mow down dozens in a short timeframe makes the most sense

It makes no sense at all. 84 people have been killed in mass shootings this year in this country, 84 out of 300,000,000, and not all have been done with what you people like to call assault weapons.

Over 300 people have been murdered this year in Chicago alone, but where is the Congressional sit-in on that? There isn't one because these 300 murders have been over a period of six months instead of all at once. Well, what the hell is the difference? 300 dead people is 300 dead people. The only reason you guys aren't throwing a fit about that is because the media isn't hyping it up because those weren't committed by "big, scary" weapons.

This entire argument is emotional, not fact based and not rational and as far as these idiot Congressmen ago it's a power play for control. That's why you people are expending all of this energy over 84 people while ignoring all the other senseless deaths that occur.

Want to start restricting the distribution of handguns too?

I'm game

Of course you are. You're a bed wetter. I don't see a reason to restrict any of these because they aren't the problem and I don't live my life in constant fear like you people do. Gun deaths are merely a symptom of a larger disease.

Oh, but he was so close that time. He said hand gun distribution restrictions rather than just ourtight banning them. Give him some credit for that.

As you said in an earlier post, what's the difference, 49 murders in one shooting or 49 murders spread throughout a city, 49 murders is 49 murders.

I have an idea. let's ban murderers.

Why do we insist on making their lives easier by giving them access to the weapon of their choice to mow down homos or first graders?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

FairandBlance with Taz are wrong on this issue. Period.

RW is correct.

wrong, as per usual with you.

I am 100% correct. We need to control who has weapons, not control weapons that won't be used to murder.

You just can't admit that, because how many votes would Democrats lose if , for example, blacks who illegally own firearms of any sort were thrown in jail?

It's just that simple. The gun itself is largely irrelevant. I have a fully automatic rifle that is capable of firing 600 rounds a minute. I've owned such for about 7 years. It's not murdered one single person since I owned it, not one. Meanwhile how many people are shot in Chicago EVERY day with hand guns?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Well, since you can't place armed guards around every possible place humans may congregate, restricting a weapon that allows you to mow down dozens in a short timeframe makes the most sense

It makes no sense at all. 84 people have been killed in mass shootings this year in this country, 84 out of 300,000,000, and not all have been done with what you people like to call assault weapons.

Over 300 people have been murdered this year in Chicago alone, but where is the Congressional sit-in on that? There isn't one because these 300 murders have been over a period of six months instead of all at once. Well, what the hell is the difference? 300 dead people is 300 dead people. The only reason you guys aren't throwing a fit about that is because the media isn't hyping it up because those weren't committed by "big, scary" weapons.

This entire argument is emotional, not fact based and not rational and as far as these idiot Congressmen ago it's a power play for control. That's why you people are expending all of this energy over 84 people while ignoring all the other senseless deaths that occur.

Want to start restricting the distribution of handguns too?

I'm game

Of course you are. You're a bed wetter. I don't see a reason to restrict any of these because they aren't the problem and I don't live my life in constant fear like you people do. Gun deaths are merely a symptom of a larger disease.

Oh, but he was so close that time. He said hand gun distribution restrictions rather than just ourtight banning them. Give him some credit for that.

As you said in an earlier post, what's the difference, 49 murders in one shooting or 49 murders spread throughout a city, 49 murders is 49 murders.

I have an idea. let's ban murderers.

Why do we insist on making their lives easier by giving them access to the weapon of their choice to mow down homos or first graders?

We don't give them access to the weapon of their choice. They'd prefer rocket launchers and suicide vest bombs.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Well, since you can't place armed guards around every possible place humans may congregate, restricting a weapon that allows you to mow down dozens in a short timeframe makes the most sense

It makes no sense at all. 84 people have been killed in mass shootings this year in this country, 84 out of 300,000,000, and not all have been done with what you people like to call assault weapons.

Over 300 people have been murdered this year in Chicago alone, but where is the Congressional sit-in on that? There isn't one because these 300 murders have been over a period of six months instead of all at once. Well, what the hell is the difference? 300 dead people is 300 dead people. The only reason you guys aren't throwing a fit about that is because the media isn't hyping it up because those weren't committed by "big, scary" weapons.

This entire argument is emotional, not fact based and not rational and as far as these idiot Congressmen ago it's a power play for control. That's why you people are expending all of this energy over 84 people while ignoring all the other senseless deaths that occur.

Want to start restricting the distribution of handguns too?

I'm game

Of course you are. You're a bed wetter. I don't see a reason to restrict any of these because they aren't the problem and I don't live my life in constant fear like you people do. Gun deaths are merely a symptom of a larger disease.

Oh, but he was so close that time. He said hand gun distribution restrictions rather than just ourtight banning them. Give him some credit for that.

As you said in an earlier post, what's the difference, 49 murders in one shooting or 49 murders spread throughout a city, 49 murders is 49 murders.

I have an idea. let's ban murderers.

Why do we insist on making their lives easier by giving them access to the weapon of their choice to mow down homos or first graders?

Why do YOU insist on making their lives easier by not putting them in PRISON? Not one person who's in prison has EVER murdered a first grader, NOT EVER.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the far right keeping these nuts out of prison.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That is the far right keeping these nuts out of prison.

Yes, the far right is keeping the blacks in Chicago from being put in prison where they belong. Among other things...



LOL you are such a joke Jake. In fact a mod should change your name to JokeStarkey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about the no fly list, and you terrorist supporters making sure they all have weapons.

 

[rightwinger]

It makes no sense at all. 84 people have been killed in mass shootings this year in this country, 84 out of 300,000,000, and not all have been done with what you people like to call assault weapons.

Over 300 people have been murdered this year in Chicago alone, but where is the Congressional sit-in on that? There isn't one because these 300 murders have been over a period of six months instead of all at once. Well, what the hell is the difference? 300 dead people is 300 dead people. The only reason you guys aren't throwing a fit about that is because the media isn't hyping it up because those weren't committed by "big, scary" weapons.

This entire argument is emotional, not fact based and not rational and as far as these idiot Congressmen ago it's a power play for control. That's why you people are expending all of this energy over 84 people while ignoring all the other senseless deaths that occur.

Want to start restricting the distribution of handguns too?

I'm game

Of course you are. You're a bed wetter. I don't see a reason to restrict any of these because they aren't the problem and I don't live my life in constant fear like you people do. Gun deaths are merely a symptom of a larger disease.

Oh, but he was so close that time. He said hand gun distribution restrictions rather than just ourtight banning them. Give him some credit for that.

As you said in an earlier post, what's the difference, 49 murders in one shooting or 49 murders spread throughout a city, 49 murders is 49 murders.

I have an idea. let's ban murderers.

Why do we insist on making their lives easier by giving them access to the weapon of their choice to mow down homos or first graders?

Why do YOU insist on making their lives easier by not putting them in PRISON? Not one person who's in prison has EVER murdered a first grader, NOT EVER.

We have 2.5 million in prison now, more than anywhere in the world
Also, one of the few democracies to still have a death penalty

Doesn't seem to work

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

FairandBlance with Taz are wrong on this issue. Period.

RW is correct.

Oh, well, if Jake decrees it then it must be true.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not the coward who needs a gun to "feel safe"

Nor do I. I never carry a gun on me unless I'm going to the gun range to practice. I do, however, have two in my house because if someone busts down the door and you have only seconds for you and your family to live the police are only minutes away. If you don't get that you're a fucking fool.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We are talking about the no fly list, and you terrorist supporters making sure they all have weapons.

And you are talking about violating the Constitution. You fascist sympathizers want to infringe on the right of Due Process. Guilty until proven innocent, you know, just like in the gulags of good ole Mother Russia.

 

[boedicca]

In the rush to take our guns, the hypocrisy by Democrats is glaring. Democrats think that love will protect us from a terrorist attack. Obama just released another terrorist from GITMO, most of which have gone back to terrorism, yet he and the Dems want to use an attack, the cause of which can be directly linked to the White House, as a reason to take away our rights. All of this screaming and yelling over a bill that will not save one single life.



Rep Lewis Was Once On The No-Fly List He Wants To Use To Restrict Gun Rights

Democratic Rep. John Lewis was erroneously put on the no-fly list he now wants to use to restrict gun ownership for U.S. citizens.

Lewis staged a “sit-in” at the House of Representatives Wednesday to call for a law barring people on the federal no-fly list from purchasing guns. But Lewis himself was erroneously put on the list at one point for an entire year, meaning he would have been unable to buy a gun had his new proposal been law.

Several different gun control measures have been circulating in Congress in the wake of Omar Mateen’s June 12 shooting spree at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. One of the proposals would ban anybody on the federal government’s no-fly list from purchasing a gun. In the House, Lewis has become a champion of such a rule, leading an occupation of the House floor to demand a vote on the measure.




Lewis may view the no-fly list as a good vehicle for stopping terrorists from getting weapons. But terrorists wouldn’t be the only people hindered by Collins’ proposal. In fact, if such a law had existed a decade ago, Lewis himself would have been victimized by it.

Press accounts from 2004 to 2008 reveal that Lewis’ name somehow ended up on the federal no-fly list, and remained there for years despite his best efforts to get it off. In 2004, he claimed he was stopped 35 to 40 times in a single year by airport personnel who tried to keep him from flying. Presumably, if the “no fly, no gun” law had been in place then, Lewis would have had even more trouble buying a gun than he had getting on a plane.

Lewis isn’t the only prominent person to have trouble with the no-fly list, as Sen. Ted Kennedy and singer Cat Stevens also claimed they were mistakenly placed on it. Their experiences illustrate one of the chief criticisms of the no-fly list: That it can limit individual rights while giving individuals very limited power to fight back.

According to the FBI, the current no-fly list has about 81,000 names, although only a few hundred of them are Americans.​

Our Dear Leaders always assume they have an "Exempt From The Law" card when caught in the traps they set for the rest of us.

Party members are always exempt in authoritarian regimes.

Indeed. That's how they attract their loyalists. What the plebes don't understand is that, once they cease to be useful, the rules will be used to deal with them as well. When the law is malleable, unknowable, and wielded by The Corrupt, everyone is a criminal when The Elite decide it is convenient.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

We are talking about the no fly list, and you terrorist supporters making sure they all have weapons.

stop with the bullshit rhetoric. I oppose the no fly list period.

if someone in our country is a danger to the point that they shouldn't be flying, arrest them, charge them, and prosecute them.

You know, due process.

 

[boedicca]

I'm not the coward who needs a gun to "feel safe"

Nor do I. I never carry a gun on me unless I'm going to the gun range to practice. I do, however, have two in my house because if someone busts down the door and you have only seconds for you and your family to live the police are only minutes away. If you don't get that you're a fucking fool.

Bingo!

RW only feels safe when the government suppresses somebody else's rights. And it's a false sense of security at that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That is the far right keeping these nuts out of prison.

Actually it was the Obama administration who let Mateen walk, but you already knew that.

 

[boedicca]

We are talking about the no fly list, and you terrorist supporters making sure they all have weapons.

stop with the bullshit rhetoric. I oppose the no fly list period.

if someone in our country is a danger to the point that they shouldn't be flying, arrest them, charge them, and prosecute them.

You know, due process.

Due Process! The Dems are against that (cf. Manchin's comments and the Sit In). Due process impedes their power grabs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

FairandBlance with Taz are wrong on this issue. Period.

RW is correct.

Oh, well, if Jake decrees it then it must be true.

Of course it is. I am the one on the board who is fair and balanced.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

FairandBlance with Taz are wrong on this issue. Period.

RW is correct.

Oh, well, if Jake decrees it then it must be true.

Of course it is. I am the one on the board who is fair and balanced.

LOL okay Jake, I challenge that statement. Tell me 3 things that Democrats stand for that you disagree with.

I truly hope you ask me to list 3 things the GOP stands for that I disagree with in return.