Democrats & Liberals Archives

This Is What Democracy Looks Like

As the old protest chant goes, “This is what democracy looks like.” It’s 2:10 A.M. here in the Eastern Time Zone, the morning of June 23, 2016. C-Span is broadcasting a webcam video from Congressman Eric Swallwell after Speaker Paul Ryan shut down the main House of Representatives cameras. Why? The Democrats are waging a sit-in over the No Fly No Buy bill. This is what democracy looks like.

After five and a half years of being an abused minority in the House, the same for 18 of the last 22 years for that matter, it seems the Democrats have finally grown a pair and begun to fight back. The path to victory isn't to agree with Republicans, but to act like Republicans. That's exactly what we're doing right now.

In the lead-up to the 2010 midterm election, Republicans shouted down Democratic Congressman at town-hall meetings, heckled the President at the State of the Union address, and made the United States Congress look more like the British Parliament. And finally after five and a half years of taking their garbage lying down, the Democrats have finally begun to fight back to relevancy, and it begins now.

We must keep up the bad behavior in revolt and protest against the Republicans. We must keep standing up for the American people and their safety by any means necessary, as we are tonight. Even as Paul Ryan threatens Congressional Democrats with arrest tonight, we must stand strong and continue this fight, all the way to the election in November and beyond. If this is how we will get the American people's attention and drive our message home that the people in charge of Congress are just plain nuts, that they couldn't care less about terrorists being able to buy guns easier than it is to have a pizza delivered to your house, so be it.

I have a feeling this is a night that will be remembered for years to come.

Posted by TreyL at June 23, 2016 2:07 AM
Comments
Comment #405520
This is what democracy looks like.

Since when is a temper tantrum thrown by the minority an example of democracy?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 23, 2016 8:25 AM
Comment #405521

Trey, for this to be “remembered for years to come” the legislation that they are pushing for a vote must mean something. While the goal is great I’m not sure this bill does anything positive, and after the civil liberty protections that any court is going to require are put in it might do more harm than good.

And if civil right protections don’t matter based on the greater good then wouldn’t we be better off reinstating the provisions of the Patriot Act that were used against Brandon Mayfield? Let the NSA have access to the NICS transactions (they probably already do) and if they pop a name on their list we could just arrest them. As I recall the Patriot Act had great support when it passed.

At least Ryan hasn’t turn the lights off on them…

Posted by: George in SC at June 23, 2016 8:36 AM
Comment #405522

If this bill did what the name implies, refusing to allow people on a terror watch list to purchase weapons, it’s a no-brainer.

In fact, I would go a step further and say any non-U.S.citizen should be banned from owning a weapon. They have no rights. Our constitution wasn’t written for the entire world. It was written for American citizens.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 9:55 AM
Comment #405523

I agree with Weary that non citizens shouldn’t be able to own a gun in the US. However, due process MUST be afforded all American citizens BEFORE any rights are denied,

Posted by: tomdobson at June 23, 2016 10:41 AM
Comment #405524

I support the sit-in that the Democrats in the HOR have tried. This is not a temper tantrum. This is representative government attempting to let some of the people’s voices to be heard.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2016 10:46 AM
Comment #405525

It’s political showboating. They know better than we their actions are designed for media consumption and none of them expect it to get anything done.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 11:44 AM
Comment #405526

They probably started the conversation for doing this with, “We can make the Republicans look bad if we…”


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 11:46 AM
Comment #405527
This is not a temper tantrum. This is representative government attempting to let some of the people’s voices to be heard.

I don’t want this sort of thing to set a precedent that can be exploited the next time the tea crowd gets organized. The HoR is a majoritarian institution (mostly). If common sense gun control is to be passed, replacing Conservative Representatives with Liberal ones in November is the only route.

In fact, I would go a step further and say any non-U.S.citizen should be banned from owning a weapon. They have no rights. Our constitution wasn’t written for the entire world. It was written for American citizens.
So was Thomas Jefferson misguided when he wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”?
However, due process MUST be afforded all American citizens BEFORE any rights are denied,

Strange how things change when the shoe is on the other foot, isn’t it? Where was this attitude when the Patriot Act was passed? Where was this attitude when the NSA spy program was publicized? Where is this attitude when LGBT people are denied rights without due process? The list goes on and on.

And I remind you the same as I did WW, our Constitutional rights are not a privilege of citizenship. Citizenship is a worldly institution that can be bent to the will of men and their governments. No, those rights are a birthright of every man, woman and child no matter what because they are endowed by our Creator and not some earthly institution.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 23, 2016 12:08 PM
Comment #405528

The only precedent set by this sit-in is the precedent that the voters need to make their decisions to elect representatives that will attempt to do something other than hold moments of silence every week or so for those citizens lost through gun violence. We can only hope that making the obvious evident through a demonstration such as this will cause voters to, as you say, replace Conservative Representatives with Liberal ones. I would do this over and over again without hesitation, whether it will help is up to the voting electorate.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2016 12:14 PM
Comment #405529

Are you suggesting the entire world can come here to vote for our elected officials, Warren Porter? Should people in Canada come here to vote for our president? Are you saying voting in a U.S. Elections are a worldly institution?

What’s the point of being a U.S. Citizen, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 12:35 PM
Comment #405530

To clarify:

Are you saying U.S. elections are a worldly institution?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 12:37 PM
Comment #405531

Everyone has an inalienable right to elect their own leaders. This is a right established by our founding documents.

Yes, elections here are just as fallible as anything else. Just look at the 2000 Presidential election.

S4A,
Would you say the same thing if the GOP staged a sit in demanding the repeal of the PPACA?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 23, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #405532

WP, they have tried similar stunts and will continue to do so(Cruz filibuster, government shutdown). We should not predicate our decisions of decorum and rules to conform to a tea party or any other political factions possibility that they may or could do something similar. We need to do what we believe necessary to garner the attention of the voting electorate to detail the necessary actions they need to take in order to obtain the legislation they want. The tea party or any other political faction would and should do the same if that is their goal. It is the natural progression of a representative republic.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2016 3:10 PM
Comment #405533

You didn’t answer the question, Warren Porter.

You said:

our Constitutional rights are not a privilege of citizenship.

Then what’s the point of being a U.S Citizen?

You say:

Citizenship is a worldly institution that can be bent to the will of men and their governments. No, those rights are a birthright of every man, woman and child no matter what because they are endowed by our Creator and not some earthly institution.

If anyone in this country has a right to own a weapon, (a constitutional right), by your statement you imply anyone in this country can vote in our elections, (another constitutional right).

Are you in favor of people from Cuba, once they get their feet dry, voting in our elections?

It appears you are in favor of that. You need to clarify your statements with an answer.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #405535

“Strange how things change when the shoe is on the other foot, isn’t it? Where was this attitude when the Patriot Act was passed? Where was this attitude when the NSA spy program was publicized? Where is this attitude when LGBT people are denied rights without due process? The list goes on and on.

And I remind you the same as I did WW, our Constitutional rights are not a privilege of citizenship. Citizenship is a worldly institution that can be bent to the will of men and their governments. No, those rights are a birthright of every man, woman and child no matter what because they are endowed by our Creator and not some earthly institution’

I hold these same values in regard to all those things mentioned.
I agree that those rights are a birthright of everyone, however, our government does not guarantee those rights to anyone except our citizens. It is the duty of the citizens of other nations to secure those rights for themselves.

Posted by: tomdobson at June 23, 2016 4:02 PM
Comment #405544

”..however, our government does not guarantee those rights to anyone except our citizens.”

That is not true. Most of our important Constitutional rights, e.g., Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, are afforded to any “person” within our country. The Constitution does limit some rights to citizens, e.g., voting. But, in general, the most important rights are applicable to all “persons” within our territory.

Posted by: Rich at June 23, 2016 6:23 PM
Comment #405545

Thank you, tomdobson. Well said.

And to put that in perspective of the individual:

A foreign person in the U.S. will not petition the U.S. government in any way. The foreign person will petition his own government on any issue. Said foreign government will petition the U.S. Government in all aspects. The Supreme Court has the final say.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 6:26 PM
Comment #405546

Bazinga! Rich brings up a salient point. He’s just included corporations in this discussion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 6:29 PM
Comment #405547

Rich, does “We The People” refer to anyone who can get here?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2016 6:37 PM
Comment #405554

Nothing more than a childish stunt. They are congressional representatives, not whiney college students.

Posted by: dbs at June 24, 2016 4:53 AM
Comment #405564

I support the sit-in that the Democrats in the HOR have tried. This is not a temper tantrum. This is representative government attempting to let some of the people’s voices to be heard.
Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2016 10:46 AM

What an asinine comment. Some decades ago we had sit-in’s to demonstrate the importance of our Constitutional Rights.

Now, my Libby and Socialist Pals applaud demonstrations to take away our Constitutional rights.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment #405599

“Rich, does “We The People” refer to anyone who can get here?”

Weary,

In a word, yes. The drafters of the Constitution and its important amendments (Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, etc.) used language clearly meant to distinguish between rights afforded to all within the territories of the US and those reserved only for citizens, e.g., voting. Is it surprising that the Founding Fathers thought that certain rights such as freedom of speech, religion, fair and equitable criminal prosecution, etc. were so fundamental to a democratic society that they would be afforded to all within the jurisdiction of the US?

Posted by: Rich at June 25, 2016 6:49 PM
Comment #405604
Now, my Libby and Socialist Pals applaud demonstrations to take away our Constitutional rights.

Perhaps Royal your anger should be directed at those that have used your 2nd amendment rights to kill so many others over the years. Your 2nd amendment rights do not include killing school kids in classrooms and others at your whim. Passing laws to protect the weakest amongst us doesn’t violate your rights anymore than the 1934 law that regulated the modern weapons of the time.

Those that backed the NRA and used all these foolish excuses to prevent anything from being done should also step up and take responsibility for the 10 to 15k deaths by guns each year in the USA. You guys have had decades to figure out a solution to the problem yet have come up with nothing but silly excuses, flawed data and hide behind the Constitution as if the Constitution intended so many youngsters to be killed as the price for the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2016 1:03 AM
Comment #405605

Meanwhile conservatives remain silent as conservative justices on the SCOTUS continues to chip away at 4th amendment rights moving us closer to a police state. A resounding silence on this from all those liberty loving law abiding citizens who spend their time up in arms over 2nd amendment rights. So excuse me when I laugh at your “Now, my Libby and Socialist Pals applaud demonstrations to take away our Constitutional rights.” because it doesn’t hold water.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/06/while-america-was-preoccupied-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-4th-amendment/

It is sad the conservative/corporate media has us all in a tizzy over gun rights yet almost nothing when the courts take away due process rights.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2016 9:54 AM
Comment #405606

Hey! Maybe one of these days that big light bulb floating about our head will blink on when we realize:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We don’t have to use weapons to do this, unless we keep up this procrastination and incessant whining about who’s fault it is.

It was federal law that antagonized both sides with the Missouri compromise. It was the Supreme court who perpetuated the institution of slavery to the point of no return.

Are we really going to sit here in the comfort of our computer rooms and let it all happen again?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 26, 2016 10:45 AM
Comment #405614

You guys have had decades to figure out a solution to the problem yet have come up with nothing but silly excuses, flawed data and hide behind the Constitution as if the Constitution intended so many youngsters to be killed as the price for the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2016 1:03 AM

It is difficult to understand the mindset that wrote this brainless and conflicted comment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 26, 2016 3:18 PM
Comment #405635

Oh puleeze Royal, why not respond to the comment instead of obfuscation and deflection? You tell us more gun laws aren’t the answer the existing laws just need to be enforced as if they aren’t. You tell us restricting certain weapons isn’t the answer yet you don’t seem to know what the answer is. You want guns for “law abiding citizens yet I see in the papers a law abiding citizen just shot and killed her two daughters down your way.

You want your rights while people are killed by the thousands each year because of the guns you see as your right. WHat is the answer Royal?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2016 7:41 AM
Comment #405636

LOL…”US GUYS” know for certain that taking away Constitutional Rights is never an answer to any problem.

j2t2, Please comment on the illegal purchase and use of guns in cities that have very restrictive gun laws. Are the laws in these cities the answer for the nation? Why?

Perhaps a good part of the answer to gun violence is to inform our citizens of the need for self protection and a greater awareness of possible danger when outside the home.

People need to understand that police can not protect them from unknown threats. Our government has done a shitty job of informing the citizenry how to protect themselves from personal and mass violence.

Understanding the threats we face and preparedness in overcoming the threat will help tremendously.

j2t2 is of the opinion that by passing more gun laws and restricting more Constitutional Rights he will be safer from violence. I would ask him why he believes perps and criminals would care about new laws?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2016 1:28 PM
Comment #405638
the illegal purchase and use of guns in cities that have very restrictive gun laws

The majority of those guns are legally imported from jurisdictions with liberal gun laws. For instance, Chicago and DC have a lot of guns on their streets that were bought in Indiana or Virginia respectively.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 27, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #405639

Warped, That’s the point, Criminals will get the gun they want no matter what the laws are in a certain area, or country. Criminals do not obey laws that is why they are called criminals.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 27, 2016 4:27 PM
Comment #405640

Perhaps some day we will find “designated shooters” in places where large numbers of unarmed people congregate. A potential mass murderer will not know who that “shooter” or shooters may be. Could it help prevent killing?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #405641
Criminals will get the gun they want no matter what the laws are in a certain area, or country.

Then why don’t we see criminals using fully automatic weapons more often? Could it be because they are hard to obtain since the 1934 law prohibited them?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 27, 2016 5:37 PM
Comment #405642

The legal aspects of private venues hiring “shooters” will need to be reexamined. Police, as we saw in Orlando, have immunity where collateral damage is concerned.

Owners of private venues who hire this type of security would need the same type of immunity. That goes for the shooter as well.

For this type of security arrangement to work, it must be understood that the security is not liable for collateral damage when the situation calls for his services.

If there’s a hundred lawyers descending on these people after the fact, no one will be willing to take the responsibility.

Having said that, I believe snipers stationed at public venues are an excellent idea.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 27, 2016 5:37 PM
Comment #405644

Warped, I’m sure if a person wanted an automatic he could get one but probably the price for said weapon prevents their use. So the semi auto. weapons are the popular choice.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 27, 2016 6:19 PM
Comment #405647
the price for said weapon prevents their use

Great. Now imagine if semiautos were just as expensive.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 27, 2016 7:50 PM
Comment #405648

Warped, Sorry but they are not and I hope they never will be.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 27, 2016 8:14 PM
Comment #405649
LOL…”US GUYS” know for certain that taking away Constitutional Rights is never an answer to any problem.

All of us know that our rights are chipped away by conservatives on a regular basis Royal. You guys seem unable to recognize anything but the 2nd amendment as a right. Free speech, free press, voting rights and due process have been chipped away by conservatives so you guys don’t deserve to hide behind “taking away Constitutional rights” IMHO.

Perhaps a good part of the answer to gun violence is to inform our citizens of the need for self protection and a greater awareness of possible danger when outside the home.

That is what it has come to Royal the wild west redux. That is why I favor a near mandatory carry for all people in this country. The problem of course is the unintended consequences of everyone carrying firearms. As we see from the available data the more people and firearms the more accidental deaths, crimes of passion and suicides. Civilization has moved on from the days of the wild west. Why go backwards when it didn’t work so well the first time?


People need to understand that police can not protect them from unknown threats. Our government has done a shitty job of informing the citizenry how to protect themselves from personal and mass violence.

I agree the police are not required to help during the actual mass killing due to safety concerns and I am not sure the police broadcast this for public consumption. But to blame the government for this problem is as conservative as it is illogical.

Understanding the threats we face and preparedness in overcoming the threat will help tremendously.

But does arming both sides, not insisting upon training this militia you speak of really solve the problem? We have more Americans with more weapons than ever yet the death toll continues to mount and the majority are the innocent victims.

Don’t get me wrong Royal each of us does need to understand the “threat” but simply going out and buying a firearm to carry around isn’t preparedness it is an accident waiting to happen. I would suggest it is time to get the well prepared militia back into the 2nd amendment discussion.

Unfortunately with a conservative majority at the federal and state levels as well as a conservative mindset throughout the county the likelihood of anything positive happening is slim to none. So I still advocate for further liberalization of the gun laws such that anyone and most everyone can carry a firearm of two at all times to protect and defend themselves from their fellow Americans doing the same thing.


j2t2 is of the opinion that by passing more gun laws and restricting more Constitutional Rights he will be safer from violence. I would ask him why he believes perps and criminals would care about new laws?

I have to reject your “constitutional rights” argument Royal as we have seen the 1934 regulations worked to modernize the laws regarding firearms for the era, no one had their rights violated. People still had a choice of arms to bear as they will should some weapons be restricted. Modernizing the laws to deal with the issues facing the country today will help to guarantee that we don’t lose our second amendment rights, Royal, to those that take advantage of the 2nd amendment to kill others.

I don’t believe perps and criminals would care about violating another law Royal. Yet we see for the most part these perps and criminals aren’t using tommy guns so the law prohibiting automatic weapons seems to have stymied criminals and perps as far as availability of the automatic weapons. What has changed to give us reason to think it would be different this time?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2016 9:05 PM
Comment #405650
Sorry but they are not and I hope they never will be.

This opinion of yours speaks nothing as to whether or not a restriction on par with the 1934 prohibition would be effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. All you guys have is a talking point about how easy it is for Chicago criminals to buy weapons in Indiana, which is completely abrogated by the fact that a nationwide law would make those guns as unavailable in Indiana as they are in Chicago proper.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 27, 2016 10:22 PM
Comment #405652
All of us know that our rights are chipped away by conservatives on a regular basis Royal.

Sure, and the clean as the wind driven snow, wallflower, Democratics just stood by and let them do it, right j2t2?

There’s the real problem, people. Both sides want to blame the other while maintaining their side is the most righteous and most innocent.

Why don’t we just build a ring and settle our differences Hunger Games style? That would be more decisive and much more entertaining.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 9:09 AM
Comment #405653

At least Royal Flush’s way would toughen people up. We wouldn’t have a bunch of whiny crybaby panty wastes populating this country. People would find other things to be “offended” about out of self-preservation.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 9:14 AM
Comment #405654

Warped, How pray tell are you going to keep guns out of the hands of Criminals? Are you going to make another law that they don’t obey? Just like them idiots in congress, tighten gun control laws that the Criminals won’t obey them anyway but at least the lib/progressives will feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Why don’t we try this STIFFER PENALTIES for any crime committed with a gun, longer prison sentences and the Death penalty for murder.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2016 9:54 AM
Comment #405655

I thought we had already established that the 1934 Law is very effective at keeping fully automatic weapons out of the hands of virtually all criminals?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2016 9:59 AM
Comment #405656

Warped, I don’t really think the 1934 law pertains to the SEMI AUTOMATIC weapons of today which are available in most every caliber and model that todays sportsman use.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2016 10:26 AM
Comment #405657

If the 1934 law is so effective at keeping automatic weapons out of the wrong hands, wouldn’t a similar law be just as effective at restricting semiautomatic weapons?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2016 10:38 AM
Comment #405658

Warped, LAWS, LAWS. LAWS, Criminals don’t obey laws that is the reason they are called Criminals.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2016 11:43 AM
Comment #405659

I thought we had already established that the 1934 law is quite effective at keeping fully automatic weapons out of criminals’ hands?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2016 1:11 PM
Comment #405660

Warped, Effective but not perfect, a criminal will still get an automatic weapon if he/she wants it bad enough, just like any other weapon.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2016 2:16 PM
Comment #405662

KAP,

Why have any laws at all if none can be enforced perfectly?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #405663

Warped, Never said any law is enforced perfectly or had to be. The point is the CRIMINALS are the ones who are going to say F**K the law no matter how many are enacted. We need stiffer penalties to the existing laws NOT NEW LAWS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 28, 2016 3:39 PM
Comment #405665

A fully automatic weapon is inaccurate when fired in auto mode. The M16 will pull up and to the left. In a 3 shot burst 2 will be off target. That makes for an expensive weapon to use.

My Dad listens to a fully automatic being fired regularly at his house. He says it’s a .50 caliber. To say the government has banned them is misleading. You can still get an automatic weapon if you pass the scrutiny. Maybe that’s why criminals don’t have them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 3:56 PM
Comment #405666

If existing laws are effective at reducing the use of automatic weapons in crimes, then certainly that suggests that new laws might have similar effectiveness at reducing the use of semiautomatic weapons to commit crimes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2016 3:58 PM
Comment #405667

The Branch Davidians were convicted for possession of semi- automatic weapons modified to fire fully automatic. They had to find SOMETHING to convict the ones who escaped Clinton’s oven!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #405668

Handguns are use the most in crimes. Not semi-automatic rifles. On it’s face the left’s argument is false.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 4:07 PM
Comment #405669

Why can’t the left be honest in their arguments. Why can’t they admit they believe only government should have weapons?

Why do you have to promote a lie?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 4:11 PM
Comment #405670

You all must realize the first thing the government will do after they repeal the 2nd amendment is to start making exceptions for the people who can have weapons.

The Democratic Party will become the most ardent supporter of their members owning a weapon.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 4:24 PM
Comment #405671

Weary,

I was recently paired in a golf tournament with a young Australian who had come to the US on a baseball scholarship, stayed and married an American girl. I asked him what he found most different between US and Australian culture. He said, well, it is a bit scary to get into a brawl here. In Australia, if you get into a beef with somebody, it is mano a mano and no weapons. A bloody nose and a round of beers for everyone. Here, your scared that the other guy has a gun or one of his friends does. He found the gun culture of the US very odd and unmanly. Why do you want to kill each other was an interesting question that he posed to me.

Posted by: Rich at June 28, 2016 4:58 PM
Comment #405672

All you guys have is a talking point about how easy it is for Chicago criminals to buy weapons in Indiana, which is completely abrogated by the fact that a nationwide law would make those guns as unavailable in Indiana as they are in Chicago proper.
Posted by: Warren Porter at June 27, 2016 10:22 PM

Warren…could you possibly stand up and be an adult?

Have drug laws prevented illegal drug availability?

Have walls and laws prevented illegals from entering our country?

Why wasn’t the alcohol Prohibition Amendment and enforcement a success?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2016 5:05 PM
Comment #405673

Did you guys ever consider the possibility that the violence we’re experiencing is caused by the excessive number of laws we’re being pummeled with on a regular basis?

Perhaps the contradiction of being constantly told this is a free country at the same time our government makes a career out of making things illegal is causing people to wig out!

Think about it. A gun will just sit there. It’s a person who’s not thinking clearly that pulls the trigger. Shouldn’t we be addressing why people aren’t think clearly instead of writing more laws to blame inanimate objects?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2016 7:33 PM
Comment #405679

Meanwhile, Benghazi!!! conspiracy theory quietly died yesterday. BENGHAZI!!! Nooooooo…

Two other conspiracy theories also blew up-

A tell-all Secret Service agent’s book about the Clintons received a lot of exposure on FOX. Sadly, it turns out the agent was not on the Clinton presidential detail. He was just a uniformed officer in the White House. As Secret Service veterans pointed out, this guy never had the kind of access he claimed.

And, claims that Hillary Clinton’s boss personally fired her a couple decades ago also failed not work out. In this case, the ‘boss’ was not even on the same staff as her.

Hard to gin up a decent conspiracy theory anymore. We’re down to the e-mails, and that has gone nowhere for months. The last of 55,000 were released, what, four or five months ago? FOX flogs this theory nightly, and its pundits have expressed outrage that Hillary would have the arrogance to tell them to their face that nothing will come of it.

Whatever happened to those five mistresses of Ted Cruz? And when will the media investigate the involvement of Rafael Cruz with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2016 8:59 AM
Comment #405680

phx8, it is interesting that the conservatives and Republicans don’t seem to understand that they are suffering from OCCD(Obsessive Compulsive Clinton Disorder). While they keep the focus on these non-existent conspiracies they completely miss any chance of debating policy issues relevant to the campaign and election. But Trump doesn’t help that with his minute by minute changes to some of the policies he espouses.

I am particularly pleased that Senator Warren rankles the Donald as much as she is able to. His irrelevant comments calling her “Pocohantas” make him seem small and nasty. Of course she has no problem calling him a thin skinned, loud mouthed bully. Rightfully so with his references to her Native American heritage that the conservatives and Republicans again seem to guffaw and chortle at are seemingly something a loud mouthed bully would try and enjoy.

The second amendment repeal and replace is a long way off. Generations from now this will looked back at as a strange thing to focus on. In 60 years or so it should change drastically and our country will move on from that dilemma.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 29, 2016 11:35 AM
Comment #405709
Have drug laws prevented illegal drug availability?

Have walls and laws prevented illegals from entering our country?

Why wasn’t the alcohol Prohibition Amendment and enforcement a success?

You know what, you are right. I will support all three of these things if you will do the same:
Open access to all drugs.
Open access to all firearms.
Open borders for all immigrants.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 29, 2016 9:47 PM
Comment #406681

I agree that non citizens shouldn’t be able to own a gun in the US. However, due process must be afforded all American citizens before any rights are denied,this content

Posted by: Helen at August 7, 2016 9:26 AM
Comment #415883

hinh anh dep This is very nice one and gives depth information. Thanks and keep posting! Thanks again for the blog article

Posted by: Anna at May 8, 2017 9:57 PM
Comment #418326

Thank you so much for this information. It is just what I needed to know

Posted by: Richard at July 18, 2017 6:48 AM
Comment #419180

I simply could not depart your website before suggesting that I extremely loved the usual info an individual supply on your visitors? Is going to be again frequently to check up on new posts

Posted by: On ap Standa at August 9, 2017 12:39 AM
Comment #421585

Why have any laws at all if none can be enforced perfectly? We need stiffer penalties to the existing laws NOT NEW LAWS.

Posted by: Nguyen Duy at November 14, 2017 8:37 PM
Post a comment