democrat rep refuses to participate in moment of silence for victims.




Seth Moulton
✔@sethmoulton

As after #Orlando, I will NOT be joining my colleagues in a moment of silence on the House Floor that just becomes an excuse for inaction.
9:56 AM - Oct 2, 2017

• 
  1,7281,728 Replies
• 
  6,0886,088 Retweets
• 
  23,40323,403 likes

like_that;1874824 wrote:Also COA, maybe the GOP sees guns as a right, because it’s in our constitution and healthcare isn’t [emoji848]. Not to mention don’t be so naive. Dems see guns as a right too. This is why the vast majority of them have never proposed any measures to fully ban guns and when a couple liberals states did like California, it was voted down with a heavy majority. There have been dem politicians who have won elections because of their support for guns and also some of them even received help from the evil NRA. Harry Reid is the most prominent example of this.

[LEFT]Yes, but like every other right in the constitution, there are limits. You can't yell "fire' in a crowded theater, can't slander/libel, etc... Yet somehow we can't put any limits on guns?
Obama was the best recruiter because he was black, you basically just admitted that. Thanks. [/LEFT]

gut;1874878 wrote:I'd even argue viable solutions within states are likely different for dense urban areas vs. rural areas.

I'm repping this. It's not stated enough.

Commander of Awesome;1874885 wrote:[LEFT]
Obama was the best recruiter because he was black, you basically just admitted that. Thanks.
[/LEFT]

You're usually better than this. His color is not the reason.

salto;1874870 wrote:Right wing blogs at it again.

Yeah right.

The last of the dead had not yet even died yet when the pathetic and shameless Hillary-the-loser and all the left-wing media went off on guns (right on cue) and gun control and the NRA. What a demented and sick bunch of disgusting humans.

thavoice;1874859 wrote:We best be getting on a full blown abortion ban as well as getting rid of guns or are you one of those who believe a woman should be able to kill her baby?

If you actually believe that when woman get an abortion, they are killing a baby, why don't you grab one of those guns you love so much and use whatever means necessary to prevent that "murder."

QuakerOats;1874890 wrote:Yeah right.

The last of the dead had not yet even died yet when the pathetic and shameless Hillary-the-loser and all the left-wing media went off on guns (right on cue) and gun control and the NRA. What a demented and sick bunch of disgusting humans.

What extraordinary rhetoric by you. It really helps your cause. Thanks.

Everybody's favorite little dumbass is at it again!

https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/914984591215038464

like_that;1874832 wrote:This is 10000x more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. If you are using suicide as your main argument against guns, then you already lose. What’s going to stop them from killing themselves another way?

gosh a ruddies, read and learn. Gun is easy to obtain, easy to use and has an 85% success rate for attempts. It is used in more than 50% of "successful" suicide attempts. 20,000 plus a year. Many of those would be alive if guns were restricted. And you gun nuts and the NRA oppose mental health checks on gun sales.

isadore;1874891 wrote:If you actually believe that when woman get an abortion, they are killing a baby, why don't you grab one of those guns you love so much and use whatever means necessary to prevent that "murder."

At least we know where you draw the line.

Killing oneself is bad.
Killing your unborn baby is okay.


Solid logic.

Commander of Awesome;1874885 wrote:Yes, but like every other right in the constitution, there are limits. You can't yell "fire' in a crowded theater, can't slander/libel, etc... Yet somehow we can't put any limits on guns?
Obama was the best recruiter because he was black, you basically just admitted that. Thanks.

LMAO, what? Please tell me how you came to this conclusion? Not even close to what I was saying, but congrats on bringing race into this. I think you might have been the first poster to bring up race in this thread actually. Pretty good on the OC it took 11 pages. I think you might need to lay off the Mother Jones articles for awhile if this was your first thought.

As for the non bolded. Technically shouting "fire" is constitutionally protected. Using false statements as fact is not constitutionally protected (although the media gets away with it daily on both sides). If there was an actual fire, you wouldn't get in trouble. Semantics, but there is a difference. Read Schenck v US. No one can limit speech itself.

Semantics aside I will concede and say there are limits to speech. There are also limits to guns as has been stated many times in this thread. Some of which I wouldn't even be opposed to or would like to learn more about (i.e. banning bump stocks). That still doesn't change my point that you bolded. The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. Entitlement to healthcare is not constitutionally protected. I don't want to dig further into healthcare because we have 2-3 thread dedicated to it.


Edit: I forgot isadore is involved with this thread. Chances are race was brought up earlier than this page.

queencitybuckeye;1874888 wrote:You're usually better than this. His color is not the reason.

"eh," based on his track record since the election, I have to disagree.

thavoice;1874897 wrote:At least we know where you draw the line.

Killing oneself is bad.
Killing your unborn baby is okay.


Solid logic.

a zygote does not equal a baby to me, it does to you. But you have revealed a coward who believes thousands of babies are being slaughtered daily and allows it to go on.

QuakerOats;1874890 wrote:Yeah right.

The last of the dead had not yet even died yet when the pathetic and shameless Hillary-the-loser and all the left-wing media went off on guns (right on cue) and gun control and the NRA. What a demented and sick bunch of disgusting humans.

Because they are right! Largest mass shooting in America, with legally purchased weapons and accessories, like a bump stock.
If you believe "left wing media" is at fault and more gun control isn't necessary, you're a dumb ass.

Bill Nelson — US Senator for Florida
"The fact is: massive amounts of ammunition, with high-caliber, rapid-fire assault weapons is making it easier for these shooters regardless of their motivation. You get to the point where you say, “How many more tragedies do we have to have before we say enough is enough?” At what point does humanity overtake the divisiveness of our politics so that we can come together and have a common sense discussion about what should be done?"

salto;1874971 wrote:Because they are right! Largest mass shooting in America, with legally purchased weapons and accessories, like a bump stock.
If you believe "left wing media" is at fault and more gun control isn't necessary, you're a dumb ass.

I mean, I don't blame anybody but the people committing the acts of violence, but I'd agree that "gun control" (whatever you think that means) isn't necessary or fruitful.

salto;1874971 wrote:Bill Nelson — US Senator for Florida
"The fact is: massive amounts of ammunition, with high-caliber, rapid-fire assault weapons is making it easier for these shooters regardless of their motivation. You get to the point where you say, “How many more tragedies do we have to have before we say enough is enough?” At what point does humanity overtake the divisiveness of our politics so that we can come together and have a common sense discussion about what should be done?"

His first statement is true, but his assumption that a change to the law would change the access of those things to people intending to use them maliciously is a hasty conclusion.

As for "what point" we have a discussion, we've been having the discussion. The problem is that it isn't an easy answer. There is more legislation on gun violence today than there's ever been, and yet we just experienced the worst of them. How is it that we have more now than we've had in the past, and yet this was still possible?

Now, we could also discuss the fact that this isn't even close to the biggest representation of gun violence, though it certainly is the most sensationalized, because of the concentration of lost life in such a short period of time. Normally, I would insist on sticking to the topic at hand, but if we're going to discuss "gun control" as a means of stopping gun violence, we should probably address an archetype of gun violence. Not an outlier, which mass shootings technically are.

Elizabeth M.‏ @_ElizabethMay 6h6 hours ago

Too many people have accepted the normality of mass slaughter as a necessary sacrifice to an amendment written when guns held 1 bullet.

Get out your tin foil.

salto;1874973 wrote:Elizabeth M.‏ @_ElizabethMay 6h6 hours ago

Too many people have accepted the normality of mass slaughter as a necessary sacrifice to an amendment written when guns held 1 bullet.

Such a garbage liberal talking point. And written free speech was with ink and a quill. What's your solution? Repeal the second amendment? Try. Confiscate all weapons? Try. Ban "assault weapons"? Violence actually went up when this happened before and most "gun violence" is from pistols. What law would have prevented any of these mass shootings other than an outright ban?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guns aren't a Republican/Democrat issue. There's plenty of Democrats who are gun enthusiasts who don't want to see legislation written on guns and there's plenty of Republicans who thinks guns need limitations on them. There's enough support on both sides of the aisle that we're probably not going to see anything come about.
I do think it's silly to be so staunch on one side or the other. You don't need to be completely opposed to gun sales and you don't need to be completely opposed to gun legislation. Claiming 2nd amendment when talks of limiting capacity or firing capability is just as idiotic as claiming rifles need to be banned because sometimes they're used in mass shootings. There should definitely be open dialog though to compromise. Killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more isn't acceptable because "fuck it, it is what it is; second amendment". And banning "assault rifles" because they look scary isn't a platform either. Common sense needs to prevail. This thread is a perfect illustration of the shit show that is surrounded by this issue. Before the facts came out, everyone was so adamant of "their side" ..." guy illegally purchased or altered the guns...and on the flip side "the constitution is outdated and needs changed!!"

tldr version:
We need compromise on gun control.

O-Trap;1874972 wrote: As for "what point" we have a discussion, we've been having the discussion.

Yes, but the discussion nearly always consists of people pulling out their same sets of talking points and misapplied terms ("assault rifle" to name one). Hard to have a real discussion when at best those having the discussion are ignorant of the subject-matter, at worst intentionally being untruthful.

salto;1874973 wrote:Elizabeth M.‏ @_ElizabethMay 6h6 hours ago

Too many people have accepted the normality of mass slaughter as a necessary sacrifice to an amendment written when guns held 1 bullet.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jeffersons-assault-rifle-the-girardoni-air-rifle

So the people who think Trump is literally Hitler want him to do the most facist thing possible and take away guns from citizens?

iclfan2;1874976 wrote:Such a garbage liberal talking point. And written free speech was with ink and a quill. What's your solution? Repeal the second amendment? Try. Confiscate all weapons? Try. Ban "assault weapons"? Violence actually went up when this happened before and most "gun violence" is from pistols. What law would have prevented any of these mass shootings other than an outright ban?

Trying anything is better than nothing. Offer an outrageously beneficial buy-back program, after stricter gun laws are put in place. Sure, some yahoos like_that will decide not to turn in their weapons, get paid and stay legal, but if later caught, they face jail time.

salto;1874971 wrote:Because they are right! Largest mass shooting in America, with legally purchased weapons and accessories, like a bump stock.
If you believe "left wing media" is at fault and more gun control isn't necessary, you're a dumb ass.

Bill Nelson — US Senator for Florida
"The fact is: massive amounts of ammunition, with high-caliber, rapid-fire assault weapons is making it easier for these shooters regardless of their motivation. You get to the point where you say, “How many more tragedies do we have to have before we say enough is enough?” At what point does humanity overtake the divisiveness of our politics so that we can come together and have a common sense discussion about what should be done?"

The cities with the most gun control have the most murders. But facts and logic are most elusive to libs.

salto;1874990 wrote:Trying anything is better than nothing. Offer an outrageously beneficial buy-back program, after stricter gun laws are put in place. Sure, some yahoos like_that will decide not to turn in their weapons, get paid and stay legal, but if later caught, they face jail time.

So are you planning on repealing the 2nd amendment, or just ignoring it?

superman;1874987 wrote:http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jeffersons-assault-rifle-the-girardoni-air-rifle

Give me a fucking break. How many of those were manufactured, compared to AR-15s? Also- what is the misfire ratio of the girardoni, compared to todays AR 15?

NRA gun fanatics bull shit, comparing a contraption which hardly worked to todays assault rifles. You're gone full retard, superman.