Surprise: Dozens Of Congressional Dems Involved In Anti-Gun Sit In Own Firearms

One has to wonder, if these same Democrats involved in the toddler-ocracy were suddenly placed on one of the secretive lists with virtually no way to get off via Due Process, would they turn in their firearms? Would they have a similar fit if they were disarmed? Would they mad if they were being stalked and were denied the purchase of a firearm? And, since they all think that guns are evil and lead to more shootings, will they say whether they have given up their own weapons?

(Heat Street) Congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor this afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Street learned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.

Granted, that was a survey from 2013, and things can certainly have changed for the ownership since then. But, it’s doubtful.

You also have to know that many of the Democrats who refused to answer probably own a firearm. And others who surely lied about not owning a firearm. That’s what Democrats do. Not all, of course, because even some Republicans noted that it was none of anyone’s “damned business”. There were a few that were proud, such as Joe Manchin, who stated in the USA Today article “Why would anybody not own a gun?”

Among those who participated and complained include Keith Ellison, Mike Thompson, and John Carney. You also had whining from Dem Senators, such as Harry Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Tammy Baldwin. All gun owners.

Interestingly, Congress Critters are allowed to carry in their offices, but, the weapons must be unloaded and secured for the corridors. Furthermore, CCs are not subject to the laws of Washington, D.C. They can act as if they are in their home state.

Meanwhile, this is supposedly just the start of the guerrilla actions for the Dems in attempting to violate multiple Amendments in the Bill of Rights. And other things

(Politico) Already rank-and-file Democrats, energized by nationwide publicity and praise they received for occupying the House floor over demands for a gun vote, are saying they’ll likely use the same strategy again.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), for example, thinks a sit-in demonstration could force Republican leadership’s hands on what she called “economic justice issues,” like the minimum wage. And Rep. Maxine Waters of California said at the end of the protest Thursday that she would be ready to seize the House floor again over the gun matter when lawmakers return from their July 4 recess.

“It’s a new day in Washington; it’s a new way to fight,” said Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Joe Crowley on the House floor in the wee hours of Thursday morning. The New York lawmaker elaborated in an interview on the House steps a few hours later: “The American people want and expect the House to do something, and they’re not just going to take silence anymore. We’re going to get in the way until we see action.”

Refer back to the “toddler-ocracy” link at the top of this post.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Surprise: Dozens Of Congressional Dems Involved In Anti-Gun Sit In Own Firearms”

  1. acethepug says:

    Rules for thee, but not for me, serf.

    – the unofficial credo of the Left

  2. Jeffery says:

    The objective is not to eliminate firearms, but to make it much more difficult for crazies and criminals to have access to them.

  3. John says:

    Teach do you actually want potential terrorists to be able to buy assault type weapons ?
    Were you pleased that the Orlando shooter was able to easily buy his weapons?

  4. acethepug says:

    I am amazed (well, not really) that neither troll-Jeffrey nor troll-John understand Due Process at all.

    Or, more cynically, they do understand it, but since it goes contrary to the Narrative, it is better to be ignored.

    I know that both would be arguing quite differently if a hypothetical President Trump were to put all Muslims on a secret list that denied them any number of Rights, inalienable or otherwise.

    But for Double Standards, the Left (and Jeffrey and John) would have no Standards at all.

  5. Hoagie says:

    2.The objective is not to eliminate firearms,

    The objective certainly is to eliminate firearms, Jeffery and it always has been. You’re either framing the debate wrong or you’re a liar and I certainly hope it’s the former because you see like a “true believer” but not a liar. The left keeps painting gun ownership closer and closer to the corner where confiscation is all that’s left.

    It is already illegal to sell to the “crazies and criminals” as well as illegal for them to own firearms. Any law going further can add no more.

  6. Hoagie says:

    3.Teach do you actually want potential terrorists to be able to buy assault type weapons ?

    John, what the hell is an “assault type weapon”? You don’t know what an assault weapon is. None of the weapons used in any of the terrorist shootings in the U.S. were done with assault weapons.

    Were you pleased that the Orlando shooter was able to easily buy his weapons?

    Well, I wasn’t pleased John. The feds had him on the radar and they dropped the ball. But that should have no effect on legitimate purchases, should it? t says more about law enforcement and PC treatment of moslems than gun laws, John.

  7. o0Nighthawk0o says:

    It is blatantly obvious what the true intentions of the Democrats are.

    In the Senate, Feinstein introduced a gun control amendment. This had NO civil rights protections in it. This was promptly voted down by Republicans. Cornyn then introduces and amendment to Feinstein’s amendment that added civil rights protections to her amendment. This DID NOT change a single word of Feinstein’s amendment. Of course, the Democrats promptly voted this down.

    Democrats don’t care about saving lives. All they care about is stripping us of as many rights as possible and votes from their ignorant base.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    What gun laws have hurt sales or ownership or violated the second amendment?

    Some 2nd amendment fetishists argue that any restriction is a violation, but that is an extreme minority position. I live on a cul-de-sac, perfect to watch for Hillary’s tanks to roll up the street once she declares herself dictator for life. An RPG-7 would be perfect for me to defend my home and family, if only for a few minutes, but the federal forms and taxes are killer. I bet the feds would also try to keep me from having Stinger missiles to protect against Hillary’s coming air invasions. Aren’t they violating my second amendment right to shoot down gov’t helicopters?

    No system will ever be perfect, and Congress needs to fix the terrorist watch list.

    We need a nationwide background check system.

    We should ban assault weapons (we DO know what they are, and so do mass killers: semi-auto, large magazine, flash suppressor, pistol grip, low recoil, moderate power ammo)… you know, a semi-auto version of the assault rifles used by the world’s militaries, but mostly used by mass killers, hobbyists and right-wingers waiting for the One World Order to make their move.

    Limit magazine size. Hunters in Missouri are limited in the number of shot or rifle shells depending on the game and season.

    The US will never ban firearms. Never.

  9. Hoagie says:

    Jeffery, let’s establish some rules here. Fist rule: don’t lie to make an argument. Case in point: You state “we DO know what they (assault weapons) are, and so do mass killers: semi-auto, large magazine, flash suppressor, pistol grip, low recoil, moderate power ammo”. That is incorrect. You then correct yourself by accurately pointing out: “you know, a semi-auto version of the assault rifles used by the world’s militaries”.

    The term “assault weapon” is not, not a military term. It was a term coined by anti-gun folks to cause apoplexy among those that didn’t know better when looking at “a big, black, threatening machine gun used in war”. A real weapon would need to be as you self-corrected fully automatic to be an assault weapon. Flash suppressors, black metal, pistol grips and low recoil have nothing at all to do with it. They are just there for looks.

    So you want to ban a carbine because you don’t like the way it looks? You really need to get ahold of your emotions. Fully automatic assault weapons are already illegal. Done! Happy?

    Unfortunately, you seem to believe those scary guns are “mostly used by mass killers, hobbyists and right-wingers waiting for the One World Order to make their move.” So is your problem with “mass killers” who mostly use pistols and semi auto hunting rifles or all you imaginary demons like “right-wingers” and NWO types? I assume you don’t have a problem with “hobbyists” and perhaps hunters am I wrong?

    Jeffery, you can put up all your straw men about RPG’s, stinger missiles and 155mm Howitzers if you like but right now there are about 6,500 gun laws in the United States. Have any of the reforms you stated like not making scary looking rifles or limiting magazine size ever have stopped any mass shooter?

    You’re probably a very nice guy when the spittle isn’t flying over gun control, Jeffery, but in all reality if bad guys want guns they will get them. I understand your frustration with the carnage these bastards shower on innocent people, I really do. And I know what it’s like to kill men, I killed a lot in Vietnam. But if all our gun laws fail to stop the crazies the only thing that would is eliminating all firearms. There are 350 million in America and we are not yet ready to give up our right t self defense.

    I also hope you consider a nation where only the government can own guns. It’s all sweet and lovely till some Stalin takes over then it’s too late. With freedom comes responsibility, Jeffery. Sadly, many people abuse their freedom and shirk their responsibility but I, as only one American refuse to eliminate the rights and freedoms of the good because of the evil and sins of the bad. It’s just the way I am.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    Your terminology is wrong. The rifles I described are referred to as assault weapons; semi-automatic, pistol grip, flash suppressor, typically 5.56 NATO rounds, large and interchangeable magazines. It’s just a name used to describe a type of rifle. It’s clearly different from the semi-auto hunting rifle in more than appearances. Mass killers prefer them, but that’s not to say that even if banned, manufacturers will find a workaround to get these into the hands of terrorists.

    Do you agree with the strict regulation of automatic weapons? If so, why?

  11. Hoagie says:

    Yes, Jeffery I do agree with the strict regulation of automatic weapons if you are referring to fully automatic. I believe they’ve been all but banned from private ownership since the 1930’s. The reason they were banned is because they were designed for war but became the favorites of the mob and primarily Chicago criminals. Hence they were outlawed.

    The rifles you described are incorrectly referred to as assault weapons not only by you but by many other uninformed or misinformed people in the press, politics and entertainment. Assault weapons are full automatic not semi automatic. They are made for war, not sport, collecting, hunting, competition or target practice. They can be made for many different size ammunition including but not limited to the 5.56 but even the.223. Suppressors, pistol grips or the black military frame neither add nor subtract from a weapons deadliness and on civilian guns are there only for their awesome look which apparently affects you in some negative way.

  12. Jeffery says:

    If it’s OK to ban fully automatic weapons, why would it be unConstitutional to ban semi-automatic weapons? Sounds like a matter of opinion.

    NRA supporters claim criminals can obtain any weapon they want, yet they don’t have fully automatic rifles. Has THAT ban been effective?

  13. Jeffery says:

    The rifles I described are not “incorrectly” called assault weapons, they are simply called assault weapons. The are quite similar to military assault rifles except for the selective auto vs semi-auto capability of the military rifles.

    Although they are the tool of choice for mass murderers, in all candor they do not account for many US homicides.

    It’s naive to believe that citizens armed even with semi-auto assault weapons will prevent a military style takeover by the US military. Our recourse against tyranny is political not military.

  14. Hoagie says:

    If it’s OK to ban fully automatic weapons, why would it be unConstitutional to ban semi-automatic weapons? Sounds like a matter of opinion.

    And if it’s ok to ban semi-automatic weapons why would it be unconstitutional to ban rifles? And if it’s not unconstitutional to ban rifles why would it be unconstitutional to ban pistols. And….and… and. Because Jeffery, the Constitution gives Free men the right to bear arms and as Free men we have the ability to determine where we believe that right becomes unreasonable. Just like we do wit search and seizure, Free speech, right to assembly and even the right to vote. By your logic you can post hoc ergo propter hoc all our rights away based on what you call “a matter of opinion”. Again, the type of thinking you display here is the reason radicals such as yourself pose a danger to all Free men. It seems to you there is no compromise, it’s all or nothing.

    NRA supporters claim criminals can obtain any weapon they want, yet they don’t have fully automatic rifles. Has THAT ban been effective?

    First of all those “NRA supporters” are not aliens from Mars, they are average American citizens, like myself, from all walks of life who belong to an organization which while supporting our individual right to bear arms also promotes safe gun handling, gun classes, firearm safety, self defense for minorities and women and responsible gun laws. They don’t “claim criminals can obtain any weapon they want” it’s a fact. Criminals obtain weapons by any means. Since full auto is only available to the military it’s near impossible to get them. However, civilians do still own them and none have been used in a crime in decades.

    The rifles I described are not “incorrectly” called assault weapons, they are simply called assault weapons. The are quite similar to military assault rifles except for the selective auto vs semi-auto capability of the military rifles.

    Again, you incorrectly call any non fully automatic weapon an assault weapon. They are not. That’s why as you say “they are quite similar to military assault rifles” but are not assault weapons. Similar means not the same. They are semi automatic sporting rifles, not assault weapons. It’s easy to ban something if you lie about it and say it’s something it’s not. No soldier I ever served with would want to go into battle with a semi automatic M16 look alike. The official description of this firearm is: “A lightweight, intermediate cartridge magazine fed, air-cooled rifle with a rotating lock bolt operated by gas”. No mention of full auto, machine gun or assault weapon. You want to ban an entire class of weapon because they look like an assault weapon. Because they look scary. Not because they are assault weapons because they are not.

    It’s naive to believe that citizens armed even with semi-auto assault weapons will prevent a military style takeover by the US military. Our recourse against tyranny is political not military.

    Oddly, citizens armed with hunting rifles managed to defeat the most powerful army on earth at the time shooting from behind rocks and trees. You obviously talk a good game but have never served in combat. Weapons are very important but so is the determination of the men wielding them. You should also know the US military today is made up of volunteers. That means the sons and daughters of those NRA members you frown upon. So whose side do you think they will be on if it comes to that? It’s naïve to believe our sons and daughters will kill their families, friends and neighbors because the likes of Obama says to.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10367 access attempts in the last 7 days.