Democrats, How Will This Make Us Safer?

How will what they are demanding make us safer?

“Democrat members are certainly free to stage a sit-in and shut down House floor activities as they have done,” Gowdy wrote. “What would be infinitely more productive would be asking this administration and the Department of Justice in particular why prosecutions of current gun law violations has decreased under their watch.” (Now there’s a good question, but will they answer it?)

“There are already broad categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition and those lists go largely without prosecution,” he reminded his colleagues from across the aisle.

“Now House Democrats are asking for yet another list of persons — this time without any due process rights — so this administration can fail to enforce that list of laws too,” he concluded. “How does that make us safer?”

Trey Gowdy is absolutely correct, both in that there are already a significant number of gun control laws on the books that go largely unenforced and that what Democrats are demanding would do nothing to keep us safer.

In truth, this lame stunt by the House Dems is nothing more than a bunch of 60s hippy holdovers attempting to relive their glory years while waving bloody shirts and banging the drum of gun control in a crass effort to mobilize their largely disenfranchised base.

It is also a blatant and gross exploitation of a terrible tragedy to raise funds off of spilled blood while demanding new laws that won’t prevent blood from being spilled again.

They should be ashamed, if they had any shame.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Democrats, How Will This Make Us Safer?

  1. Chris says:

    The conduct of the House Democrats yesterday was embarrassing. And all for the sake of supporting a bill that would violate due process rights. Seeing John Lewis, a civil rights hero, protest *against* civil rights was shameful.

    You’ll get no disagreement from me on this one.

  2. Tina says:

    Jack this is particularly obnoxious and shameful when you consider the carnage in Chicago that doesn’t ever seem to get anyone attention. Why are they not outraged? Could it be they’d have to look in the mirror and realize they are responsible for the state of cities like Chicago? Could it be the policies they’ve forced down our throats through this kind of activism and meddling don’t work? Could it be that since they have no respect for the law and authority they have sewn the seeds of destruction within the communities they had hoped to help? Progressives have a lot to answer for but most of them are on auto pilot, livin’ the sixties hippie dippie dreams.

    • Chris says:

      I’ve never understood this argument. Democrats *do* care about Chicago, and they react to the violence there the same way they react to violence everywhere: by proposing new gun control laws. That’s why Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the nation.

      Now, I get the argument that these laws are ineffective, even unconstitutional (Scalia was right to rule that their handgun ban was unconstitutional). But I don’t get the argument that Democrats are ignoring Chicago, or treating the violence there any different than they treat violence anywhere else. There is no double standard, just bad lawmaking all around.

      • Tina says:

        “…by proposing new gun control laws.”

        O.M.G. How perfect that you should say that!

        Red Alert! Red Alert!

        “I don’t get the argument that Democrats are ignoring Chicago, or treating the violence there any different than they treat violence anywhere else.”

        It isn’t about a double standard. It’s about doing the same thing over and over and over and over …. Aaall we need is Laaaaws…raht ta-dah da-dah, all we need is laws…raht ta-dah da-tah, ALL we need is laws, laws….laws’s all we need!

        When do you stop spinning and say, “Doh!”

        Liberals don’t get it. It’s dumbfounding. They pass a law…murders continue…they pass another law…murders continue…they pass really tough laws…murders continue…someone points out the laws aren’t being enforced…they call you a racist and they call for more laws and on and on it goes.

        1. You cannot prevent every crime, including gun crimes. An English PM was shot in the face just a few days ago in a country that’s “gun free.” Hello!

        2. You cannot create a risk free society.(We live in a yes/no, up/down world) We get the good and the bad.

        3. You can allow people to have weapons to defend themselves.

        4. You can pass reasonable gun regulations that do make owning weapons safer…and we have. We require background checks, we offer or mandate gun training and safety…it works.

        5. You can enforce the laws. (Wow)

        6. You could knock off the political games but It’s hard to imagine that happening any time soon which is why…

        7. Blogs like this exist.

        • Peggy says:

          Enforcing the existing laws is the #1 priority for me. If there’s a 5 year minimum sentence for using a gun while committing a crime the lawyers should not be able to cut a deal and have it reduced to a misdemeanor and the guy is out on the street in 3 months.

          In Calif. because of the over crowding in the jails criminals only serve half of their sentence. They’re back on the streets committing another crime before the paperwork from their previous crime has been filed.

          No more deals! Use a gun to rob or murder and you’re out of here for a very long time if not forever.

          • Tina says:

            Agreed Peggy!

            Additionally there is no reason this state needs to spend so much on the care and maintenance of hard core criminals. They have proven time and again that they have no respect for civil society.

            We need boot camp conditions for the young first offender criminals – quontset hut housing and plenty of military style training to help young men and women develop the discipline, confidence, responsibility, skills and confidence to become contributing adults.

            We need to negotiate with Mexico to take their criminals back or pay for their incarceration here.

          • Peggy says:

            I’m all for retraining and education for first time offenders being mandatory during their time served. But, a second offense with a gun it’s time to keep them off of our streets to make them safe for law abiding citizens. This catch and release program has to stop.

            With every repeat offense their living conditions gets worse. I even like Sheriff Joe Arpiao’s tents, peanut butter sandwiches and work requirements. If tents and MREs are good enough for our troops they’re good enough for criminals. Cost less too.

            I’m also one of those who thinks mandatory military service for men and women over 18 would be a good thing for so many reasons. Combat for women would only be if they could pass the same test including physical that men do.

            Lots of jobs available in VA hospitals and along our borders could be filled with those who aren’t combat qualified that would help fix the messes that exist in both.

        • Chris says:

          Tina, I’m not playing a “political game.” Your argument was this:

          “Jack this is particularly obnoxious and shameful when you consider the carnage in Chicago that doesn’t ever seem to get anyone attention. Why are they not outraged?”

          As I pointed out, these crimes do get attention and liberals are outraged, hence Chicago’s gun laws. Your response is an entirely different (and more valid) argument. I agree that at least some of the gun laws proposed are silly and unconstitutional, but that’s different from saying gun violence in Chicago is ignored.

          • Tina says:

            Chris we aren’t really talking about legislation.
            Chris I have to once again disagree. The “gun” deaths and crime in Chicago do not get political attention, or the organized outrage from lefty lawmakers and pundits that was present in Ferguson and manufactured first in the Trayvon martin case. There has been no hand wringing or pleas for something to be done about the problem. Black on black murder is not an issue of political advantage, I guess.

            Right now we are talking about the political hype and game playing politicians are engaged in. We are talking about guns because its an election year and Orlando presented a “crisis” to exploit politically.

            What went on in Congress was leftist activism. It has nothing to do with our representatives engaging in serious discussion together to the benefit of the people.

            You are playing into that political game when you take this argument seriously.

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    Amazing. House Rats who are just like Chris are being upbraided by Chris? I don’t buy that at all. Chris must be desperate to try and repair his miserable, chiseled in stone, progressive Rat reputation for some reason.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    This Rat is for real —

    … the purpose of the Constitution is not to limit the power of the federal government — but to increase it.

    • Libby says:

      Pie thinks that even the 5 brown of 42 white discretionary admissions was 5 too many. Pie is … what we know he is.

      • Tina says:

        Only if the five that applied but were turned away to make room were more qualified.

        It’s not 1965 anymore, there are plenty of schools, and not everyone is college material. We should encourage more kids to go to trade schools and jr colleges, especially if they aren’t well prepared, which is apparently too often the case

        • Libby says:

          None of the 47 met admission criteria. Ms. Fisher simply thought that 43 and 4 was a better cut. The woman will live quite some time in infamy.

        • Tina says:

          Sorry that should read: Only if the five that applied were more qualified but were turned away to make room for less qualified brown people.

          • Libby says:

            And again, none of the forty-seven were qualified. So again, it’s just a question of where to draw the line, an entirely subjective line, and Ms. Fisher’s unwillingness to relinquish a spot she is not entitled to … to a brown person.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        And we know what you are, Libby, a specious fool who thinks it clever to imply I am a racist. **** you.

  5. Peggy says:

    There are two major points not being widely covered.

    The Senate did not pass any of the four or more gun bills. Therefore, none were sent to the House for review. And even Harry Reid voted against the Senate bills, saying he did so to allow him to bring them up later. Even the House gun bills failed in committee with bi-partisan votes. There was NO bill for the House to vote on!

    This whole sit-in sounds too coordinated to me between Pelosi and Reid. Why would he and a handful of other Dems vote against a bill that would have gone to the House for consideration? Fishy?

    Second, the media is reporting the behavior of the House as an historical first when in 2008 the Republicans wanted a vote on a bill and Pelosi as Speaker gaveled the session closed for 5 weeks in August, cut the mics, cameras and turned out the lights leaving the Republicans in the dark. Since the media didn’t cover this shut out by the Dems of Republicans as of now the only known article are on the internet.

    What the Media Isn’t Telling You About Why the Cameras Were Really Shut Off During Dem Sit-In:

    “As some have noted, such claims are particularly noteworthy coming from Pelosi, who pulled practically the exact same move in 2008 when she was Speaker of the House.

    In that instance — with America facing an energy crisis amid surging gas prices — Pelosi refused to schedule a vote on potential solutions to the crisis, including offshore drilling.

    Instead, she dismissed House lawmakers for their 5-week August recess — turning off the lights, cameras, and microphone in the chamber — though GOP leaders refused to leave the floor.

    Back then, Democrats referred to those Republican colleagues as “morons,” even criticizing media members for covering the story.”

    Senate strikes deal to vote on doomed gun proposals:

    “The agreement between Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid locks in votes on Monday.

    Democrats cast their nearly 15-hour filibuster on Wednesday and into Thursday morning as a victory because they believe they have secured votes on their priorities in the aftermath of the shooting deaths of 49 people in Orlando.

    But the filibuster, led by Murphy, drew a harsh rebuke from McConnell, who slammed Senate Democrats for commandeering the chamber Wednesday to use it as a “campaign studio” to advance their gun-control agenda. McConnell also criticized the handful of Democratic senators who chose to stay on the floor rather than attend a classified briefing led by FBI director James Comey and other Obama administration officials.

    “A rather significant group of Senate Democrats skipped … the briefing altogether for a campaign talk-a-thon out here on the Senate floor, which also prevented us from going forward on the bill, offering amendments and votes,” McConnell said Thursday morning. “It’s hard to think of a clearer contrast for serious work for solutions on the one hand, and endless partisan campaign on the other.”

    Glad to see Chris sees the real issue going on here. It is about preserving our rights under our Amendments. If we give up one the rest will follow.

    Been under the weather the past couple of weeks. Missed you all.

    • Chris says:

      Missed you too, Peggy. It’s lovely when we can agree.

    • Tina says:

      “This whole sit-in sounds too coordinated to me between Pelosi and Reid.”

      Reminds me of the stunt Pelosi and the black caucus members pulled when they marched across the quad to face off with tea party protesters. They were looking for any excuse to cry racism, all puffed up and righteous…Pelosi with her dang gavel like some judge out to rid the world of vermin.

    • Dewster says:

      LOL I had fun watching it! Time for that body to fight it out and get something done

      Nothing wrong with a good protest! LOL That was fun!

      Ya know having a periscope come from the house floor cause the crappy c-span shuts down? Love it! #Transparency

      Livestreams are the new Media! Screw the #TalkingHeads

  6. Harold says:

    Howard Stern, really he even gets it!

    The King of All Media once again put his pro-gun bias on display Wednesday, saying in essence that disarming America only creates more defenseless people thus making it easier for terrorists to commit their evil deeds.
    “I’m so upset about Orlando and what went down, but I can’t believe these people who come out afterwards and their answer to Orlando is to take away guns from the public,” said Howard Stern, on his Sirius XM show, “It’s [expletive] mind-blowing to me.”
    Stern said that most Americans are like sheep, incapable of defending themselves from the predatory wolves.
    “We basically think everything’s OK,” he explained. “Except the wolves — the bad guys, ISIS, or terrorists, homegrown or otherwise — they’re wolves.
    “Now what if I went up to the sheep and I said, ‘You wanna have a shot at the wolves?’” Stern continued. “I’m going to give you a pistol. You can actually even the playing field with these wolves whose fangs are out — you can shoot them.’ There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen.
    Anyways, he continued to spout more truth.
    “The most gun-free zone on the planet is a plane,” he said. “What did the wolves do [on 9/11]? They said, ‘This is great. We’ll just kill the sheep with box cutters.’ They went on the plane with box cutters and all the sheep went, ‘Baaaa.’ … The wolves are always plotting. They’ll use box cutters. They’ll use an airplane [and] fly it right into a building. They don’t need AR-15s.
    “Can you imagine if the Jews, at least when the Nazis were banging on the door, if they had a couple of pistols, AR-15s, to fight the Nazis?” Stern asked. “I don’t like violence — I don’t like any of this stuff — but I consider myself a sheep. Most of your politicians have private security, so they’re OK. Those are sheep that are very well protected. You, on the other hand, are a sitting duck. If you’re a sitting duck, do you want a fighting chance or not?
    “I’m just a sheep, I’ll admit it, but I’m not for taking away people’s rights,” he said.
    Wow! Love him or hate him, Stern hit the nail on the head, come what may, or if we want to gun up and take responsibility for our personal safety. The choice is ours. Now, some politicians want to take that choice away from us. Stern sees the foolishness and futility of impairing one’s right to keep and bear arms. If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance that you do too. Let’s just hope more people are listening and catching on.

    • Libby says:

      Harold, nobody with the brains God give a turtle takes heed of Howard Stern.

      You people and your “role models” … boggles the mind.

      • Harold says:

        That’s a pretty demeaning remark, turtles every where are making a stampede toward you now. watch out, in about 5 or 10 years, they will have you in their sights and they are coming arm-ered

        The point being, if Stern can realize the importance of the freedom to bear arms against a enemy, why can’t people like you try to understand it’s not just the tool, and you can’t solve a problem by blaming the tool.

        If that were the answer, lets take all the cars off the roads, they kill as insidiously as do the Islamic jihadist, who also use planes, knifes, box cutters, rocks, bombs, even the constrution of cages to burn people alive in, or buildings to push people off of.

        We are at war with a vicious ideology of haltered toward our western culture, and given your history for demeaning snippy remarks, you may be the type of infidel they seek to destroy.

        • Libby says:

          Howard Stern does not recognize the importance of anything that does not enhance his ratings.

          Grow the eff up.

          You do not conquer an ideology with arms.

  7. J. Soden says:

    Sit-In was especially silly since NO gun laws were even proposed during the entire time the Demwits had control of BOTH houses of Clowngress. Instead, they frittered away their time with other stupidity, like Obumblecare and Porkulus.
    Only thing the Demwits succeeded in doing with the Silly Sit-In is to encourage more voters to return them to the private sector . . . . .

  8. Dewster says:

    Now can we allow guns into the conventions! Especially Cleveland!

  9. Peggy says:

    Alan Dershowitz: House Sit-In ‘Stunt’ Might Hurt Hillary’s WH Chances:

    “Famed civil-rights attorney Alan Dershowitz said Thursday that the Democrats “shot themselves in the foot” with their 25-hour demonstration for gun votes and that the “stunt” could hurt Hillary Clinton this fall.

    “I’m a liberal Democrat, supporter of Hillary Clinton,” Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus, told CNN host Don Lemon. “They hurt her by making fools of themselves, sitting in on Congress and pulling this kind of stunt.

    “If Hillary Clinton is going to win, she’s going to win because she has gravitas and because the Republicans are a bunch of buffoons.

    “Now, the Democrats are a bunch of buffoons, sitting on the house floor, screaming and singing,” he added. “This can’t help. They have to be serious.”

    The Dems should also be concerned with the fact that civil rights leader John Lewis is now trying to take away peoples rights to due process after marching with MLK in the 60s. Most people are smart enough to see the contradiction and the hypocrisy to figure out is was a stupid political move and not about making anyone safe from guns or even terrorist.

    • dewster says:


      Hillary’s Republican campaign Manager and supporters are hurting her chances.

      Bottom Line Many People will not Vote for Trump or Hillary to which I am one. We could end up with the Buffoon or the NeoLiberal arms saleswoman.

      But it will be because Millions are taking a stand for better or worse. Just as They did in England.

      Also the real question is who will they rig the General for? This Primary was so flippin rigged for Hillary boldly in plain view.

      If we do not reform the election system it is futile to even discuss this.

      IT IS RIGGED! Hillary is a Republican and she surrounded herself with Republican operatives. The New Dems are Moderate Republicans. Corporate hacks and warhawks.

  10. dewster says:

    AGain you can have an opinion but I think it is important to have the critical thinking skills to understand what it was about.

    The #NoBillNoBreak was about the game of no bill. They write bills that can not pass.

    It was a simple idea on the table. Address the no fly list being wrong. Remember Ted Kennedy was on that list. Address how to stop terrorists from buying military grade weapons freely in the USA.

    So simple. It is insane nothing real can be addressed. Media controls what people think.

    The question is… Can we ban people who have been vetted as a threat from buying arms here?

    And how do we do so without infringing on the rights of law abiding citzens.

    yet all we hear is Propaganda and have silly discussions.

    So I ask all of you………….

    Should A known terriorist such as an ISIS member be able to freely buy their arms here? Yes or NO?

    If No then how can we write a Bill that does not infringe on the rights of citizens?


  11. Peggy says:

    Suddenly, the left cheers a government shutdown:
    (And the media cheers them on. Note the major difference when Cruz was accused of shutting down gov’t.)

    “If there’s one lesson we can all learn from the Democratic Party’s hysterical display this week, it is that it’s easy to be brazenly hypocritical when you know you’re not going to be called out for it.

    “Let me begin my remarks by thanking the media,” said Rep. Jim Clyburn on Tuesday night amid the Democrats’ Abbie Hoffman-style “sit-in” in the House of Representatives to protest the lack of a floor vote on their preferred gun-control legislation. That show of gratitude was only good manners; the press had truly earned the Democratic Party’s thanks.

    If the Department of Justice has sought to steer the national conversation toward amorphous and ill-defined “hate,” political media has wanted nothing more than to talk about guns. According to a Media Research Center analysis, the networks “flooded” their post-Orlando news programs with segments and guests favoring gun control over gun rights by an 8-to-1 ratio.

    It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrats thought a rump minority who shut down the government because it didn’t get its way was the equivalent of hijackers and suicide bombers. In 2010, President Obama insisted that signing a spending bill that included phased tax cuts was consenting to “negotiate with hostage takers.”

    In 2012, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said the GOP’s inclination to pair spending cuts with a hike in the debt limit was equal to caving to a GOP threat to “shoot my child.” Republicans were “legislative arsonists” and “political terrorists,” according to Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin, respectively.

    And now these same politicians are gumming up Congress in order to have a pizza party doubling as a fundraising stunt. It would all just be sad if it weren’t in support of legislation that would sacrifice constitutional due process upon the sacred altar of gun control. By protesting in support of a measure that would strip rights from millions of Americans placed on a terror watch list by virtue of suspicion alone — many of whom are likely of minority descent — and calling it civil rights, the Democrats surrendered consistency and common decency.”

    • Libby says:

      A late-night pizza party does not a government shut down make. Get a grip.

      • Chris says:

        It wasn’t a shut down, but it was an interruption into the normal affairs of Congress, and I’ve yet to hear a defense of it that is based on reason rather than emotion. “We need to do something,” while true, doesn’t justify the fact that the “something” proposed violates the fifth amendment right to due process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.