Democratic Reps Boycott Moment of Silence for Las Vegas Victims

Visbek said:

Because they're not being disrespectful. They are demanding action. They are trying to actually do something about the problem, rather than just utter vapid prayers followed by doing nothing.

Click to expand...

A boycott, by its very definition, is NOT doing something. There's no reason they could not participate in a moment of silence for the victims and then proffer whatever solution they wanted after.

They were wrong.

roughdraft274 said:

You're only complaining because they are arguing for something you don't like. If a republican did the exact same thing for a cause you supported you wouldn't say a peep. If they believe that legislation would help prevent gun violence then one would expect them to do everything they could to fight for it. The alternative is that they believe legislation could actually help to save lives but they hate to bring it up at an inopportune time. It's a stupid argument. Argue the facts. Not bull**** like "they said it at the wrong time."

Click to expand...

It always amuses me that "the bodies haven't even gone cold yet" crowd never seems to have the same reservations when it is a Muslim who commits the crime...

Visbek said:

No one should be ashamed when they demand action, rather than stick to empty gestures.



And when did anyone take a breath before demanding action after a major event with political dimensions?



Because they're not being disrespectful. They are demanding action. They are trying to actually do something about the problem, rather than just utter vapid prayers followed by doing nothing.

We should also note that, according to the extreme gun rights activists, there is never a right time to discuss gun control. Tagging someone because they are upset in the wake of the worst mass shooting in US history, and actually want to do something about it rather than watch Congress continue to do nothing and be utterly ineffectual, is not disrespectful.

Click to expand...

Let's just stick to that (bolded above) and state precisely what action plan they wish to all to follow.

Should we study "the issue" further (without defining "the issue", of course)?

Should we "ban" a particular brand, type or class of tools used by this particular "headline" criminal? Of course, we must exempt LEOs or government approved "professionals" because they (allegedly) face threats that others do not.

Should we pretend that the 2A was not intended to limit the federal government from abridging or denying the right of the people to keep (buy/own) and bear (carry) arms (guns)?

apdst said:

The explanation, is that Democrats are scumbags.

Click to expand...

If they are, they're not alone. Congress is full of scumbags, and the White House is, too. But this might be the camel's back-breaker, this new record-breaker. One man, hundreds of victims. Hundreds. Each shot one at a time, no bombs involved. And the death toll rising. All those Congresscritters who hope to deflect the subject away from actually doing something might be disappointed when this one doesn't go away. This one might still be around come mid-terms with the Repubs still not having accomplished anything with their majorities. The party of 'No!' has become the party of 'Don't!' and holding hands in circle for a moment of silence might not be enough anymore.

Fenton said:

Yup, makes perfect sense...

Click to expand...

It may not make any sense but it feels like a great action plan.

Grand Mal said:

If they are, they're not alone. Congress is full of scumbags, and the White House is, too. But this might be the camel's back-breaker, this new record-breaker. One man, hundreds of victims. Hundreds. Each shot one at a time, no bombs involved. And the death toll rising. All those Congresscritters who hope to deflect the subject away from actually doing something might be disappointed when this one doesn't go away. This one might still be around come mid-terms with the Repubs still not having accomplished anything with their majorities. The party of 'No!' has become the party of 'Don't!' and holding hands in circle for a moment of silence might not be enough anymore.

Click to expand...

The Constitution protects us from those scumbags.

It's very unlikely that each and every casualty was the result of gunfire.

Slyfox696 said:

It always amuses me that "the bodies haven't even gone cold yet" crowd never seems to have the same reservations when it is a Muslim who commits the crime...

Click to expand...

It's both sides because it's human nature. It's hard to step back and wait for details etc. but to act like democrats are pure evil because they talk about something they think is a solution to a problem right after a huge example of that problem is idiocy. If immigrants started a mass riot and killed 50 people in the US, all of the same people on this forum crying about it being to early wouldn't have the same objections to people that were suggesting changes to our immigration law. This is no different. If you disagree with the cause then it's "they are using the tragedy, oh my lord" and if you agree it's "we have to fix this problem". It's silly that anyone thinks that there's a bad time to talk about saving lives. As long as both parties are talking rationally and factually then it's always a good time. If I brought my kid in to the hospital and he died and the doctor found out that it might have been caused by food in my house I would hope he would tell me about the food so I wouldn't give it to the other kid rather than say to himself "they are going through alot, I should wait til they bury their kid before I tell them that the food in their pantry might have caused it."

American said:

Democratic Reps Boycott Moment of Silence for Las Vegas Victims | Fox News Insider


These people are shameless, but what's new about that? They started right into the gun control debate immediately after the massacre, RIGHT ON QUEUE. Why not continue the disrespect by including all Americans, Vegas victims and everyone else who believes in the Constitution. Why is it that whenever there's a shooting, Democrat immediately target those who didn't do it? I guess they've also become a godless bunch who don't like to pray. :roll:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/dem...hanges-after-las-vegas-shooting-massacre.html

Click to expand...

That is shameless. They can still call for action while also pausing to reflect on the victims.

One of the girls killed had the exact same name as me. It was a jolt hearing my name in that context and when you pause to just take a moment to think about the lives lost, it's not being silent at all, it's actually thinking of them and feeling empathy for what happened. Some people just don't have that and have to make it about themselves or their agenda somehow. That's why I haven't really said much on this topic yet, I'm just tired of the BS right now.

American said:

Democratic Reps Boycott Moment of Silence for Las Vegas Victims | Fox News Insider


These people are shameless, but what's new about that? They started right into the gun control debate immediately after the massacre, RIGHT ON QUEUE. Why not continue the disrespect by including all Americans, Vegas victims and everyone else who believes in the Constitution. Why is it that whenever there's a shooting, Democrat immediately target those who didn't do it? I guess they've also become a godless bunch who don't like to pray. :roll:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/dem...hanges-after-las-vegas-shooting-massacre.html

Click to expand...

The "moment of silence" is a farce. It should be boycotted.

Fletch said:

That's absurd. They are doing both--showing disrespect and demanding action. The demands for action could have waited another 30 seconds.

Click to expand...

And yet, here you are, giving them and getting them attention for what they've done.

Not sure why you guys feel you have to defend every stupid act some democrat takes.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you guys feel you have to attack every act some Democrat makes. Or, defend every stupid act some Republican makes. Or, defend anything Trump does.

roughdraft274 said:

It's both sides because it's human nature.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with wanting to react to a major problem by proposing a solution. I just have a problem wanting an immediate solution only when it is politically convenient to the narrative one desires.

It's hard to step back and wait for details etc. but to act like democrats are pure evil because they talk about something they think is a solution to a problem right after a huge example of that problem is idiocy.

Click to expand...

100% agree.

If immigrants started a mass riot and killed 50 people in the US, all of the same people on this forum crying about it being to early wouldn't have the same objections to people that were suggesting changes to our immigration law.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. Those same people would be demanding an immediate travel ban, which of course would never happen......



.......

Grand Mal said:

If they are, they're not alone. Congress is full of scumbags, and the White House is, too. But this might be the camel's back-breaker, this new record-breaker. One man, hundreds of victims. Hundreds. Each shot one at a time, no bombs involved. And the death toll rising. All those Congresscritters who hope to deflect the subject away from actually doing something might be disappointed when this one doesn't go away. This one might still be around come mid-terms with the Repubs still not having accomplished anything with their majorities. The party of 'No!' has become the party of 'Don't!' and holding hands in circle for a moment of silence might not be enough anymore.

Click to expand...

Just stop it. These two congressmen were simply preening and you are defending their idiocy. The purpose of a moment of silence is to show respect for the victims. They couldn't set their politics aside for 30 seconds. They are hacks. And you are defending them.

ttwtt78640 said:

What issue is that, exactly? If a body part, tool or weapon is used to commit a criminal act is anyone with that body part, tool or weapon to be held partly responsible and thus should be subjected to further government control and or scrutiny?

Click to expand...

In quite a few cases, yes.

If we did not regulate dynamite, and a man used it to blow up his wife and kids, would we consider regulating it?

Was it a bad idea to mandate wearing seatbelts, even though that step has saved tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of lives?

If a company mixes melamine in with milk, is it irrational to regulate milk?

We can't make every single firearm homicide or mass shooting go away by passing more laws. There is no question that eventually we'll hit diminishing returns, or seriously infring rights. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to reduce the number of firearm deaths, without resorting to the strawman claim that "we need to take away all the guns!"

American said:

Democratic Reps Boycott Moment of Silence for Las Vegas Victims | Fox News Insider


These people are shameless, but what's new about that? They started right into the gun control debate immediately after the massacre, RIGHT ON QUEUE. Why not continue the disrespect by including all Americans, Vegas victims and everyone else who believes in the Constitution. Why is it that whenever there's a shooting, Democrat immediately target those who didn't do it? I guess they've also become a godless bunch who don't like to pray. :roll:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/dem...hanges-after-las-vegas-shooting-massacre.html

Click to expand...

Shameless is right. I’m sure the usual suspects on this forum will applaud their actions. How about those folks tell us what they propose. And also tell us why, if this is such a Democratic hotspot, they themselves didn’t take care of it when they had a majority in both chambers and a Dem president in the White House.

Another poster told me in another thread it was because they were too busy with health insurance. Then, if that’s their defense? Their being “too busy” is responsible for the LV shootings because they themselves say the laws allow these things to happen.

So, those posters clamoring for more laws, what laws do you propose that would have protected us from this madman? And why didn’t you enact them yourselves?

(Another poster astutely pointed out they really don’t want to solve the problem. They just want to lay blame on Republicans. I think he’s right. Makes me mad when I can’t remember a poster’s name to give her/him credit. If the poster reads this, I hope he will step forward for the credit his truth deserves.)

Visbek said:

And yet, here you are, giving them and getting them attention for what they've done.

Click to expand...

They deserve attention for what they did. That sort of A-holery should be called out. But my primary goal was to respond to your post that found no fault in what they did.

Not sure why you guys feel you have to attack every act some Democrat makes. Or, defend every stupid act some Republican makes. Or, defend anything Trump does.

Click to expand...

I don't. But if you consider those who do to be deserving of criticism, why emulate them?

Visbek said:

In quite a few cases, yes.

If we did not regulate dynamite, and a man used it to blow up his wife and kids, would we consider regulating it?

Was it a bad idea to mandate wearing seatbelts, even though that step has saved tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of lives?

If a company mixes melamine in with milk, is it irrational to regulate milk?

We can't make every single firearm homicide or mass shooting go away by passing more laws. There is no question that eventually we'll hit diminishing returns, or seriously infring rights. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to reduce the number of firearm deaths, without resorting to the strawman claim that "we need to take away all the guns!"

Click to expand...

So many words just to avoid stating what, exactly, "the issue" is. Just spit it out - what measures, if they had been enacted into law, would have prevented this mass shooting? Or, is there some other "issue" that you had in mind?

Fletch said:

Just stop it. These two congressmen were simply preening and you are defending their idiocy. The purpose of a moment of silence is to show respect for the victims. They couldn't set their politics aside for 30 seconds. They are hacks. And you are defending them.

Click to expand...

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

Democrats: "Holy ****! We were attacked! Three thousand Americans were just killed by Al Qaeda! We need to declare war against them right now!!"
Republicans: "Um...excuse me, but now is not the time to politicize people's deaths. Can't you wait for their bodies to get cold? Now let's lower our heads in a moment of silence..."

Fifty-eight terrorist attacks later:

Democrats: "Oh my god, we've been attacked fifty-eight more times! Thousands of Americans are dead! Why won't anybody do anything??"
Republicans, rolling their eyes: "Unbelievable. Will Democrats stop at nothing to politicize other people's deaths? Pathetic. And now, we lower our heads out of tradition and respect..."

ttwtt78640 said:

Let's just stick to that (bolded above) and state precisely what action plan they wish to all to follow.

Click to expand...

'kay

Should we study "the issue" further (without defining "the issue", of course)?

Click to expand...

There are dozens of topics we can study, and have been proposed for study. This includes, but is not limited to:

• More studies on potential correlation and causation between gun ownership and crime rates / homicide rates
• More research on the links between access to firearms and suicide
• Research into what impels individuals to consider/act on mass shootings
• Development of smart guns
• Methods to reduce deaths and injuries due to firearms, ranging from laws to "nudges"

Should we "ban" a particular brand, type or class of tools used by this particular "headline" criminal?

Click to expand...

In some cases, yes. That's not even a question. We don't let just anyone purchase ANFO, y'know.

In fact, we already see how, for the most part, strict regulation on fully automatic weapons usually works. One of the aspects of the LV shooting that is so unusual is the high rate of fire (though we're not entirely certain yet what he used). I'd say it makes a great deal of sense, for example, to ban or strictly regulate bump fire stocks, as they are primarily a loophole around full auto regs.

Of course, we must exempt LEOs or government approved "professionals" because they (allegedly) face threats that others do not.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree. I'm not a fan of the militarization of LEOs, and don't approve of them rolling down the street in MRAPs.

Should we pretend that the 2A was not intended to limit the federal government from abridging or denying the right of the people to keep (buy/own) and bear (carry) arms (guns)?

Click to expand...

We could remember that the Constitution recognizes that government has a legitimate interest in regulating firearms.

We can also remember that no rights are unlimited. The 1st Amendment doesn't let you slander someone. The 4th Amendment doesn't protect you if you're smoking crack right next to an open window. The police are also allowed to charge into your home, if they are in hot pursuit of a criminal. The list goes on.

Again, there is a huge amount of middle ground between "no regulations at all" and "total ban on firearms." We can do a lot more to mitigate firearm deaths, without taking away the right to bear arms. And most people want more action that fits that description -- such as universal background checks, preventing the mentally ill from accessing firearms, barring purchases for people on the no-fly list. Even steps like assault rifle bans, high-cap mag bans, and a federal firearms database have the support of the majority of Americans, and do not infringe that right.

Cardinal said:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

Democrats: "Holy ****! We were attacked! Three thousand Americans were just killed by Al Qaeda! We need to declare war against them right now!!"
Republicans: "Um...excuse me, but now is not the time to politicize people's deaths. Can't you wait for their bodies to get cold? Now let's lower our heads in a moment of silence..."

Fifty-eight terrorist attacks later:

Democrats: "Oh my god, we've been attacked fifty-eight more times! Thousands of Americans are dead! Why won't anybody do anything??"
Republicans, rolling their eyes: "Unbelievable. Will Democrats stop at nothing to politicize other people's deaths? Pathetic. And now, we lower our heads out of tradition and respect..."

Click to expand...

So you are saying that democrats cant spend 30 seconds to show respect for the victims before diving headlong into....what? Do these two leftist heroes of yours have a plan to end the carnage that I am unaware of? Or were they just two preening a-holes trying to fool people into thinking they are virtuous? They are nothing more than pathetic hacks.

Visbek said:

'kay



There are dozens of topics we can study, and have been proposed for study. This includes, but is not limited to:

• More studies on potential correlation and causation between gun ownership and crime rates / homicide rates
• More research on the links between access to firearms and suicide
• Research into what impels individuals to consider/act on mass shootings
• Development of smart guns
• Methods to reduce deaths and injuries due to firearms, ranging from laws to "nudges"



In some cases, yes. That's not even a question. We don't let just anyone purchase ANFO, y'know.

In fact, we already see how, for the most part, strict regulation on fully automatic weapons usually works. One of the aspects of the LV shooting that is so unusual is the high rate of fire (though we're not entirely certain yet what he used). I'd say it makes a great deal of sense, for example, to ban or strictly regulate bump fire stocks, as they are primarily a loophole around full auto regs.



I'd disagree. I'm not a fan of the militarization of LEOs, and don't approve of them rolling down the street in MRAPs.



We could remember that the Constitution recognizes that government has a legitimate interest in regulating firearms.

We can also remember that no rights are unlimited. The 1st Amendment doesn't let you slander someone. The 4th Amendment doesn't protect you if you're smoking crack right next to an open window. The police are also allowed to charge into your home, if they are in hot pursuit of a criminal. The list goes on.

Again, there is a huge amount of middle ground between "no regulations at all" and "total ban on firearms." We can do a lot more to mitigate firearm deaths, without taking away the right to bear arms. And most people want more action that fits that description -- such as universal background checks, preventing the mentally ill from accessing firearms, barring purchases for people on the no-fly list. Even steps like assault rifle bans, high-cap mag bans, and a federal firearms database have the support of the majority of Americans, and do not infringe that right.

Click to expand...

I question your assertion that a ban on the 15-round magazines that I now legally own is not infringing upon my right to keep and bear that legally purchased property. The 2A did not change between when I brought them and when they were "banned". The semi-auto pistol that they fit is thus useless without them so my right to lawfully use that pistol has, by extension, also been taken.

MaggieD said:

Shameless is right. I’m sure the usual suspects on this forum will applaud their actions. How about those folks tell us what they propose.

Click to expand...

'kay

• Universal background checks
• Background checks for ammo purchases
• Close loopholes that allow bump fire stocks and full auto conversion kits
• Funding more research into firearm deaths and injuries
• National database of firearms
• Microstamping ammo
• Cracking down on straw purchases, and the small percentage of gun shops that cater to them
• Make sure silencers and suppressors remain illegal

Should I go on?

And also tell us why, if this is such a Democratic hotspot, they themselves didn’t take care of it when they had a majority in both chambers and a Dem president in the White House.

Click to expand...

They tried. However, the NRA is an incredibly powerful lobbying entity, which has prevented any sort of gun control laws being passed for years.

We should also remember the Democrats haven't had a filibuster-proof majority since 1937. Even if every single Democrat was willing to vote for a big gun control measure (which is not the case), it would have died in the Senate.

So, those posters clamoring for more laws, what laws do you propose that would have protected us from this madman? And why didn’t you enact them yourselves?

Click to expand...

It's unlikely we could pass a specific law to stop that individual. However, there is no question that he did so much damage because of the rate of fire, something he very likely was able to do by exploiting loopholes in existing laws (e.g. using a bump fire stock).

We can also do things to change the culture at large. This is much more subtle and difficult, and can't really be legislated. Rather, we as a society need to stop thinking that guns are the solution, or at a minimum figure out what's going on in the culture which makes mass shootings so much more common in the US than in pretty much any other nation.

We also ought to recognize that most of the mass shootings (4 or more dead in an episode) are linked to domestic violence. Those are the episodes that, sadly, we don't pay attention to anymore -- because they are so common.

When we think that mass shootings are normal, we give up, and do nothing. Even if we don't have all the answers this minute, we shouldn't give up.

Fletch said:

So you are saying that democrats cant spend 30 seconds to show respect for the victims before diving headlong into....what? Do these two leftist heroes of yours have a plan to end the carnage that I am unaware of? Or were they just two preening a-holes trying to fool people into thinking they are virtuous? They are nothing more than pathetic hacks.

Click to expand...

Since you're able to write in complete sentences, I know for a fact that the point of my post didn't really go over your head, and that you simply see this topic as something to spar over. But on the unlikely chance that it did go over your head, my post shows that you never would have accepted a "moment of silence" as a sufficient response to 9/11. To suggest that anything more than a moment of silence would be a cheap political stunt would be anathema.

Cardinal said:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

Democrats: "Holy ****! We were attacked! Three thousand Americans were just killed by Al Qaeda! We need to declare war against them right now!!"
Republicans: "Um...excuse me, but now is not the time to politicize people's deaths. Can't you wait for their bodies to get cold? Now let's lower our heads in a moment of silence..."

Fifty-eight terrorist attacks later:

Democrats: "Oh my god, we've been attacked fifty-eight more times! Thousands of Americans are dead! Why won't anybody do anything??"
Republicans, rolling their eyes: "Unbelievable. Will Democrats stop at nothing to politicize other people's deaths? Pathetic. And now, we lower our heads out of tradition and respect..."

Click to expand...

Uh, no, that isn't what the Democrtas were sayinh after 9/11...LOL!

apdst said:

Uh, no, that isn't what the Democrtas were sayinh after 9/11...LOL!

Click to expand...

I swear, apdst, I can't get anything past you.

ttwtt78640 said:

I question your assertion that a ban on the 15-round magazines that I now legally own is not infringing upon my right to keep and bear that legally purchased property.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

While you can make a case for 15-round magazines, the 2A is not based on property rights, and makes no requirements whatsoever that a newly banned item be grandfathered indefinitely. The best you might hope for is compensation for any property you were compelled to turn in.

Visbek said:

No one should be ashamed when they demand action, rather than stick to empty gestures.



And when did anyone take a breath before demanding action after a major event with political dimensions?



Because they're not being disrespectful. They are demanding action. They are trying to actually do something about the problem, rather than just utter vapid prayers followed by doing nothing.

We should also note that, according to the extreme gun rights activists, there is never a right time to discuss gun control. Tagging someone because they are upset in the wake of the worst mass shooting in US history, and actually want to do something about it rather than watch Congress continue to do nothing and be utterly ineffectual, is not disrespectful.

Click to expand...

please tell us in detail what laws would have prevented this.
please tell us why law abiding gun owners should be harassed and their rights taken away
because of some crackpot?

i want full details not platitudes.