John Lewis leading gun control sit-in on House floor

[La Lioness Priyanka]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/06/22/john-lewis-leading-gun-control-sit-in-on-house-floor/

U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Atlanta, is currently leading a sit-in on the House floor, part of an attempt to force votes on gun control legislation in the wake of the June 12 Orlando massacre.

Democrats want GOP leaders to agree to a vote on legislation that would prevent people on the government’s no-fly list from buying guns. They said Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., should keep the House in session, skipping the scheduled July 4 recess, to debate and vote on gun violence legislation.

In a searing speech on the House floor, Lewis said Congress has dragged its feet for too long:

“We were elected to lead, Mr. Speaker. We must be headlights, and not taillights. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the reality of mass gun violence in our nation. Deadly mass shootings are becoming more and more frequent. Mr. Speaker, this is a fact. It is not an opinion. We must remove the blinders. The time for silence and patience is long gone.

We are calling on the leadership of the House to bring common-sense gun control legislation to the House Floor. Give us a vote. Let us vote. We came here to do our jobs. We came here to work. The American people are demanding action.”

[mythology]

1. Once again John Lewis is helping lead the way

[workinclasszero]

9. John Lewis is always in front it seems

He is a hero to me!

[ailsagirl]

15. A hero to me, too!!!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. K & R#5. That's how you do it! nt

[rurallib]

3. this guy deserves a monument

but not for a long time.

What a lifetime of leadership and still going.

[Press Virginia]

4. I didn't know the suspension of due process

was considered to be common sense.

Congress was established to represent its constituents, not to lead them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. not allowing guns on the terrorist watch list is hugely popular

this is clearly about representation.

[sarisataka]

7. This is exactly why we have

The BoR, to protect the minority from the majority.

At this moment I find myself in the minority, I support the Fifth Amendment and due process. I in no way deny the government the authority to restrict guns from those who are dangerous, I insist however that they do it legally and not through arbitrary secret lists.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. i dont think the second amendment protects individual gun ownership

therefore i dont think this is any more a civil rights violation than not being able to fly is.

prior to 1939, the second amendment was not thought to protect individual rights to guns.

[sarisataka]

11. I also don't support

using the list to prevent people from flying. A watch list should be an administrative tool. Once somebody has reached a level of dangerous to restrict their activities it must be done thru due process.

As for what the Second means, the Supreme Court disagrees, therefore it does apply to individuals. We may agree or disagree with SCOTUS rulings (see: Citizens United) but their rulings are the final say on the law.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. yes, and a more liberal court could reinterpret this.

[Press Virginia]

23. based on what?

if "the right of the people" doesn't protect individual rights, whose rights does it protect?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. A states right to have a militia such as the national guard

[Press Virginia]

35. You realize that, under federal law, the militia is composed of everyone

furthermore "A FREE STATE" is not talking about freedom OF the state.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. I realize that I am not the only one who interprets the second amendment this way

The history of the amendment comes from a compromise between state rights and federalists. My interpretation matches a lot of other legal scholars.

[Press Virginia]

39. Oh...I would LOVE to hear YOUR rationale behind the idea of it being

the ONLY collective right in the BOR...well, except for the 10th, which specifically names the states along with the people.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. Stephen Bryer argued that Madison's intentions were not to give individuals rights to guns

just prevent the federal government from disbanding state militia's.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg believes it's a collective not an individual right.

While, i may be in the minority on gun rights views in the SC, my interpretation matches those of the liberals in the court. If we get a new justice under a democrat, my view will represent what the majority of the justices think.

[Press Virginia]

48. Suddenly YOUR interpretation is that of what OTHER people have said

So everything in the BORs is an individual right except the 2nd.....which was put in place to prevent a federal government that had no standing army, and had the power to call forth the militia...which is the whole of the people, from disbanding the very militia it relied on for defense of the nation?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. yes, my interpretation is what others who are well versed in constitutional law say

i dont know wtf is wrong with that. i believe in the expertise of bryer and ginsberg over scalia.

[Press Virginia]

50. Hahahahaha....all you're doing is regurgitating what others think

it's not an interpretation of anything.

Which is probably why you're unable to explain that odd placement of a single "collective" right in a list enumerating individual rights....and to whom those not enumerated belong.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. ha ha! yours is the NRA interpretation. it's not original either. there are no original ideas

about the second amendment.

you believe in the interpretation that seems logical to you. There is no originality in your version either. Don't kid yourself.

[Press Virginia]

58. Actually it's not....and, I'm not the one who is proclaiming their interpretation

is on par with constitutional scholars..

I believe I have the right to protect my property and my loved ones. I don't believe the government is capable of providing that protection in each and every circumstance....which makes me, ultimately responsible for my own safety. I know that the best way to provide for my personal protection is a weapon that can both intimidate and deliver a lethal dose of metal, if needed.
The founders recognized this and enumerated the right to arms....not just guns, arms....as a means to provide defense of the individual both from the state and from those who would seek to take that which belonged to him.

and THAT is why I will never turn in my guns or register them with the government and I will certainly never agree to any policy that allows a government drone to compile a list that is used to deny rights to people who've not been convicted or even charged with a crime.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. actually you are either deliberately or otherwise misconstruing what i said

i didn't say my interpretation was on par with anyone's, i said my interpretation of the second amendment is RBG's and Stephen Bryers interpretation. They are the scholars, i believe in their interpretation. I do not believe in Scalia or THomas or Alito's interpretation. Your interpretation matches the NRA/conservative wing of the SC. That's just a fact. Yours def NOT some original thought.

[Press Virginia]

71. Mine comes directly from the Federalist Papers

[Marengo]

69. What of Breyer's interpretation in Maryland v King? Or, Scalia in Texas v Johnson...

And Brown v Entertainmet?

[RiverNoord]

75. You have read the rest of the Constitutional provisions dealing with militias, haven't you?

There a two other explicit references in the Constitution, one in Article I and another in Article II. Since the Bill of Rights came a short time after the ratification of the Constitution, the Second Amendment must be read in the context of the other references to 'militia.'

The Constitution makes it clear that the purposes of 'the militia' or 'the militias of the several states' are to repel invasions and put down insurrections before regular forces are able to deploy.

Also, have you every heard of 'Shay's Rebellion?' The possibly-first American civil war? Which led directly to the ratification of the Constitution, and had a lot to do with its 'militia' provisions?

The collective nature of the Second Amendment is directly linked to its stated purpose - there aren't any one-person militias.

[Press Virginia]

76. What is the militia if not the whole of the people?

certainly the constitution wasn't written so that guns were to be restricted to state armories until the militia was called forth by congress.

Why do you think this "collective right" is the only one in the list of individual rights?

[RiverNoord]

77. Um...

I don't. How about the right 'of the people peaceably to assemble?' One person cannot comprise an 'assembly' of human beings. That First Amendment right is inherently what you would call a 'collective' right, as it is utterly impossible for one person to exercise alone. That specific right is entirely about protecting people in groups. And we do accept time, place and manner restrictions on the right. They're necessary in order, in part, to ensure that assemblies are, in fact, peaceful.

It is also inherently impossible for one person to comprise a 'militia.' Our English use of the word literally means, among other things, more than one person.

The argument that 'the militia' is 'the whole of the people' is absurd. Would you include people in prison for violent crimes as militia members? Or for treason? How about people who are blind? Without some pretty strict regulations, do you expect that people with dark skin and members of the KKK would comprise any sort of effective militia? How about people actually engaging in an armed conflict with a local government? According to Constitution, they're the ones that 'the militia' are supposed to be directed against. And, according to the Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility for 'organizing, arming, and disciplining' the militia. It's in that context that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is fixed. You may believe that there are other important reasons why people should have a right to own guns, but they don't flow from the Constitution.

Your position is an absolute that makes no sense in actual context. Yes, the legal rights of 'the people,' and, moreso, their physical safety, are supposed to be protected by militias, when insurrection or invasion occur. But not all of 'the people' can be actual, functioning members of a militia.

[Press Virginia]

82. Oh? So street preachers should be shut down, as they are not covered by the right to assemble?

The 2nd doesn't say the right of the MILITIA...doesn't say the right of the Members of the Militia...it says the right of the PEOPLE.

Individuals are OF THE PEOPLE

[RiverNoord]

83. Street preachers are covered by the First Amendment right to free speech.

Not the right to peaceably assemble, unless at least one other person becomes, in some recognizable way, a member of a group with a given street preacher.

The right to assemble wouldn't be much good without the First Amendment free speech protections. Basically, people could gather but if they said anything that violated speech control laws they'd be subject to arrest.

And as far as the militia stuff is concerned, it doesn't seem to me that you have put effort into examining the rest of the Constitution's provisions concerning militia(s). Those provisions provide the critical context to understanding just what on earth the 'well regulated militia' basis of the Second Amendment is about. And, if this is so, your opinions are of no value, specifically concerning their Constitutional mandate and the relevance of the Second Amendment in its context.

I'm not going to copy and paste the relevant text - I've done it before, and, with people so intransigent on the subject as you seem to be, it's never mattered one whit. Ever read the references that all sorts of laws make to other laws? Without reading the referenced laws (and, sometimes, the laws referenced by the referenced laws...), the ones you're trying to understand absolutely cannot be understood. The Constitution works the same way. If you read only, say, Article I, you'd understand that the Senate tries all impeachments, but you'd have no idea what the basis for impeachments might be or who, exactly, could end up in an impeachment trial before the Senate.

Fanatics generally ignore any context that might challenge or even invalidate their positions or the legitimacy of their behavior. I don't know if you're a fanatic, but the things you've written suggest disregard for important context on the subject of the Second Amendment. Which is the entire basis for the massive pro-gun manufacturers' lobby.

[Press Virginia]

84. Yeaaaaah...street preachers never draw a crowd

which is an assembly

[stone space]

85. False. I'm most certainly not in any militia.

What is the militia if not the whole of the people?

Never have been, and never will be.

[Press Virginia]

25. So you support secret government lists that can be used to strip rights from people

who've committed no crime?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. I think there should be due process to get off it

But I also think that owning a gun is as much a right as flying. Violating one is not more important than the other.

[Press Virginia]

40. but not due process to get on it? So your rights must be violated FIRST

where do you have a right to transport on the property of a private business?

[serbbral]

27. I don't think individuals should be denied guns. However, ...........

I DO think the average citizen has NO business with an assault weapon. There is NO reason for me to have an oozy (msp?). I think the FBI, the military, and cops (sometimes I wonder about them too) should be the only ones with those types of weapon. An ordinary citizen (ones found to be sane) should be allowed to carry a handgun. This is just my opinion.

[Press Virginia]

29. No "average citizen" can get an assault weapon.

UZI's are pistols

[serbbral]

53. Oh, yes they can.

Many of the past shootings were done by an assault or semi-automatic weapon. If I am not mistaken, the shooter in Orlando used one. After this tragedy, they conducted an experiment with an undercover reporter. The reporter went in a gun store to buy an oozy/uzi. She filled out a paper and in thirty or forty minutes, she walked out with an oozy/uzi. You DO NOT have to be a professional to buy these types of guns. You can be an average citizen. An UZI is not a 'regular' pistol.

[Press Virginia]

22. Gosh. Can we bring back slavery if the idea gets popular too?

How about taking rights away from other people because of a popular idea?

[serbbral]

28. Why should the average citizen have an oozy or an assault gun/weapon?

[Press Virginia]

30. Uzis are pistols and the average citizen can't afford an assault weapon.

they can, however, afford a semi automatic rifle that looks like an assault weapon.

[serbbral]

41. Well, they are getting them.

We can see that. I will rephrase and ask the same question. Why should the average citizen have a semi automatic rifle, especially if their job does not call for that? A handgun or a shot gun I can understand.

[Press Virginia]

43. no they aren't

and why are you so afraid of a weapon that kills a few hundred people a year while handguns are used in thousands of murders?

[serbbral]

61. Yes they CAN.

Have you been watching the news? Are you living in a dream world? A lot of these mass shootings were done with more than your average hand gun. I AM afraid and you should be too. Until it happens to you (I'm assuming that it hasn't, I don't know you from Adam) don't think you are invincible. The question still was not answered, Why should I be allowed to carry an assault or semi assault weapon? I am not with the FBI or the military,etc.

[Press Virginia]

66. FBI Stats show that rifles OF ANY KIND account for 400 deaths/year

that makes handguns the most used weapon in mass shootings and murders

[Hoyt]

56. Everyone but you seems to know what we are talking about. Gunz like these fools are sporting.

These sorry excuses for citizens are carrying what most Americans think of as an "assault weapon." Similarly, most people think a confederate flag is a symbol of hatred, but there are some folks who think differently, or want us to believe they think differently.

[workinclasszero]

62. Oh look at those peaceful deer hunters/defenders of the Constitution

Small penis syndrome victims for sure.

[Hoyt]

63. LMAO

[serbbral]

65. EXACTLY!

Thankyou, Hoyt. For some reason it would not let me paste (??????). ANYONE can get these weapons these days.

[Marengo]

70. What is an "oozy"? Please tell me that's a joke.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. LOL. this is maybe the dumbest form of hyperbole. nt

[lindysalsagal]

60. The 49 Orlando victims didn't get their due process. Be gone, ignore.

[blm]

6. Cyber-sitting with John Lewis.

.

[Sheepshank]

10. Speaking loudly.

It appears that Dems are not longer accepting the gun lobby's direction on this. Good.

[irisblue]

12. I called my reps office in DC to ask if she was there

She is Joyce Beatty Ohio 3 is there.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. good idea. i'll call Nydia from NY 7

[turbo_satan]

19. Proud to say...

... John Lewis is my Representative. I love that man.

[irisblue]

26. lucky you!

I had to wait till 2013 to get a Dem.

[leftynyc]

32. You are so lucky

To have that giant of a man as your representative. I have a very good Democrat (Nita Lowey) but Rep Lewis is a hero on so many levels.

[3catwoman3]

44. John Lewis...

...is a national treasure.

[Thinkingabout]

16. A leader in the House rises to show leadership, he is a leader.

[etherealtruth]

17. i LOVE John Lewis

[bigwillq]

18. K and R (nt)

[Electric Monk]

20. K&R

[The Second Stone]

21. John Lewis is the real deal

and one of ours. His critics, not so much.

[DCBob]

24. Wonderful!

[red dog 1]

31. K&R

I'll bet my Congressman is part of the sit-in.

He's Mike Thompson (D-CA) and he was on NPR the other day
(Either "Democracy Now" or "All Things Considered"
and he blasted the Republican leaders for not even allowing a vote on gun control.
(He's a hunter, too)

He's a good man, and I'm proud to have him represent me in Congress!

Kudos to John Lewis!
(He's one of my heroes)

[leftynyc]

33. Just saw my rep - Nita Lowey

has joined in. So glad to see her there.

[malaise]

37. Cameras are back on CSpan1

Clearly not the full view but I'm glad there is audio

[Starry Messenger]

42. k&r

[Hekate]

46. John Lewis is a hero still

[apnu]

47. I heard Ryan had the C-SPAN cameras turned off

and now the Reps are Facebooking and Tweeting from the sit in, encouraging people to call Ryan's office and ask him to either allow a vote or turn the camera's back on.

Paul Ryan is such an asshole.

[TrollBuster9090]

52. At last, somebody with a spine.

No surprise, though. Lewis ALWAYS had one.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. he has more courage than almost anybody in the house/senate

[TrollBuster9090]

80. When you've already been beaten within an inch of your life for standing on principle...

you really have no reason to be afraid of somebody calling you a 'liberal.' That's a lesson I wish he could teach the rest of the Democratic Party.

[gademocrat7]

55. A true statesman!

[serbbral]

67. If the amendments to gun laws keep getting 'shut down,' what do you suggest they do?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. john lewis's activism does not in any way make a mockery out of those who are powerless

he represents those of us who have no power

[rocktivity]

72. Periscope Link

https://www.periscope.tv/w/1zqKVpVQXYwJB


rocktivity

[Rose Siding]

73. Saint John

[ismnotwasm]

74. This is just an historic and incredible thing to see

Thank you for posting!

[ffr]

78. Democratic revolution for change

Going to extreme lengths to do the Work of the People.

[uponit7771]

79. +1

[ehrnst]

81. The establishment comes through. (nt)

[stone space]

86. Clinton/Lewis 2016