Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2011
181,564
124,053
2,645
Native America
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”

Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.

The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”

In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.

More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.
 
More would die from heat and cold because of high energy bills they can't afford than from guns...
 
Going to stop you tight there. Attacks on oil increases the cost to all Americans. Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and will actually produce more slaughters. If you think criminals will follow gun laws, when they are already okay with, apparently, killing 49 people, you're completely delusional. Law abiding citizens use guns for protection, criminals will obtain them illegally if they need them. The deep web and the black market offers all the guns they need. Probably things you've never seen before, if you're willing to pay the right price. Also, the Democrats were there to protest due process and the second amendment. Republicans were there to keep prices from rising.
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”

Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.

The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”

In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.

More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?
 
Todays headline
Chicago Tribune
4 dead, 26 wounded in shootings citywide

"I've never seen bullet holes out somebody's body before, said a man at the scene of a shooting where a pregnant woman was injured. "I should just call it a day and move the hell out of Chicago."

Updated at 10:00 am


doesn't look like it

Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”

Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.

The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”

In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.

More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.

You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
 
How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.

Quod erat demonstrandum. Liberals truly are ignorant, gullible suckers.

Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy.

Fools such as you are a big part of the problem. May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on you.
 
I like how clueless Liberals like Lahkota substitute the "funny" rating for actual debate. It shows that they know they're wrong, and have nothing to refute your claims with.
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.

You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.
 
Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.

You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.

So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
 
Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.
Laws are for people that follow them, and for consequences on those that don't. No, by my logic, you shouldn't make laws for criminals, when it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law. I really like when a Liberal tries to take your comment to the extreme, so they can try to avoid debating you with actual facts, it shows they have nothing to work with, and are grasping at straws.

A good example is during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln passed a law that only effected 'criminals', those being the southern states. Said law did absolutely nothing, because the target wasn't following their laws to start with. He actually passed this law twice and accomplished nothing either time.
 
How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.

Quod erat demonstrandum. Liberals truly are ignorant, gullible suckers.

Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy.

Fools such as you are a big part of the problem. May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on you.
Same to you, I'm sure.
 
Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.

You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.

So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.
 
Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.
Laws are for people that follow them, and for consequences on those that don't. No, by my logic, you shouldn't make laws for criminals, when it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law. I really like when a Liberal tries to take your comment to the extreme, so they can try to avoid debating you with actual facts, it shows they have nothing to work with, and are grasping at straws.

A good example is during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln passed a law that only effected 'criminals', those being the southern states. Said law did absolutely nothing, because the target wasn't following their laws to start with. He actually passed this law twice and accomplished nothing either time.
it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law.
It would have stopped the Orlando shooter from buying the gun used in the attack, which would at least be a bit of a load off my conscience. For him to have freely and legally bought that rifle after being investigated by the FBI for terrorist activities twice.....it's humiliating that we are so bound up in debate over gun ownership that we allow that in this country.
 
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.

You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.

So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, little girl.

As of 2009, Germany had the most automobile accidents in Europe, having more than Spain for the second year in a row.


Autobahn Accident
Although that number seems alarming, the fact remains that overall traffic fatalities in almost every European nation have been being reduced over the past decade. The one exception to this is Switzerland, but their road deaths hover barely above 0 most years. Despite these decreases, however, the Autobahn is still seen as a dangerous place to be.
17 Fascinating Autobahn Accident Statistics | BrandonGaille.com
  • 67% of the accidents that occurred on the Autobahn happened in sections where there was no posted speed limit.
  • Rural road deaths accounted for 5 times more people dying in automobile accidents than people who were killed in the Autobahn.
  • There is mounting data that shows imposing speed limits on highways has a direct impact on the amount of accidents and fatalities that occur.
 
Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.
Laws are for people that follow them, and for consequences on those that don't. No, by my logic, you shouldn't make laws for criminals, when it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law. I really like when a Liberal tries to take your comment to the extreme, so they can try to avoid debating you with actual facts, it shows they have nothing to work with, and are grasping at straws.

A good example is during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln passed a law that only effected 'criminals', those being the southern states. Said law did absolutely nothing, because the target wasn't following their laws to start with. He actually passed this law twice and accomplished nothing either time.
it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law.
It would have stopped the Orlando shooter from buying the gun used in the attack, which would at least be a bit of a load off my conscience. For him to have freely and legally bought that rifle after being investigated by the FBI for terrorist activities twice.....it's humiliating that we are so bound up in debate over gun ownership that we allow that in this country.
I'm sure you'd feel much better had he bought the gun illegally. Which he would have done, had there been a ban on assault weapons, or any weapons for that matter. Pretending the black market doesn't exist doesn't prevent that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top