They don't look like children. They look like peaceful protesters committed to making a chance -- in the long tradition of the civil rights movement in the US and Gandhi and others elsewhere.
Only children use their freedom of assembly. Real men would storm the Capitol with their guns and demand reforms. Oh, wait...
Very bad analogy. Gandhi and Martin Luther King weren't part of the probem that they were protesting.
As I understand it the Democrats are demaning a straight yes or no vote on two issues 1.>If you are on a No fly/terrorist watch list you won't be able to buy a gun 2.>Background check for all firearm purchases. As the GOP holds a majority in the House, why not call for a vote and simply vote it down.
The Political Fallout from allowing it? The Perceived Lessening of the Blind Adherence to The Second Amendment? The Pathological Hatred of Obama and Giving Him a Vote? The Insanity? The "cold dead hands"? The Entrenchment? The Insanity? (did I already mention that one?)
Of course not allowing a vote could cause political fallout as well. But it is a Presidential election year. But if you are so sure the majority of the electorate are against these proposals, what political fallout? Surely they would be lauded for delivering the will of the people. Of course voting down measure(s) supported by the majority can cause political fallout. But what valid reason in the interest of public safety is there for allowing someone who is considered to dangerous to fly to be able to purchase a gun.
Basically, whose bill would be passed could proclaim themselves the winner. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want the other party to be viewed as the one who got their bill through. And, of course, a bi-partisan solution is science fiction at this point.
Then too: "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." Bloomberg and the current NYC mayor helps conservatives. Gun laws that made for stop and frisk. Ban the sale of loosy cigarettes--and that got Garner choked. Tell women they can't use formular for babies. Drink cup size restrictions. But Wall Street? They leave that alone. I think this is why Bernie wasn't as big on guns as Hillary. You want the DNC to restore living wages--restore jobs You don't want folks to be helpless. This kind of comment makes people angry: I would focus on good jobs--and better vetting for guards. "If the only folks allowed weapons are law-enforcement security_--well--that's what this guy was. I've worked security--and I see several types. Folks coming back from desert wars who are a bit..off. Old folks who need extra money. People in ill health and bad luck (me). Young kids putting themselves through school--about that:. There was a young lady who wanted to work at the ATF. She hated guns. But she would have to work with the very things she hated to be effective--assuming she didn't get blocked: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ttack-receive-award-agency-won-t-say-why.html I've seen folks turn their head and flinch when shooting--and it takes forever to get them up to speed. On the other hand, folks who are already familiar with firearms are less troublesome to train. Now, yes--that includes folks who are cowboys, off the handle. Lack of good pay and respect for security plays into this. Once, I had a truck driver who looked to be on something. This post was unarmed, and--this being Alabama--I was the only guy there without a gun. I called the owner, and told him to lock the doors. He ignored me. You rank below the janitor as security. They have you do clerical busy work--then the suits ask why you haven't put the flag up or down, even with lightning popping near the mast. I don't like wearing white glow-in-the-dark shirts. In something like the Pulse with black-light, a white shirt will glow. You need a plain-clothesman with a firearm--concealed. Not another glow-in-the-dark target who is just the first victim