Ok, Exapno Mapcase: Here’s my political prediction. Scapegoating disfavored groups will always be good politics. Democrats are psyched to be able to call GOP ISIS-sympathizers. Maybe next they’ll declare that they are all secret Muslims.
Actually not an easy question. Speech is fairly sacred, except for libel, hate-speech and incitement, but voting is a tad more troubling. It should be a rational process, some mentally ill people are deeply irrational and really ought not be invited to participate in a something that calls for a sound mind. How we assess debilitating mental illness, however, could be problematic.
You are astonishingly easy to astonish.
Is the bill proposing to take guns away? Or is it just preventing those declared to be X from buying new guns? Because that’s much weaker.
When the NRA convinces the RNC to allow open carry at their convention, I’ll believe.
But if gun loving Americans can understand and accept that they can’t take their gun into a convention of other like minded persons, like the RNC, then they can freaking accept they can’t take them everywhere they want, schools, hospitals, churches, playgrounds, daycareS, etc, etc, etc.
Why aren’t they belly aching about that? And why would the organization that supports them book a venue that strictly forbids firearms?
I don’t believe there is anything anywhere requiring a vote to be made “of sound mind”. I know people who write in Tom Sawyer or Vermin Supreme. The point is that voting is supposed to represent the opinions and desires of the people, and mentally ill people are still people, so they deserve to have their voices heard, too.
If voting is going to be restricted to law-abiding adult citizens of sound mind and with political knowledge who have thoroughly and logically considered every political position in each candidate’s platform, why have voting at all? Just let the “experts” run everything in the first place.
What we actually have is a bunch of ignorant plebes participating in a popularity contest to elect the richest and smoothest talking “expert” to govern them from a list of two. I hardly see how a few crazies putting their two cents in will ruin the outcome or spoil the process.
It’s not the RNC’s choice. It’s the venue’s choice, which in turn is probably based on what their insurance company’s lawyer tells them.
They keep chanting “No bill, no break.” What do they mean?
The House is currently in recess. As far as I know, the Chair can recall the House at any time. What if he waits until August 2nd?
The RNC chose the venue with the full knowledge that it had a policy that forbade guns on the premises.
We know that the presumptive nominee, and many, if not most of the Republican officials have publicly stated with some force that people are SAFER if there are more guns around, that victims of mass shootings would have been PROTECTED if only there were armed civilians in attendance.
So why on earth would they book a venue that (according to their own philosophy) would be inherently MORE dangerous for participants? If they really TRULY believe that public events are SAFER if more civilians are armed, why don’t they demand a venue that accepts this?
I’m seriously mentally ill. But I’m female, so despite being seriously mentally ill I have very little statistical risk in using a gun.
Now, I’m not a gun rights proponent, but I’d rather discriminate against white men 20-49 than the mentally ill. I think it would be FAR more effective.
What I want to know is why insurance company lawyers, with all their data and actuarial tables, wouldn’t insist that guns be allowed?
The big problem with the Dredd Scott Decision as we all know was how ineffective it was.
The Secret Service vetoed guns at the Republican convention.
Large venues have this policy as a rule. The NRA used to make sure their venues allowed guns, but now they are too large an organization and even the NRA has to book venues for their events that don’t allow guns.
As to whether it’s safer or not, I assure you both the RNC and DNC will have armed security. So you can’t say they don’t put their money where their mouth is. “People with guns” make large events safer. 
Now, I don’t personally make the case that a proliferation of guns makes us safer, and I suspect the insurance lawyers probably agree with me on that point.
Well, it means the Dems are now staking out a bold (and showy) position on the gun-control side. Bold as these things go, that is (the bill itself is not all that bold). My guess is this wins them more swing votes in November than it loses them.
There is no reason except bigotry to specifically discriminate against white people when it is African-American males who are responsible for ~42% of all homicides despite making up only ~7% of the population.
“If no gun control bills get passed, Representatives should get no recess,” is my interpretation.
I understand that. But the minority party doesn’t control when recesses are held.
I think it’s that they cannot do business with the disruption on the floor. No bill = no break in the sit-in.
For the number of times that I’ve heard conservatives chide Obama for not understanding the Constitution, I’m surprised you don’t know the answer to this. Art I, sec 5 prohibits the Speaker from unilaterally establishing a six week recess.