Rep. Ellison’s mom orders him to join anti-gun sit-in

Sure, you’re one of only 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, but when your mother calls and tells you to do something, you do it.

Today, Rep. Keith Ellison’s mother told him to participate in the Democratic sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives.


Mission accomplished, mom.

  • Jeff

    I’m confused by this movement to vote on these issues only to have them defeated as we already knew would happen. How is this any different than repealing Obamacare over and over again?

    • Obamacare actually came up for a vote.

      • Jeff

        Of course it did, because it needs to be voted on every day…what a waste of time.

        BTW, it must get passed every time in the house, right? I mean they have the votes…I thought Ryan proposed an actual replacement plan along with the Obamacare repeal law…did that happen too?

        Interesting, Democrats have been asking for that replacement plan for a while…here it is:

        • DavidG

          Not really: from the link:
          “And while the report may be the
          party’s most detailed official policy pronouncement on health care in
          many years, it is not a piece of legislation, and it will not come to a
          vote this year. Indeed, the plan is more like an Impressionist painting: The closer you
          look, the fuzzier it appears. There’s no estimate for how much it would
          cost, how generous the tax credits would be, how many people it would
          cover, or how many people would be forced off of Medicaid or their
          Obamacare exchange policies.”

    • Rob

      you do know the difference between repealing a law and making changes/ additions to a law, right?

    • jon

      It’s an election year.

      Dem’s want to be on the record for voting for gun control, and want to have republicans on the record as voting against it.

      The ad goes something like this:
      Scary music plays, and images from the mentioned event shows:
      “Sandy Hook, Orlando, Aurora. Mass shooting after mass shooting, and congress does nothing representative (R) voted to allow people on the terrorist watch list to buy firearms. Representative (D) wants to block the sale of guns to suspected terrorists, they want to eliminate the sale of high capacity round. (D) let’s fix america’s problems, paid for by americans against gun violence. I’m (D) and I approve this ad.”

      Republicans don’t get as much benefit from voting down bills like this because to the average person keeping suspected terrorists from buying guns sounds like a good idea. Long debates about second amendment rights and judicial review before or after being added to the terror watch list don’t play well in 30 second ad spots.

  • Gary F
    • tboom

      Using the watchlist is far from ideal, it may not accomplish anything and it might not hold up in court. Yet in the wake of all these senseless mass shooting (and senseless one-on-one shootings), followed by calls on congress to do something, followed by congressional inaction … I just want to scream at congress in all my frustration: “do something, even if it’s wrong, just do something!” Evidently I’m not the only one, those Representatives sitting on the floor seem to be getting the message.

      • KTN

        Congress does do something – they have moments of silence.

        • tboom

          Which makes everything better.

  • Anna

    Mom knows best.

  • Gary F

    Maybe she should tell him to enforce the laws already on the books

  • Gary F

    Just think, in the 1960’s FOR civil rights. Now they have sit ins AGAINST civil rights!

    • Anna

      John Lewis, his long time colleague in the House was severely beaten during the Selma march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and that was just to get the right to vote like everyone else.

      Contrary to popular NRA belief, No one is taking away your right to own a gun, Gary. You just have to prove you can use it responsibly.

      I think you have to worry more about the gutting of the 4th amendment just in case you have a concealed carry permit and a cop stops you on the street for an illegal search and the seizure of your weapon.

      • Gary F

        Do I have to prove that I will use the First Amendment properly? Should we be regulating music, newspapers, TV and the internet for content more? Just who gets to make the rules?

        • KTN

          “Just who gets to make the rules?”. I’m not sure either, but I do know who shouldn’t – the NRA.

          • Gary F

            How are they making the rules?

          • Anna

            They’re called lobbyists and they have a powerful influence in Congress with the Republicans in control of the House.

            It’s why two states have taken matters into their own hands (New York and Connecticut) and banned assault rifles.

          • KTN

            Really. The hundreds of millions of dollars used in lobbying efforts has no effect on our laws. They have a A-F rating scale for members of Congress, maybe you’ve heard of it. That might sway our elected officials to “ahem” give a little favor to don’t you think. I mean, there was no substantive discussion on the same issues after 20 6-7 year olds were blown apart by an assault rifle – because the NRA thought that discussion would be unpleasant.

        • Pretty sure we’re not regulating newspapers at all, let alone more.

        • Anna

          It’s the 2nd amendment, Gary. The 1st gives you the right to post your opinion on this blog.

          • Actually, to be clear, nobody has a right to post their opinion on this blog. There’s nothing in the First Amendment that has anything to do with posting on this or any other site on the Internet.

        • >>Do I have to prove that I will use the First Amendment properly? <<

          There ARE limits to the 1st Amendment, just as there are already limits to the 2nd Amendment. Even Justice Scalia argued that "dangerous and unusual weapons" should be better regulated or even banned.

          We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ – Justice Scalia

    • Rob

      Yup, blacks being denied their basic civil rights is exactly akin to having sensible gun laws. You’re always so spot on, Gary. If you’re really interested in escaping trolldom, tell us whose civil rights would be violated under proposed gun regulations, and in exactly what respect?

    • Angry Jonny

      Semi automatic weapons aren’t civil.

      • Gary F

        That’s the same argument they used against the Henry and Winchester repeating rifles of the 1800’s.

        • Veronica

          Courts ruled twice to uphold semi-automatic bans last week,

        • Rob

          you left out the Gatling gun

  • PaulJ

    Ellison has some chops

  • Hikertrash

    I heart my rep. Here’s one of my favorite Ellison moments, when he predicted that Trump would end up with the Republican nomination…back in July of last year:

  • KTN

    This is awesome – force a vote on the issue, I love it.
    The Republicans do have something to worry about however, because as we all know: increased background checks = confiscation.
    I’m also curios why the Repubilcans blocked C-Span from broadcasting – seems undemocratic to me.

    • Jack

      So question – how does CSPAN get video during recesses of legislators addressing an empty room?

  • kevins

    I pretty sure my Representative, Mr. Peterson of the 7th., was not available for the sit in. He was out doing our business monitoring egg production in Wadena and as such, simply could not be in Washington for this event.