Republicans in the House of Representatives are proposing a rule aimed at preventing Democrat temper tantrums like the “sit-in” stunt they pulled on the House floor last June when they didn’t get their way on a gun control vote. As you might expect, this has triggered a fair amount of whining and posturing from Democrats and their media brethren.

House Republicans have proposed punishing representatives who shoot video or take photos on the floor of the chamber — a change in rules seen as a direct response to a dramatic sit-in in June by House Democrats demanding a vote on gun control legislation that was streamed live online.

The new policy would result in members of Congress being fined up to $2,500 for digital photography, audio or visual recording or broadcasting on the House floor.

“These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people’s work,” Ashlee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, said in a statement Monday.

Imagine if every time a vote didn’t go one party’s way, they descended into chaos like this. Sit-ins may be a valid method of civil disobedience for citizens protesting their government. Part of the government engaging in sit-ins against other parts of the government because they lost a political skirmish is downright stupid in addition to being very banana republic-esque. Go march somewhere. Hold a rally. Don’t violate the rules of the legislative process because things didn’t go your way.

The protest was not publicly broadcast because the House had not formally gaveled into session. Instead, the protest gained steam after Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., used the video streaming app, Periscope, to share footage of the sit-in. C-Span eventually broadcast Peters’ video feed.

The newly proposed policy, which would have to be approved by the full House when they return in January, would fine a member $500 for the first offense and $2,500 for any subsequent offenses. The funds would be taken out of the member’s net salary.

Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan condemned the Democrats’ tactic over the summer, calling it at the time a ploy “to get attention.”

Ryan drove that point home by pointing out that the intentional disruption was being used by Democrats for online fundraising.

Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell tried to look tough in the face of the new rules. He’s going to stand with victims by sitting-in, or something.

.@HouseGOP wants to fine me, @RepBetoORourke & @RepScottPeters for filming #gunviolence sit-in. I'll always stand w/ victims. Bring.It.On.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) December 26, 2016

Back in June, a bunch of Representatives including Swalwell who think more gun laws will prevent terrorism staged a sit-in on the House Floor when they didn’t get to vote on gun control measures in response to the Islamist terror attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. They wanted to outlaw gun sales to people on terrorist watch lists. That sounds like a good idea at first blush but just being on a watch list doesn’t mean someone is a terrorist. It is certainly not grounds for denying anyone their Constitutional rights.

Another attempt at gun control faltered in the U.S. Congress on Thursday despite outrage at the Orlando massacre, as a proposed ban on firearms sales to people being monitored for links to terrorism barely avoided being killed in the Senate.

In a procedural vote, the Senate narrowly rejected an attempt to scrap the plan by Republican Senator Susan Collins to prevent guns getting into the hands of people on two U.S. government terrorism watch lists.

But the proposal looked short of the support it would need to advance through the chamber, and Republican leaders said the Senate would switch from debating gun control to other matters until at least after the July 4 holiday.

It was the latest setback for proponents of gun restrictions who have been thwarted for years on Capitol Hill by gun rights defenders and the National Rifle Association.

And that pesky Second Amendment to the Constitution. They so often forget about that one.

Denying people equal protection because they’re being “watched” by the government is a really bad precedent for what should be obvious reasons. There is no due process involved with being on a government list. The government doesn’t even have to tell you if you’re on one of their lists. We’ve watched the Obama administration use the federal bureaucracy to target and attack political dissenters, more than likely with the full approval of the hypocritical donkeys staging sit-ins on the House Floor. It would be foolish to expect the government NOT to abuse watch lists in the same way.