Week In The News: New Cabinet, Gun Summits, Flu

Wm_James_from_Missouri

Ten or more digit, alpha-numeric keypad codes, that lock and unlock trigger mechanisms are the answer to unauthorized use of weapons by anyone other than the owner of that weapon. If the gun is sold, the weapon should be taken to an authorized dealer to check the weapon’s ballistics against law enforcement databases and change the keypad. This would prevent children from accidental firings, prevent older children from acquiring and using their parents’ weapons in school shootings and give the police probable cause, if the weapon has a history.
Such an approach would allow both sides of the gun argument to claim, “victory” !

William

No new controls on the violent movies from Hollywood or the video game companies?
- sickofthechit
  
  First things first.
  - William
    
    I like Obama’s “all of the above” approach to solving problems.
    - 1Brett1
      
      As opposed to your “NONE of the above” approach? All or nothing, ay?
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  No.
  
  People kill me with the “Stop making Violent Movies!” and “Stop making Violent Video Games!” Crusades. What about self-control and personal responsibility? It’s so much easier to push for legislation than it is to press the power button, right? Lunacy.
  - William
    
    Maybe, at what point does a society say “enough” to the violent movies? It is pretty clear they are harmful because they have a rating system in place that indicates the violence level of the movie and restricts customers of a certain age from watching violent movies. This debate goes back to the 1960′s when Hollywood started to come under pressure to reduce the violent tv shows, which they did to some point.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      I don’t hear anything about violence on television coming under fire. I don’t watch tv but I’m pretty sure violence present in many television shows is more excessive than that found in many PG-13 movies. Maybe all they should show is Barney and My Little Pony. It’s ridiculous William, the path to rational behavior does not start with Censorship.
    - NotChuck
      
      Not censorship, but a tax on all depictions of firearms misuse on TV, in movies, or video games as determined by an FCC board. Perhaps $250,000 per incident, or 39.6 percent of the gross revenue of a movie or show (figures that should resonate with low-information voters). Taxes are often used by progressives to modify behavior.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      “Not censorship, but a tax on all depictions of firearms misuse on TV”
      
      Whose definition of misuse? Censorship.
    - NotChuck
      
      From Webster’s: “Censorship – the work or position of a censor. Censor – ..whose task is to remove or prohibit anything considered unsuitable.” Is a tax on alcohol the prohibition of it’s use? They can still produce it, but they gotta pay a tax.
- 1Brett1
  
  I agree, we should probably not do anything at all if we aren’t going to censor movies and video games! If we can’t simultaneously address all potential factors in societal violence, we must address none…it’s only fair.
- JGC
  
  From Maclean’s, a Canadian publication, this week in an article by Martin Patriquin:
  
  “There were also tales of incredible bravery. A kid named J.J. was in Victoria Soto’s first grade class when Lanza burst in. Lanza shot Soto, who as shielding her students, but his gun either jammed of he had to reload. J.J., an adept player of the Call of Duty video game – the very same game with which Lanza was obsessed – knew that the time to move was during a lull in the firing. He led five other kids out of the school to the nearby driveway of Gene Rosen. J.J. told Rosen that they couldn’t go back to class, because their teacher was dead.”
  
  Now, clearly we can see from this example, video games don’t kill people, people kill people. Also subscribing to Lapierre’s pretzel logic that the best way to protect the schools against gun violence is to arm all the teachers and to contract hired or volunteer armed guards, here is another proposal: with this example of brave,young, quick-thinking J.J., we also need to better prepare our youth with mandatory school-time training in Call of Duty. That way they can better recognize “the lull in firing” and coolly choose the precise moment to escape from their besieged bunkers – I mean, classrooms.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  You got a hobbyhorse too!
  
  While I cue up the right-wing fantasy “Red Dawn” again, do you want to differentiate for all of us between various forms of fictional violence? Can you go beyond paper-thin on this subject?
- hennorama
  
  Wm_James_from_Missouri – the problem with your idea is that the Supreme Court ruled against trigger locks “(as applied to self-defense)” in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (AKA “the Heller decision”).
  �
  Here’s part of the the holdings of the Heller decision:
  �
  “3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. ”
  �
  Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
  - Wm_James_from_Missouri
    
    Would it not be in the best interest of gun manufacturers to upgrade their concept of a gun and its properties ? Keypad entry would be a selling point and thereby add value to their product. Would not gun owners, themselves feel safer from theft of their guns and improper use; safer from lawsuits ? The gun industry is looking for new markets as the old ones are reaching saturation. Federal mandates are not always the best option. If such a concept caught on, it could easily become a worldwide standard. A lot of possible “wins” here.
    
    PS Thanks for your input.
    PSS Just for the record, I, William James from Missouri am not poster “ William”.
    - hennorama
      
      Wm_James_from_Missouri – TY for your reply. Apologies as to the placement of my post; I’m having recurring DISQUS issues and am not always able to post in the desired spot.
      
      I’m not arguing the sentiment of your idea, as trigger locks of any sort make sense. Responsible firearms owners do everything they can to render their weapons safe from accidental discharge and unauthorized access. My point is that SCOTUS says REQUIRING them is unconstitutional, at least in the Heller context. Manufacturers could certainly offer trigger locks as an option, and some have. Of course, that possibly exposes them to liability if the lock fails, and there also doesn’t seem to be huge consumer demand for this feature.
- jefe68
  
  Are you aware that in Japan they also have very violent video games and I wont even get into the weirdness that their comic book industry indulges in, and yet they have very little gun violence.
  This also can be said of South Korea.
  
  This is a straw man argument. One thing though, the manufactures of semi-automatic weapons are sponsors for Call of Duty and they do have product placements in the games. This is something that people should be outraged over.
  I’m on the fence about some of these games, I do think there are some people who do get addicted to them. Which opens up the issue of mental health, but then again it’s not the game it’s the person playing them.

Gregg Smith

Senator Jeff Sessions says Jack Lew must never become Treasury Secretary. I remember the budget committee hearing and why Sessions doesn’t like pick. I’m surprised it this video hasn’t been widely shown in the media so I looked it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuzmyMwH7E&feature=player_embedded

Gregg Smith

Piers Morgan’s UK gun stats thoroughly debunked below:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/piers-morgan-nailed-incorrect-crime-stats-fox-19

Ray in VT

The information presented there was about as accurate as I would expect.

“Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all
types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa”

Homicide rate in UK: 1.49 according to the article.
US rate for that year: 4.9

Robbery: 164 in U.K. versus 148 in the United States, so we’re doing better there.

Burglary: U.K. was 523. U.S. 726.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0306.pdf

Also from the article that suggests an issue with that overall rate:

“But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors,
including different criminal justice systems and differences in how
crime is reported and measured. In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other
countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.”
- Gregg Smith
  
  I’m not trying to be argumentative here Ray but I don’t understand your comment at all.
  - Gregg Smith
    
    Okay, now I think I get it. You are referring to the article in the UK Guardian. I could not figure that out, no wonder it make no sense. I posted the link for the video. It’s the video that debunks the myth using the numbers from both the UK Guardian and the US Census.
    
    The reason I posted the link I did was because I saw it on Newsbusters and I knew the messenger would be shot if I used it so I went a step closer to the source but even that was MRC which I also suspected would get some criticism. I am always aware of that around here and was trying to focus on what the news report was saying. I suppose I should have tried to find the website of the actual affiliate and looked for it there.
    - Ray in VT
      
      I went to another computer to view the video, and some of it isn’t that bad. It does give some more accurate numbers, and Morgan should not be balllparking numbers if he’s going to use it day after day. Off of the top of one’s head is fine with me generally, but the hard number should be tracked down if one is going to use it again and again.
      
      I did have some problems with the video. Firstly, the host said that guns were banned in Britain, which they are not. I also take issue with comparing gun ownership rates and crime rates between the United States and Jamaica. Hmmm, violent crime is higher in the Third World, including Yemen, which is basically in a state of civil war. Who woulda thunk it? I also take issue with how the text is presented that accompanies the article. I think that that is also misleading, with how it cites the U.K. article.
      
      You would be correct, I think, that many here would question, and some would openly deride Newsbusters and the MRC.
      
      Good luck with the fish. Post away this weekend. I won’t be here to see it, but I’m sure that there will be plenty of others here for you to debate.
  - Ray in VT
    
    My comment is that your source is highly misleading and inaccurate. Now, I couldn’t watch the video, so I looked at the article cited in the link and checked their numbers against U.S. numbers. Part of the problem would seem to be that the U.K. classifies things as violent crime that we do not, and the they use a U.S. number that seems to not include burglary while the U.K. number does.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      My source was the video.
      
      I’m off to fish for stripers, have a good day. I’m sure I’ll have more to say this weekend.
  - Ray in VT
    
    I would also take issue with them citing a 2009 article, given that this
    
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
    
    from 2012 says that the homicide rate and numbers are way down, and other”recorded violence against the person fell by 7%, continuing a downward trend in recent years”.
1Brett1

Yeah, you’re right, because in the video it corrects Piers Morgan; actually UK: 59 deaths from gun violence; the US: just over 8,000 (not Piers’s 35 vs. 11,000)…so Piers’ point is blown out of the water due to the numbers being parsed differently, and you and Alex Jones stand on the side of righteousness.

So glad you can give us the truth from a Fox affiliate in another state other than your own. I, for one, applaud your constant search on the Internet to find videos which can support your opinions, especially from the great purveyor of truth: Fox News.
- Gregg Smith
  
  It wasn’t FoxNews and Alex Jones is a nutcase. But thanks for reading my mind. Go ahead and swallow whatever Piers Morgan says whole and whatever you do don’t question the talking points. See ya’.
  - 1Brett1
    
    WXIX in Cincinnati, Ohio, which is where this “news” clip comes from is a Fox News afilliate, Gregg. You may think Alex Jones is a nutcase but you employ his same argument techniques. You say here I’m siding with Piers’ stats as they are talking points? Because I point out stats from the very video you put up as refuting Piers’ numbers? Your comment makes no sense and uses your own talking points you often use against me when I disagree with you.
    - jefe68
      
      You’re using logic and reason.
      His lordship has some “issues” with this.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      That’s funny! I’m not saying you’re siding with Morgan, I’m saying you are accepting his talking points without questioning them and throwing a hissy because I did.
    - 1Brett1
      
      “throwing a hissy”?
      
      No, I’m siding with the idea (given the 59 UK deaths vs. the over 8,000 US deaths data) that Morgan had a point of some worthiness. These stats come from the actual link you provided. I don’t think the link you provided actually debunked Morgan’s position but reinforced it. I didn’t side with his stats (I sided with the stats provided by your link).
      
      Why is it that when stats indicate there is not a causal relationship (or even a correlation) of “more guns, less violence” (and might even indicate some repudiation of such a notion) those are “talking points” and yet stats used to indicate the contrary are “facts”?
osullivan11

America’s nearest rival in terms of gun ownership is Yeman! You must be so proud. That video was complete nonsense.

X-Ray

Biden outlined his recommendations before met with the NRA and the other stakeholders. It seems that his has decided on an line of attack unencumbered by their views.

sickofthechit

Much like the NRA’s LaPierre did in saying armed “good guys” are the only possibility to protecting our children.

Why not equip trained personnel in our schools with stun guns? In other words, non-lethal force. A shot to the face was pretty effective in “The Hangover”

Charles A. Bowsher

P.S.(Perhaps Biden doesn’t hold to Obama’s philosophy of starting with the least acceptable alternative when negotiating.)cab
NewtonWhale

So the NRA won’t actually write the new regs?
Sounds good to me.
hennorama

X-ray – that’s nonsense. Vice Pres. Biden simply discussed some of the suggestions he had heard from those he had already talked to. Those items may or may not be his actual recommendations.

“And so the kinds of things that there’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me but coming from the groups we’ve met with,” said Biden today, before a closed door meeting on gun control. “And I’m going to focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership and the type of weapons can be owned. And one is, there is a surprising — so far — a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. Not just close the gun show loophole but total, universal background checks, including private sales.”

Source:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-hints-outlawing-unregulated-private-gun-sales_695080.html
Don_B1

Vice President Biden summarized the comments he had received so far, NOT his recommendations!

It would seem your “X-Ray” did not get a good picture of V.P. Biden’s presentation.

Ed75

In support of the idea that our turn to immoral practices will lead to problems I posted a puzzle the last two weeks, but I didn’t see a solution offered. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, or 73, so 37 means ‘stop abortion’. Here’s the solution:

       8:46 The time the plane struck the first tower on 9/11.
     9:03   The time the plane struck the second tower.
    9:59 The time the first tower fell.
+ 10:29   The time the second tower fell.
________
      3737

And how many people, out of over two hundred employees of Windows on the World, the restaurant at the top of the WTC, died? 73.

Immoral practices are tied to death and to war.

sickofthechit

Being on the staff of an eatery is an Immoral practice?
- Ed75
  
  Not at all, but the details of the event can indicate a message for us.
  - 1Brett1
    
    Ah, so you’re saying these 73 people who died were completely innocent of God’s wrath but he made sure they died anyway to get the numbers to the 73 target, all so we could get the message…
    - 1Brett1
      
      Or maybe 80 were going to die but “He” saved only 7 so we could get the message?
    - Ed75
      
      No, but if people were going to die, he shows that he was there – ‘A sparrow does not fall to the ground without the knowledge of the Father, who is in Heaven’ Jesus. If this event was going to happen, why wouldn’t God use the event to explain why?
  - Gregg Smith
    
    I have no way of proving there is or isn’t a God so I have no way of proving it was not the will of God. If I could I would.
- J__o__h__n
  
  Maybe they served pork and shrimp or had a gay waiter.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    lol
Ray in VT

Wow, that is some pretty convincing evidence that you have assembled there. I’m figuring that you’re totally going to convince a lot of people with arguments like that.
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  Oooooooh, magic numbers! Spooky, spooky!
- Ed75
  
  There’s lots of numbers involved, reminds me of the Kennedy-Lincoln coincidences. For example:
  
  The first attack on the WTC occurred a few months after the Supreme Court decision Carhart supported Roe v. Wade, on 2/26/1993.
      �
         2      26 +1993______   2021
  
           9        11  + 2001_______    2021
1Brett1

Wasn’t that one of the original Commandments? I heard there were three more than ten, but Moses dropped a few of the tablets on the way down from the mountain, smashing them to bits! #12: Though shalt not serve food and drink for tips and wages.
- Ed75
  
  That’s very funny. And true, sadly, in this case.
Gregg Smith

What about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania jets?
- Ed75
  
  The Pennsylvania jet is interesting. Governor Casey in the 1990s had gone to the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade was almost overturned in Casey. They decided that ‘if we were the court of first instance, it is very possible we would not agree with the decriminalization of abortion, but we want to respect precedent’.
  
  And one plane, headed for the White House or Capitol, came down in that state, which fought pro-life. Also, it did not reach the White House, where the pro-life president George Bush was in office.
  
  The plane that hit the Pentagon does tie military conflict with this whole thing. Gratefully, the part struck had just gone under reconstruction and many people had not been moved back in yet. (By the way, the ground breaking on the Pentagon was 9/11/1941 – I think it was 1941.)
  
  But there were 189 people killed at the Pentagon,
  189 = 3x3x3x7, so ’37′ appears in that number.
  
  Another note is that the first attack on the WTC occurred a few months after the Supreme Court decision Carhart supported Roe v. Wade, on 2/26/1993.
  
        2
        26
  +1993
  ______
     2021
  
           9
          11
    + 2001
  _______
      2021
  
  And 2021=43×47, so ’37′ appears again. Why wouldn’t God use such an event, if it was going to happen, to tell us why it happened, and to warn us?
Acnestes

“There are scores of thousands of human insects who are ready at a moment’s notice to reveal the Will of God on every possible subject” – G.B. Shaw
jefe68

George Carlin sums it up so much better than I can:
George…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVLJKR6g7U
nj_v2

^ Overdue for appointment with mental health professional.

Seek. Help. Now!

sickofthechit

Mandatory trigger locks and locked cabinets for all guns and ammo in private hands.

hennorama

The Heller decision ruled trigger locks to be unconstitutional.

“3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. ”

Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  “Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be
  disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens
  to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence
  unconstitutional. ”
  �
  Which is why there a so many kids getting hurt or killed playing with loaded guns.
  - hennorama
    
    BHA_in_Vermont – agreed. But “kids getting hurt or killed playing with loaded guns” was not under consideration in Heller. The Supreme Court deals only with “Cases” and “Controversies,” per the Constitution. Outcomes or consequences of decisions or lack of decisions are seldom a factor.
    
    Heller presented constitutional issues, and such rulings by SCOTUS are practically final.
    
    From http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx:
    
    “The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.
    
    The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has “original jurisdiction” in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.
    
    When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
    
    Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

sickofthechit

I for one am an “Originalist” when it comes to the Constitution. I maintain it guarantees us the right to own musket loaders, powder horns and lead balls. Anything else is subject to restriction. 14,000 or so dying every year, when are we going to wake up? Add to that the tens of thousands wounded and maimed every year by guns and the cost to the nation for health care, economic loss etc. is staggering. How much is the life of a child worth?, a father?, a mother?, sister, brother, husband, wife? charles a. bowsher

NotChuck

Yeah! That’ll solve it! I’m an originalist on the First Amendment, which was quill pens, printing presses, and mail by horseback. Anything else is subject to restriction! Including violent movies and video games.

According to FBI statistics, more people were murdered in 2011 by hands, fists, feet, than all the mass shooting victims from 2012. California leads the nation in murder by all types of weapons, yet more people were murdered in California by hands, feet, fists, than by rifles.

Adding more restrictions on guns only disarms the law-abiding. Just ask all the Mexican victims of the drug wars! BTW, some of the unarmed press members targeted by the drug thugs were killed with the weapons from this administration’s Operation “Fast and Furious.”

sickofthechit

A reasonably talented machinist can turn a semi-auto into an auto quite easily.

DrewInGeorgia

You don’t even need full-auto, just big clips and a happy trigger finger.

sickofthechit

I like the idea of background checks for ALL weapons and ammunition purchases including Auctions, Gun Shows and private sales.

JGC

Be sure to tell your congressional representatives!

sickofthechit

Jeff Sessions is pissed because he and his staff either failed to read what Lew was presenting, or they didn’t understand it and were to embarrassed to ask intelligent questions. He seems to enjoy being vindictive. Grow up Jeffery.

Don_B1

In 1986 the Senate Judiciary Committee “passed” on recommending him for a Federal Judgeship.

1Brett1

DISQUS

DrewInGeorgia

Man Drives Into Restaurant, Orders Pizza

Mike_Card

Used to be the best pizza available; gone downhill recently.
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

“I never had the money to install a drive-thru, but now…” said the owner.

NewtonWhale

Gun nuts are going to use the Second Amendment to attack the First Amendment in hopes of creating a stalemate and killing any further regulation.
As the graphs below show, the facts could not be more clear:

1) There is no correlation between video game consumption and gun deaths

2) There is a correlation between gun availability and gun deaths

3) The US has more gun violence than other developed countries, and

4) The Southern states are more violent than the rest of the US.

hennorama

NewtonWhale – prepare to be challenged on chart #3, as it excludes Mexico.
- NewtonWhale
  
  I’m prepared.
  But I am unarmed.
BHA_in_Vermont

Where is Mexico in that “Gun related murder” graph. Or is it not considered a “developed country”?

Given that no one in my extended family owns a gun, it is amazing that the ownership rate is 90 guns per 100 people. There must be a LOT of guns in some households.
- NewtonWhale
  
  The CIA World Factbook considers Mexico a “developing” as opposed to “developed” country:
  
  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#D
NotChuck

And Californica still leads the nation with the highest murder rate. The FBI statistics for 2011 (Chart 20) show more people murdered in CA with “hands, fists, feet, etc” than with rifles. So let’s ban those rifles!

DrewInGeorgia

How about the AIG contemplation of Biting The Hand?
Guess there was just too much bad press to bleed US a little more. Thank goodness.

Ray in VT

How about KBR wanting the feds to pick up their legal fees and the settlements in the cases where they’ve been convicted of exposing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to extreme carcinogens?
- Don_B1
  
  @DrewInGeorgia:disqus @rayinvt:disqus
  
  “Cost of doing business”
  
  or
  
  “Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.”
  
  Speculation:
  
  Tax them with transaction fees and higher marginal tax rates: when less of something is desired, tax it.
  
  Make legal fees taxable for the payer as well as the recipient. That might decrease the willingness of corporations to pay big legal fees to fight through legal delays suits by less wealthy litigants that they would otherwise lose. Republican might cheer one aspect — Democrats would have a problem supporting such a move as trial lawyers might not support it?
  
  But it might lower the litigiousness of this country?
  - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
    
    I don’t know that the “litigiousness” is a problem. I mean, the press gnaws at it like a hound dog with a bone; it’s their favorite toy.
    
    But when I hear “tort reform”, I think “corporations aren’t giving up any of their lawyers, why should I unilaterally disarm in advance of any situation when I might need one?”
    
    This country has just about forgotten what it is like to punish non-individual entities with deep pockets in a punitive manner. When that stops being the case, I’ll consider tort reform as something besides a big corporate fluffjob wrapped in the flag.
    - Don_B1
      
      Sorry that I was not as clear as I should have been, and I used a term that was not really appropriate because of the use you point out.
      
      Note that the business community sues other businesses (notably over patents) by orders of magnitude over those by individuals suing businesses. But the businesses stifle the individual suits by stretching them out, making those cases effectively unwinnable, even though the company should lose. But the lawyers have found a way to effectively win increasing the likelihood of their being used to win by this tactic, and it was that aspect of litigiousness that I was trying to call out.

Ray in VT

Worry not. The GOP is still pushing some form of human life amendment that seems similar, if not exactly like, those personhood bills:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/paul-ryan-personhood-bill_n_2440365.html

BHA_in_Vermont

At least he isn’t the VP. He may go far enough right that we won’t have to see him on a national ballot again.
- Ray in VT
  
  Indeed, and we can only hope.

Neil Malek

With regard to assault-type weapons (semi-auto, high-capacity clips) — why not allow people to own then but mandate that they be locked up and kept at the firing range?

stillin

why own them? Who needs them?
- Thinkin5
  
  The NRA is making very clear that their advocacy of owning all kinds of guns and having no cks. on their ownership is because of their fairly new founded “fear” of the U.S. government. I happen to fear the radical, anti-democratically elected government group known as the NRA! Who do they think they are threatening our government??! They really creep me out!
DrewInGeorgia

Good luck getting Gun ‘Enthusiasts’ to grasp the concept of “A Well Regulated Militia”.

Michiganjf

Let’s be sure to ARM principals and teachers with weapons…

… nothing will make our children safer than GUNFIGHTS IN OUR SCHOOLS!

Then, after the first few firefights, the NRA can argue the need for MORE MONEY to install bullet-proof glass in every school, as well as retrofitting every wall in every school with reinforced walls thick enough to stop armor-piercing bullets.

… after all, it makes more sense than just limiting magazine capacity and access to assault weapons.

Thinkin5

Ideally, the teachers and principals would wear their guns in a holster around their waists. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have time to get them out of a locked desk drawer if they were surprised by a gunman. They would have to practice the quick draw and train to not spin and hit whatever happened to cause a sudden loud noise!
- sickofthechit
  
  Like dropping a book on the floor?
  - Thinkin5
    
    Exactly. And at recess the teachers will have to take guard/sniper positions and keep watch from the top of the jungle gym.
    Movie theaters will have guards with night vision scopes. Hopefully, they won’t get confused when there’s gun play on the screen. Churches and all religious houses will post guards, restaurants, concerts, all sporting events too.�
    All in the name of “freedom and the second amendment” we will lose our peace of mind and freedom as we arm to the teeth and always look over our shoulders. The NRA and militia paranoids are already losing their cool on TV and the internet, threatening harm if we attempt to make our lives safer. We’ll all have PTSD!!!
Don_B1

Regulating or prohibiting guns may not be achievable in practice soon: someone has used a 3D printer to make the central core piece of an AR-15, and the instructions for same are available on the Internet. Fortunately, for this particular unit, it self-destructed after firing a dozen or so rounds. But that will undoubtedly be “corrected.”

Thus the real effort needs to center on the availability of what types of ammunition and restrictions on the purchase of same, by type and quantity.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

Hey Great pick for Treasury Secretary.
Jack Lew, finally a Chinese-American involved in the US money system. For a very long time I thought only one particularly ethnic group was qualified for these monetary positions !!

http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

I thought that the NRA was supposed to be crazy wrong for suggesting this?

FTA:The school safety initiative, one of several under consideration, would make federal dollars available to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment, although it is not nearly as far-ranging as the National Rifle Association’s proposal for armed guards in every U.S. school.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-considers-funding-for-police-in-schools-after-newtown/2013/01/10/e0044e58-5b3f-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html

http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

“Huge hubbub about (insert name of Obama nominee for anything, down to White House dinner-roll basket-carrier here).”

Wake me when this is not news, Tom.

JGC

From “The Onion”:

Frustrated Wayne LaPierre Thought Murder of 20 Children by Crazed Gunman Would Have Blown Over By Now – FAIRFAX,VA- More than three weeks after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, annoyed NRA president Wayne LaPierre told reporters what while he understands the seriousness of the tragedy, he had only assumed the senseless murder of 20 first-graders and six educators by a mentally unstable gunman would have blown over by now…”I get that this horrible thing happened and all these kids are dead now, but honestly, how long are we going to keep talking about this?…Everywhere I go it’s Newtown this, Newtown that. Meanwhile it’s 2013, and we’re still talking about some shooting that happened last year. Seriously, move on, already.”

http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

Frustrated Hillary Clinton Thought Murder of our Ambassador and his staff by Terrorists Would Have Blown Over By Now – Washington D.C.…..

I’m sure you can see the humor in that as well
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  wow
- JGC
  
  sat-ire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize human stupidity or vices
- NotChuck
  
  Frustrated teachers’ unions and state employee retirement plans seek to quietly dispose of their holdings in gun manufacturing companies after making obscene profits during the last four years of record gun sales, while calling for stringent gun controls on law-abiding citizens.
  - Don_B1
    
    The just want those exercising their rights to also take care to take their responsibilities seriously also.
    - NotChuck
      
      WHAT???? Get off the weed, dude!
- http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
  
  A particularly prescient comment if I must say so myself.
DrewInGeorgia

Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack
BHA_in_Vermont

Single focus mind. Any gun, anywhere, any time. It is the “right” of every citizen. The heck with reality.
- NotChuck
  
  I love it, BHA! According to FBI statistics, Vermont suffered 8 murders in 2011, of which four were from firearm misuse by assault weapon brains. Since Vermont reportedly doesn’t restrict firearms by use, category, concealment, or capacity, perhaps there’s something to “any gun, anywhere, any time” that keeps Vermonters safer than Californians, New Yorkers, Chicagoans, etc. That’s REALITY!”

GKoenig

Why keep arguing ideology & “rights” with the NRA. This gets us nowhere. Let’s follow the money! It’s the ‘big gun companies’ who profit from all this. We talk about ‘the big oil companies’ why not use the same term for the gun industry?

http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

Since the Californian Teachers Pension fund is only 70% funded, does this amount to a breach of duty to the teachers? Shouldn’t the fund be seeking out well performing companies which provide domestic manufacturing jobs? When the money runs out what are they going to do, default or hand out IOU’s? So social engineering trumps other responsibilities?

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130109/WIRE/130109547/1010/sports?Title=California-teachers-retirement-fund-to-divest-from-gun-makers
NotChuck

I repeat: Frustrated teachers’ unions and state employee retirement plans seek to quietly dispose of their holdings in gun manufacturing companies after making obscene profits during the last four years of record gun sales, while calling for stringent gun controls on law-abiding citizens.

MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

I have owned guns including an assault rifle for many years and am an ex NRA member: no one needs one for hunting or home defense unless one plans on stupidly trying to fend off an assault team which can only end badly…

I find it curious that the NRA and others fail to acknowledge the significance of the words “A well REGULATED militia”

It’s time to regulate the lunatic fringe.

NotChuck

Mark, since you have owned an assault rifle, can you please explain to the rest of us what that is? I own rifles and pistols that look like military weapons, yet function the same as my other semi-automatic weapons.

Please don’t tell me what I need or don’t need. My needs are different than yours.

With regard to the well-regulated militia, it was to augment the standing army (provided for in the body of the Constitution) in times of external threat. Other than that, it was to keep the small standing army in check so that it couldn’t be turned on the people by a central government.

Furthermore, citizens stayed on the forefront of gun technology for the first hundred years -rifles vs muskets, percussion vs flintlock, brass cartridge vs paper, multiple cartridge vs single shot. The army was generally 20 to 40 years behind citizens in adopting technology.

That’s not lunacy, it’s common sense — if you still value your other freedoms.
- http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart
  
  The easiest definition of “assault rifle” seems to be a rifle designed primarily to kill humans (as opposed to being designed for the range or hunting game). Weapons like the AR-15 would fall into this category. That said I think the bigger problem is likely large capacity, easily-changed magazines.
  - NotChuck
    
    Since there is an entire classification of competitive shooting at the National Matches and at rifle matches around the country, i.e. at the range, with the AR-15 and its variants, it apparently does not fall into the definition of “assault” rifle.
    - http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart
      
      I said what the weapon was designed for. The AR-15 is a civilianized version of the M16 and thus the design was built around killing people, not target shooting. The fact that people shoot with the AR-15 competitively doesn’t change the fact that it was designed expressly to kill people. Likewise, people occasionally use hunting weapons to kill people, but that would not mean those hunting weapons are suddenly assault rifles.
    - NotChuck
      
      Around the turn of the last century, Bannerman’s in New York sold huge lots of military surplus rifles to the general public as an inexpensive way to go hunting. These were rifles designed expressly to kill people. Does that mean that now that they’re hunting weapons, they’re suddenly not assault rifles?
    - http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart
      
      As I said, using a military rifle for hunting or range shooting doesn’t suddenly mean it isn’t an assault rifle. That said, at least at the turn of last century the difference between a sports rifle and military rifle was minimal. Bannerman though did do a great deal to create the current situation by pioneering the selling of military items to civilians.
- MadMarkTheCodeWarrior
  
  Do you honestly want a definition of an assault rifle? It’s pretty simple in a non-technical sense: one designed for fighting as in… killing people. Real hunters use bolt action rifles unless you’re hunting zombies. For home defense pistols work as a deterrent but bullets can travel through multiple walls… hollow points or a 12 gauge shotgun who’s blast is a mighty powerful deterrent … And then their’s always man’s best friends – dogs… So we don’t need banana clips taped side by side to hunt or target practice unless you’re playing Commando, suitable only for government workers..
  - NotChuck
    
    “And if we loose [sic] the vote to some ultra-right wing coup. . . .”
    
    If the progressives take away the weapons of the militia, who’s to stop the military from overthrowing the leftist tyranny, and establishing an “ultra-right wing coup?”
    
    Checks and balances. Something the Founding Fathers planned throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. See their logic yet?

Davesix6

Tom, don’t see any mention of Al Gore selling out to the “big oil” money backed Al Jazeera

DrewInGeorgia

It’s a Left Wing Conspiracy.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Or maybe the press corpse is just paying as much attention to Current TV now as they ever did, which is to say “almost nil”, regardless the quality of its programming.
  - http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
    
    Trust me the Media paid as much attention to Current as it merited. �
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      I didn’t claim one way or the other, and never said I watched it, and never link to it.
      
      But plenty of righties are now the beefing about “why aren’t they paying more attention to Gore selling Current TV” (and therefore NPR is powerless to “not cover it” because “it’s out there”).
      
      That’s something one side is liable to do when they’ve been swallowing their own propaganda press that they can’t imagine a press which isn’t.
    - http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
      
      FTA:
      
      If, in the words of La Rochefoucauld, “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue,” then Gore is one of the greatest “homageurs” or all time.
      
      http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/01/10/whos-worse-gore-or-madoff/?singlepage=true
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      Keep linking to Pajamas Media.

Michiganjf

The VERY FIRST time any civilian whips out a firearm to counter a menace, look for deaths by “friendly fire…”

Then, as the “gun-ho sharp-shooter” civilian is prosecuted for manslaughter, we’ll have the entire debate crop up afresh.

DrewInGeorgia

“gun-ho”?
I like that.
I’m guessing you meant Gung-ho but I really like gun-ho much better.
- Michiganjf
  
  That’s why I put it within quotes.
Don_B1

I believe that example already exists. Within the last year a person started firing on 5th Avenue, I believe, in New York City. A worker followed them up the avenue and called to some New York policemen, pointing out the individual as he was nearing another business. The police approached the shooter, who shot at them,, the police shooting back and hitting the shooter, but also several pedestrians.

And when that happened with policemen, what do you think “civilian” vigilantes will do?

bethrjacobs

All these politicians and their cronies are pure evil they just
want to control us like feudal lords

Don_B1

It is the wealthy who are donating to the politicians that want to control everything like the feudal lords of the Middle age.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDIOY7RQ3F5EAR4EAP5FKRS52M bethrjacobs
  
  The “average congressional member or otherwise politically
  employed person is very well off usually from their political connections and does
  the bidding of those who further fund their lifestyle”
  
  There were many kinds of feudal lords from over lords to barons to manor lords it is all dirty money the politicians take to cash and make the deals of those giving it to them period.

Hopeglory

The genie is “out of the bottle,” with guns! You can pass any law, but too many are out of the cage!”

http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

“You don’t want to vilify people who own guns (by putting an FOIA-list of licensed gun owners out in public).”

First, the word “vilify” is a pretty loaded term.

And second, why not?

Hey, I remember people worried about getting shot or fire-bombed. They worked at womens’ health care clinics. Maybe sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

Now to scour the daily papers and wait for someone in the mainstream media say the same thing.

hennorama

The hypocrisy of many of those decrying publication of data on firearms ownership, which was compiled from public records, is amazing. Some of these critics say they want virtually unrestricted rights under the Second Amendment, yet decry those who exercise their free speech and free press rights under the First Amendment. Presumably they fail to see the irony.

BHA_in_Vermont

The NRA’s suggestion that there should be armed guards in schools instead of restricting the sale of weapons for which there is no legitimate need by the public is absurd. There could be a hundred armed guards in every classroom and Aurora would have still happened. Gabbie Giffords would still have been shot.

When did the NRA lose its “hunting and gun safety” focus and turn to “No gun controls of any sort are acceptable”?

JGC

When they hired lobbyist Wayne LaPierre.
Davesix6

So BHA, do you believe that the President, Congress, Celebrities, CEO’s and other wealthy people who employee armed guards will dissmiss them if “restrictions of the sale of weapons” are passed?
- Davesix6
  
  By the way BHA Columbine in Aurora happended during the period of the last “Assult Weapons Ban”
  - BHA_in_Vermont
    
    No assault weapons were used at Columbine.
    
    Also read:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html
  - Don_B1
    
    I believe Aurora happened on July 20, 2012, which was definitely AFTER the Assault Weapons Ban had expired in 2004, at least by most methods of arithmetic.
- jimino
  
  So,do you think those in Congress favoring unfettered guns rights will welcome the public showing up with the weapons to which they have such rights to watch from the gallery? How about at the Supreme Court, which interprets and enforces those rights?
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  At what point did I say that all guns should be banned? How many of these people’s personal security carry assault rifles? How many carry 30 round magazines?
  
  Certainly not the FBI agents guarding the President. They would be walking kind of funny with a Bushmaster shoved down their pant leg.
  
  You, along with many others, fail to understand that banning weapons that have no purpose in civilian life is NOT a ban on all guns.
sickofthechit

I heard that the NRA gets $1.00 from the sale of each gun and each box of ammo. Might that be the reason?

http://profile.yahoo.com/QYPLKPVC4YRRTU2W2HQWLIYVJE Paul

Tom, key data point about the relevance of the assault weapons ban. Connecticut has an assault weapons ban in effect already. (See Connecticut General Laws chapter 943 sections 53-202a and 53-202c). Bushmaster sells an AR-15 model that complies with the assault weapons ban to sell in states like Connecticut, and the rifle used in Newtown was almost certainly a ban-compliant model.

bethrjacobs

This is Nazi Germany it is not mental illness but what is
done to the mentally ill that makes them violent and now they will target and
scape goateed more than ever
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

http://www.facebook.com/balldarrens Darren Ball

How do you protect against people like Adam Lanza who used a gun that was legally registered to a person who is able to pass all of these requirements like universal background checks? �
Assault weaponry seems to be an underlying issue in this. Background checks are singular at the time of purchase as well, and are not an ongoing process. What happens if a person who obtains an assault weapon via this process becomes mentally instable? So many considerations that make this approach of background checks invalid in so many ways…Can any person outside of the military even justify the need for an assault weapon in a realistic way?

This seems to me to be a potential national security threat. Maybe it is time to consider it in this fashion.

TyroneJ

The problem with an “Assault weapon Ban” is that there’s no such thing as an Assault Weapon. While I don’t own guns anymore, in my younger days I did a lot of target shooting and some hunting. Under the old Assault Weapon ban, I owned a gun used for hunting small game which as I bought it with a wood stock, was a pretty garden variety small caliber rifle used for hunting and targets. But if I bought the same gun with a folding stock, was considered an assault weapon and was banned. So of course, during the period of the ban, you could only buy the wood stock version but there was an large market for kits to trick out the gun to make it look scary looking like a military weapon.

The background check and licensing the owners similar to a driver’s license seems to me to be the best solution.

“Assault Weapon” bans are, in my experience, a sign that the promoter has no experience or knowledge of firearms.
- bberg7794
  
  None other than firearm great Bill Ruger said that it would be too confusing to attempt to enact legislation which would limit firearm ownership based on defining an “assault weapon.” He wrote an open letter to congress suggesting an easier and more effective method would be magazine capacity limitation. I would like to see the minimum required firearm length, which we have, grow a little and also distinguish between firearms that have a fixed magazine vs. a replaceable magazine with tighter restrictions for firearms using replacable magazines.
  
  I agree with your background check/licensing suggestion as long as participants would receive some guarantee about their future ability to own firearms and privacy issues too. I’m not sure how confidence a system like this could be assured.
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  Perhaps there needs to be a different term than “assault rifle” in the discussion. The last ban was circumvented by removing things like bayonet mounts. Not exactly the part of a military assault weapon most people are concerned with in these massacre scenarios.
  
  I don’t know what it would be named, but come up with a concise definition such as “is not capable of firing more than once per second” “is not capable of holding more than 10 projectiles”, etc. Then add serious consequences for modifying or owning a modified legal weapon such that it does not meet the requirements.

bberg7794

Unfortunately, the NRA positions makes all firearm owners appear extreme and irrational. Many firearm owners, myself included, would support tougher controls and new firearm legislation as long as they are sensible and have promise to be effective.

http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Then we get to the point where, in the media, the argument is the NRA v. reasonable gun owners.

Tangentially (and this is not my fight, so I’m an outsider here) what does the NRA have to do to fall out of the media’s Rolodex? What kind of other gun-users’ organization would ever shoulder it aside?
- Mike_Card
  
  The NRA is primarily the firearms industry’s lobbying organization; it masquerades as a popular hunter/enthusiast group.
  - bberg7794
    
    The NRA was not always this way, but this is sure how they look now.
    - Mike_Card
      
      I’m not that familiar with their history. I DID look at their website, and corporate members dominate: Remington, Winchester, Colt, Browning, etc. Individual memberships account for less than 35% of the NRA’s revenue.

DrewInGeorgia

The Flu. It’s a b!tch this year, that much is certain.
I had someone bring it to me as an early Holiday gift about a week after Thanksgiving and it is STILL hanging around. I start thinking “Yay! I’m past it!” only to crap out again.

Have Flu Vaccinations increased the frequency and strength of Strain Mutations? For some reason I get the feeling this is like taking antibiotics every time we sneeze. If we tell our immune systems to kick back on the couch and take a nap, what do we expect?

Don_B1

Fortunately, your analogy is NOT the way vaccines work. The vaccine stimulates your immune system to generate antibodies (virus fighters/destroyers) BEFORE you come in contact with the virus, and do NOT do anything against the virus themselves.

But there are many strains of flu virus, most of which get their new mutations in the Far East, where chickens and other animals live in close contact with humans on a day to day basis. The virus gets transferred from the chicken to humans and then spreads from human to human, making its way (through sneeze-generated “clouds” of moisture and viruses) around the world, infecting those without immunity from previous exposures to that strain or a vaccine for that strain.

Sometimes the mutations that occur in the current strain were not anticipated by the vaccine makers (it currently takes at least four months to make enough vaccine for the human population, and mutations can continue after the vaccine is chosen) and to various degrees will not be as effective as other years.
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  I understand the difference between Bacterial and Viral as well as the differences in administering antibiotics and antiviral vaccines. The strain mutation is what causes me concern, what are the unintended consequences of introducing Strain A to masses of people when it is B,C,D, etc. that they wind up being exposed to? It just seems to me that we may potentially be creating more problems than we solve where flu-vaccinations are concerned. I’m certainly no physician and did not offer medical advice, only my personal opinion.
  
  http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/09/19/study-people-getting-flu-shot-more-likely-to-get-swine-flu/
  - Don_B1
    
    Vaccines are used for prevention of both bacterial and viral infections. Vaccines come in both dead and live formulations, but in either case (importantly the “live” forms) they have been changed so they CANNOT give the recipient the infection, but just cause the recipient to generate antibodies (part of the recipient’s immune system) which are the killers of the dangerous invasive viruses or bacteria.
    
    The story you reference in Seattle CBS local station is new to me and I have so far not been able to find any followup to the study described; when/if I do I expect I will try to make it known to you and others.
    
    The CBS station post does not give any hypotheses for why the experiment gave those results and I would like to see other studies confirming the results. It might have been a flaw in that 2008-2009 vaccine that led to the problem identified in the study.
    
    But I would emphasize that the researchers strongly recommended that everyone continue to get flu shots and when the flu season is as dangerous as is the case this year, that should be the best advice.
    
    Note that this year’s vaccine includes protection against H1N1, which was the “rogue” virus (no protection from the vaccine) of the 2008-2009 season.
    
    Please see:
    
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm
    
    Unfortunately this reference does not directly address the issue you raised here, but it does give a short but sound basis for the understanding of vaccines and what flu strains are protected against this year.
    
    Please believe that I was not necessarily impugning your understanding of the vaccination process, only your expression of it. As one who has too often failed to express my thoughts satisfactorily, I try not to hold others to a higher standard, but only to clarify something I perceive as possibly misleading when I can.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      No offense taken, trust me. I have no intention to mislead anyone, my comment was motivated solely by my belief that mass flu-vaccinations likely carry huge unintended consequences. This is solely my belief and I do not wish to dissuade anyone from being vaccinated if that is what they choose. Thank you for the thoughtful and well thought out responses, I really do appreciate them.

Michael Corzine

It is not the guns, it is more so the attention and infamy that the media gives the shooters, ban guns and people will use more deadly means that frankly are easier to get and assymble.

Don_B1

And what “means” are more deadly than guns which are also easier to get and assemble?

jefe68

For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health:

The rate of firearm homicides was 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries, according to the report, which cited a 2011 study of 23 countries. And though suicide rates were lower in the United States, firearm suicide rates were six times higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/health/americans-under-50-fare-poorly-on-health-measures-new-report-says.html

http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

FTA:

Surprisingly (to me, at the time), I found no dataset proving civilian disarmament made anybody safer.
In response to Ezra Klein’s report titled “Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States,” below are eight fictions about gun control.
Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Please, more links to Pajamas Media.
  - http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
    
    As you wish..
    
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/biden-drafts-gun-agenda-while-acknowledging-weak-links-to-tragedies/?singlepage=true
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  I just love “facts” with spin. Like this one that presumes that US women are less likely to be victims of rape because they have access to guns:
  
  “UK women were raped twice as often as American women, who were able to
  partake of their civil right of self-defense. Australian women were
  raped three times as often.”
  
  - Where are the stats showing how many rape attempts were attempted against armed and unarmed US women?
  - Where are the stats that show how many women avoided a rape attempt and whether or not they were carrying a gun?
  - http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
    
    Please don’t act as if your “fact” are unsalable. The article points out that the data is taken from biased pro- gun control sources. FBI crime stats show that gun ownership has increased and all crime has decreased for more than two decades in America. Sadly this exchange will not create any agreement on any of these points.
    - Don_B1
      
      @rwb:disqus @BHA_in_Vermont:disqus
      
      I believe you read BHA_in_Vermont’s post too quickly.
      
      The “facts” BHA addressed were in quotes and then they WERE ASSAILED in the two “bullet” paragraphs beginning with “-”.
      
      Those two paragraphs cast a lot of doubt on the cited “facts” which were drawn from pro-gun groups.
- jefe68
  
  And yet there is plenty of proof that more people with guns means more deaths from them.�
  Murder rates in states that have Stand Your Ground laws has gone up after the laws came into effect.
  - http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
    
    The simple answer to your post is Chicago.
    - jefe68
      
      And a simple answer to your’s is stupid is as stupid does.
- hennorama
  
  RWB – the linked article’s author, in “Fiction 1: Armed Resistance Does Not Stop Mass Murders,” points to an incident (the Clackamas mall shooting) where an armed bystander reportedly drew his concealed weapon and aimed it at the shooter.
  
  There’s no way to prove that this caused any action or inaction on the part of the shooter, since the shooter’s weapon had apparently jammed. The armed bystander himself reported that “He was working on his rifle,” said Meli. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”
  
  Further, the author cites as evidence a nearly 20 year old article that was merely a survey, designed to correct what the authors say are “all of the known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys.”:
  “1. Methods
  The present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the subject of armed self-defense. It was carefully designed to correct all of the known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys which critics have identified. We use the most anonymous possible national survey format, the anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey.”
  
  So for the linked article’s author “Fiction 1,” which one would expect to be his strongest argument, we get anecdotal evidence that proves nothing, and a nearly 20 year old survey. Not exactly overwhelming as proof. Further reading of the article would seem to be pointless after this lack of demonstrable proof.

Davesix6

Conneticut has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and yet there is the Newton tragedy.

Thinkin5

Ironic that the woman who armed and trained her son to use assault weapons (that she bought for her protection!) died because of them. Even more tragic, it was her own son.
- stillin
  
  I think the true tragedy was the 20 little kids.
Mike_Card

But ponder–for a moment–all the tragedies that DIDN’T occur.
hennorama

Davesix6 – The Newtown shooter was reportedly PREVENTED from purchasing firearms by CT firearms laws – he wouldn’t submit to the required background check and 14 day waiting period. Instead, he killed his mother with firearms she legally owned. In this instance, legally owning a firearm did not deter the crimes of firearm theft and murder, and the subsequent mass killing spree and suicide.

Was that your point – legally owned firearms in one’s home doesn’t prevent your own murder by a family member?

http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.wilkin.35 Rebecca Wilkin

I don’t know what they are talking about, mental illness and gun control, because, by definition you would HAVE TO BE MENTALLY ILL – i.e. Paranoid, to OWN an Assault Riffle. People who aren’t PARANOID don’t have guns like that…

bberg7794

I am not a fan of assault type weapons, but I disagree with your statement. I am a passionate firearm owner, active target shooter and hunter. There are many who participate in a high power target competition in the service rifle category with what are loosely defined as “assault weapons.” Many of these weapons have a longer that standard barrel which would make them extremely unlikely to be used nefariously and they are owned by very good people who are not paranoid. Some of those people are public servants. People you may wish to have as your own neighbors.
- http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.wilkin.35 Rebecca Wilkin
  
  Actually, My neighbor’s brother’s house was raided by the FBI and ATF because he’s a member of the Latin Kings and he was illegally selling AK-47′s. I think he’s in prison now. And, no, I don’t really like those neighbor’s much.
  - bberg7794
    
    I agree with you-I wouldn’t like those neighbors much either. If they are associated with the Latin Kings or other well known gangs, then they are likely felons who cannot legally own any type of firearm already and should be prosecuted for weapons violations.
    
    I support severe restrictions on assault type weapons. They are too easy to obtain by people who shouldn’t have them. I was just trying to say I personally know several people who own this type of firearm who are completely upstanding citizens, even though I do not care for this type of firearms. I felt your statement was too exclusive.
    - http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.wilkin.35 Rebecca Wilkin
      
      I agree.
      Maybe EVERYONE who owns an assault riffle is too broad a category. There are
      always exceptions. Some people, like some police officers and people on
      S.W.A.T. may need weapons like that, to name a few, but there is also a
      DISPROPOTIONATELY high number, of probably undiagnosed paranoid people who
      acquire these type of weapons. Whether they think Jesus is coming, or are
      afraid of aliens, or economic collapse, or don’t like the government, too many
      paranoid people seek out, and have assault riffles.
  - BHA_in_Vermont
    
    I think bberg was talking about a different kind of neighbor and a different kind of gun
    - bberg7794
      
      True-We should start our own organization. Something like “Responsible Firearm Owners for reasonable firearm legislation,” before the NRA alienates too many more folks.
BHA_in_Vermont

Same as my response to Thinkin5.

And reference Bruce Todesco’s post after yours. Yes, testosterone driven (though that doesn’t explain the Newtown shooter’s mother owning one unless she bought it for him). Not a lot different than the “need” to own a car with 450 horses when 150 will more than do the job.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Tangent: As a motorcyclist, I enjoy how they are “self-correcting”. Go 90 on a motorcycle and you’re putting your own butt on the line. One is risking one’s own hide mistreating a 180-mph motorcycle, such as the Suzuki Hyabusa, more than anyone else’s. Jay Leno, gearhead extraordinaire, owns a clatch of fast motorcycles, but we’re never going to read about him killing himself at 150mph in traffic, cos he “gets it”.
  
  Sure, in extreme circumstances, that can affect someone in a car. But compared to the number of 2-1/2 ton “midsized” SUVs out there, the threat represented to others in vehicles is minuscule. (When it comes to piloting a motor vehicle into a passel of pedestrians, none of the above applies, of course. And I’m also speaking of public roads only.)
  
  If only firearms were like that.
http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.wilkin.35 Rebecca Wilkin

The killer’s mother Legally had the guns, because they were “grandfathered” in, and she had the guns because she was worried about economic collapse, which would fall under the category of paranoid. This is actually supposed to be in reply to Davesix6.

http://www.facebook.com/bruce.todesco Bruce Todesco

We need to appreciate more of the nuance in the gun debate. First, recognize that gun ownership is testosterone driven — we all want to envision ourselves as the Rambo who saves the day. ut recall Robert DeNiro in The Deer Hunter: “One shot” was the ultimate definition of dominance and control. So let’s “shame” the gun toters into agreeing that a hunter or target shooter worth his or her salt doesn’t need more than a few bullets to truly command their domain.
Secondly, the NRA is all about the economic interest of its gun manufacturers and sellers. If the only weapons one can legally own are 1 to 6 shot guns, consumers will have to refresh their arsenals with rifles, shotguns and revolvers. New sales! Agreement to the assault weapon/large magazine ban!
This idea may sound silly at first, but give it some real thought . . .

BHA_in_Vermont

“Agreement to the assault weapon/large magazine ban!”

After they sell out of their inventory of course
bberg7794

There are quite a few female shooters at clubs around my neighborhood who would disagree that firearm ownership is testosterone driven.
- Mike_Card
  
  Females have testosterone, too. Didn’t you see “The Blind Side?”

Thinkin5

Why does a person buy assault guns? Because they want to get dozens of shots off without reloading. Premeditated murder. Why does a person build a bomb? They plan to murder many people at once. Premeditated murder.

BHA_in_Vermont

I suspect your logic is faulty. I agree that building a bomb has only one purpose and it is nefarious. But MOST people who buy assault rifles and large magazines just get a kick out of firing them at the range.
- They have ZERO use for hunting.
- They have ZERO use for self protection out on the street.
- More innocent people would be killed by a nervous owner protecting their home with an assault rifle than with a more “civilian” style weapon.

I wouldn’t have a problem with them being available if there weren’t nuts around who take them “off range”. As such, I’m sorry but the 99%+ of “legitimate” users have to suffer for the sins of the few.
- Thinkin5
  
  But MOST people who buy assault rifles and large magazines just get a kick out of firing them at the range.
  That’s what the little bomb builder says. ‘Just having fun!’
  - BHA_in_Vermont
    
    I don’t think there is anywhere someone can legally “play” with the bombs they make. Which, by the way, is illegal in and of itself. Why is the NRA not calling for everyone to have the right to build bombs – using the 2nd amendment as justification of course.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      Guess I better get to work on my Flux Capacitor powered Doom’s-Day Self-Defense thingamajigger.
    - Ray in VT
      
      Great Scott!! Drew, you’ve gotta come back with me!!
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      The mentally ill should not be allowed to buy Phasers.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      What about communicators? And I’ve had my Phaser for a while, does that mean I get to keep it even though I’m batsh*t crazy?
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      I think it’s possible to rig a communicator so it will explode.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      Crazy
      aint
      Stupid.
      You know us nutjobs are gonna Crack our way around the ‘stun’ restrictor.
    - hennorama
      
      à la Kramer in Seinfeld: “You’re a rabid Anti-batite!”
      
      Exactly when did bat guano become associated with craziness? Apparently around 1950:
      
      http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38354/where-did-the-phrase-batsht-crazy-come-from
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      Thanks, I enjoyed reading that.
      
      Ever done much Caving /
      Spelunking?
      
      I’m not gonna say whether or not I have…
      
      ;’)
      
      Squirrels are kind of nutty too come to think of it.
    - hennorama
      
      A Georgian calling squirrels “nutty?” Hard to rely on the expertise of someone from the Peanut State, the land of non-nut “nuts.”
hennorama

Thinkin5 – “Why does a person build a bomb? They plan to murder many people at once.”

Not necessarily. Sometimes they just want to blow stuff up. Witness the Mythbusters:

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/explosions-a-to-z.htm

Dee

Jack Lew is lacking color. He should try the Truth.. it has
its own color….

Jack Lew doesn’t have to be colorful but he needs to go after the truth & expose how the GOP ran up 10 Trillion
ion the nation’s credit card during the 8 yrs of Bush and�
now must be held accountable and pay up…….

Shifting the blame to the Obama camp and entitlement�
programs won’t work. Most politicians were warned by�
their voters not to accept cuts to their monthly benefits.

So side stepping this won’t cut it anymore…Especially,�
with the moral outrage against Wall St in this country�
today. The Rich need to pay up and bail out the middle�
class & the poor today. Nothing less will be acceptable.

In addition, there was the BIg LIe perpetrated by GOP�
leader in the Senate, Mitch Mc Connell during the Bush�
years that the Bush era Tax Cuts were promoting job�
growth. A falsehood he continued to promote before�
the November election. See the URL below…..

Yet in November , The Congressional Budget Office�
came out with an investigative Report which showed�
no correlation between Tax Cuts and Job Growth or�
job creation. (Guess who blocked this report? See
URL below.)

Still, where were the voices in the media taking on this story�
and exposing its Falsehood for the voters. This should�
have been picked up by the media & the truth exposed.

Dee

The 10 Trillion Dollar Hangover after 8yrs of Bush
http://www.srwolf.com/reports/Stiglitz10trillion.pdf

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn after GOP Protest�
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

TomK_in_Boston

Yet another insider from our Rockefeller Republican Prez.

There are many brilliant, successful people who know the wall st con perfectly, and know what needs to be done to get the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations under control. It’s just an Official Talking Point that the banksters are the smartest people in the world and too smart for any regulator. Why not Warren Buffett? I’m afraid the answer is that Conservadem Obama doesn’t want them under control.

burroak

Thanks America for the bailout…ha, how about a thank you check sent to each American tax payer that bailed out AIG. And, while we are at it, have General Motors give American taxpayers a car discount. So not only do taxpayers have the incentive to buy a new generation of GM products, but the giant corporation offers a good will gesture to the American taxpayers who payed for their bailout.

Davesix6

Oxymoron Definition; Venezuela Constitution

Ray in VT

How are those two terms in any way contradictory in the way that something like little giant is?

BHA_in_Vermont

I’m with the “no cheaters in the Hall of Fame” group. This business of “eligible for 15 years, we’ll just let them in later” is all wrong.

You either make these drugs legal or you don’t reward people for using them. How about a new contract clause: Claw back of the millions you get paid if you have been found cheating?

Which players would have risen to the top if these guys weren’t cheating? Which pitchers’ ERAs would improve if steroids weren’t banging balls over the wall? Which fielders could have made great plays if steroids weren’t banging balls over the wall?

Ray in VT

It would be so hard to quantify, although I’m sure that someone will try. It surprised me a bit that Craig Biggio didn’t get in. He was a solid, smaller player with under 300 homers (and in later years hit in a bam box ballpark). He ended up with 3,060 hits, but he didn’t make it. On the cheating front, I’ve heard the question raised what about Gaylord Perry? He got in although he admitted to using a banned pitch, the spitball, for years after it wasn’t allowed.
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Tim Raines. I can’t kvetch enough about him not being in.

Back before the steroid era, it seemed almost common for him to lead off the game with an infield hit, steal second on the first pitch and take third on the (predictable) overthrow into center field. And it seemed the center fielder would likely as not overthrow third base, and bingo: Montreal had a 1-0 lead.
- Ray in VT
  
  Ah, the good ole days of Les Expos. How I miss being able to hit Montreal for an MLB game. I think that it was a shame that it took so long for Burt Blyleven to get in. 287 wins and pitched on some poor teams.

Thinkin5

We have laws against speeding, DWI, using drugs, stealing, etc. etc. and still people do these things. But we still make laws and know that fines and prosecution discourage most people.

TomK_in_Boston

Sure, but we’re dealing with ideology. When the right doesn’t want a law, they invoke Official Talking Point (OTP) #36, which is that the law won’t stop ALL offenders. Similarly, when they oppose a tax, it’s OTP #37, which says that it won’t fix ALL the deficit. Of course, they never apply #37 to their “reforms”, aka cuts.

IOW, there’s no serious discussion going on, just regurgitation of the OTP to justify whatever makes the rich and the corporations happy.

Let’s be sure to smile as we move forward with “entitlement reform”, “tax simplification”, “right to work” and “climate rebalancing”. I love Big Brother!

ps have you followed all the problems with the Boeing “Dreamliner”? Boeing recently tried to move a lot of production to “right to work for less” S. Carolina, to bust the union. I wonder if the shoddy construction came from low-wage subcontractors? That would be typical 21st century corporate behavior.
- Thinkin5
  
  I agree. Ideology is easier to sell than nuanced deliberation. Really, they should just say; ” I just don’t like (whatever) because I just don’t like it!”
  Just starting to read more about the Boeing issue. I do think that “Right to work” is another Frank Luntz created phrase for keeping people working for minimum wage. “Right to work” = “The Working Poor”. And that creates a bigger need for government support programs! The right is a big part of the problem.

Scratchpa

The answer to the problem is logical gun legislation, mental health screening and medication and education. No one on the left or right is trying to take away your 2nd amendment constitutional rights, they are not going to show up and confiscate your weapons, just limit access to military type weapons and ammunition. The mental health industry has taken major budget cuts over the past several years, so if the answer is just mental health, it needs to be funded properly. The majority of the medication used to treat mental health issues leaves the user impotent, it’s no wonder males in their teens and twenties stop taking it. What would you do?

BHA_in_Vermont

Re the trillion dollar coin.

Bring up the $100,000 bill.

These notes were printed from December 18, 1934 through January 9, 1935
and were issued by the Treasurer of the United States to Federal Reserve
Banks only against an equal amount of gold bullion held by the Treasury
Department. The notes were used only for official transactions between
Federal Reserve Banks and were not circulated among the general public.

http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

WOW..

Ray in VT

I know that this is politically partisan, but there’s some humor here regarding the platinum coin:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/platinum-coin-nrcc_n_2440273.html

It made me chuckle.

DrewInGeorgia

The Coin That Sunk The Titanic pic kills me.

Davesix6

Diane you wonder why no one is pressing the President about the debt ceiling?
No one in the Press has “pressed” President Obama about anything in the last four years.

Denis

It seems it is time for some news that is not depressing:
Knoxville Iowa Community Schools will hold their Cancer vs. Coaches event 19 Jan. For the past 2 years this small community of less than 10,000 pop is the number one Cancer vs. Coaches school in the Midwest. They have earned over $43,000 and hope to add a new record this year.
Isn’t this a lot more pleasant news than the stuff being discussed?

stillin

There are many things, that are unpleasant , that need discussing. A lot of dead kids, people postaling out, people living in their vehicles…we can’t all be doing 3 points for the good of the order.

http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Hugo Chavez may not outlive Fidel Castro?

Wow. I did not see that coming. So, who will be the next American right-wing-fluffed bogeyman in Latin America who’s the GreatestThreatEvah to us?

Mike_Card

I’m sure Jeff Sessions has a list.
- sickofthechit
  
  I think he likes to be called “Jeffery”.
  - Mike_Card
    
    Thanks. I’ll surely keep that in mind.
DrewInGeorgia

I’m thinking maybe it will be Dilma Vana Rousseff, President of Brazil. They’ve demonstrated what complete morons we are when it comes to sustainable fuel and transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Now Drew, you’re just thinking too high-minded about the subject. Did Rousseff ever publicly break with the US, or say anything bad about us while having some “iffy” friends? What’s Brazil’s government like–I don’t mean to their peasants, but does it seem like some wingnut can make it sound threatening to America’s corporate interests and tourists?
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    Everything is threatening to America’s Corporate Interests. lol
    
    Besides, not sure where but I remember reading recently that Obama has basically been dissing Rousseff
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      You’re ahead of me. I somehow forgot that Lula wasn’t in office any longer.

DrewInGeorgia

Three New ‘Cliffs’ Threaten The Economy

Cue scary intro music and dramatic lighting.
Gotta love The United States of A Phobia.

Davesix6

Tom, can’t believe you didn’t bring up the Al Gore, Al Jazeera Big Oil Money scandal. Had to step out for a moment, did I miss it?

DrewInGeorgia

No.
It’s a vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
- Ray in VT
  
  Didn’t it get touched on last week, at least here on the board?
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    I think so, I’m just getting a kick out of Davesix6six’s tin-foil hat today.
- Gregg Smith
  
  I get your humor and think it’s funny. Most probably do. I doubt anyone thinks it’s a vast left wing conspiracy. It kind of makes you wonder how Hillary gained so much traction with the inverse claim. But she did, go figure.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    It was a vast Right Wing Conspiracy. lol
    I don’t know, I’ve really tried to view the Hillary ‘Scandals’ from as great a distance as possible. The Benghazi Affair certainly isn’t the first one and likely not the last. I never have cared that much for her personally, but as far as performing her duties is concerned many do a far worse job.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      I was paying close attention back in the days of Whitewater, Billy Dale, Rose Law firm, Madison Guarantee, etc. It was all bad. Then she tried HillaryCare but she was not even elected to anything. I didn’t like her at all.
      
      Lately, she seems more comfortable in her skin. I like how she quit wearing make-up and didn’t get a face lift or Botox. We see her dancing and knocking back a few. I don’t know, after being such a doormat for so long it was kind of nice to see.
      
      Then Benghazi. Our Embassy was breeched and our Ambassador (and others) killed. That’s an act of war by any definition. She let it happen. That’s not performing her duties. Obama went to bed, it’s not all on her but it’s State. She’s the same incompetent ruthless nasty woman as she’s always been.
Thinkin5

And Rupert Murdock owning 18.97 % of Al Risala! Maybe the rightwing argument that ‘not all gun owners are bad’ could be used here for ‘not all Arabs are terrosists’??

“The news that Al Gore chose to sell his Current TV to Al Jazeera,
which some think of as Muslim Brotherhood TV, recently has raised
eyebrows. But what few people realize is that Fox chief Rupert Murdoch
already co-owns what amounts to a Muslim Brotherhood channel in the
Middle East.

The channel is Al Risala, which translates into “the (Islamic)
message.” It was launched in 2006 by Saudi prince Talal bin Alwaleed,
the nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia and a Murdoch business associate
who also owns a 7 percent stake in Murdoch’s News Corp., the parent
company of Fox News and other U.S. media outlets.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/gore-deal-follows-murdoch-into-arab-tv/#fcW8oGefRMkH0ieF.99
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  “could be used here for ‘not all Arabs are terrorists’??”
  
  Shhh, don’t the the truth out, some people can’t handle it!
Don_B1

So some Arab oil money will be used to lower the demand for oil! Sounds good to me!

burroak

Regarding gun control, Newtown had a couple of components that also need to be addressed. One, the family, why the Mom would have all those guns unlocked around a highly unstable son. No amount of background checks can effect a parenting that allows this. And second, if she new that her son was “different”, did she research mental health services in Connecticutt, or did she give up because there simply weren’t any. Remember what the parent of the Aurora Colorado shooter said when the police notified her. She was not suprised about the news.
An idea, how about any person through the age of 26 have to get their parents consent to own a gun. Or at least are required to attend with their parents an interview with the local and state police, to talk about why they want to own a firearm.
And another idea anyone buying a thousand rounds of ammo on the internet are also subject to a mandatory background check.

Thinkin5

Maybe the mother wasn’t so mentally stable either. What was she thinking?!
- stillin
  
  Something is askew with the mom…when you have to worry/wonder about one of your children, under your roof, you would NOT have assault type weapons available, period. I agree with the wondering about the mom thoughts….something doesn’t make sense with her.

http://twitter.com/dumdeedumdummy nibblets

That’s nice for legal law abiding gun owners. Most gun violence is not like the drooling disturbed individuals we see arraigned in the Colorado shooting, the Nutter who attacked Gabby Gifford or the disturbed semi catatonic kid who killed like a trained Navy Seal in Newtown CT.

When HSBC floods the streets with drugs and guns they do it as organized criminals HSBC doesn’t give a fig about serial numbers or insurance policys just the stack of cash.

If we can control the ammo via state run ammo distribution the state could control the death and destruction if visa can track purchases daily so can the state by asking them to donate the software and implementing it.

These tragedy’s must end

DrewInGeorgia

People can load their own ammo, I know many that do. Is there going to be a recall of ammunition already in circulation? Are you talking about tagging each individual bullet with RFID? Visa tracking software to monitor ammunition sales between individuals and Gun Shop owners dealing out the back door? Huh?

I agree the tragedies must end but I don’t think any of us have a practical handle on how to stop them.
- http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
  
  That is a reasonable point.
hennorama

Comedian Chris Rock included commentary on “bullet control” in his act a few years ago:

“You don’t need no gun control. You know what you need – We need some bullet control! We need to … man… We need to control the bullets! That’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. You know why? Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.”

This YouTube video contains expletives, so be warned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
- Don_B1
  
  Chris Rock is more right that he knew at the time: someone has created a set of 3D printer instructions for “printing” the core section of an AR-15 and built one.
  
  Fortunately, the “printed gun” destructed after firing around 10 or so bullets, but that will be fixed before too long.
  
  The set of instructions is available on the Internet.

jimino

I’ve heard all this talk about the trillion dollar coin, 14th amendment, etc., but isn’t the most obvious solution to just halt all federal payments to the districts of all Congress members who refuse to honor the obligations THEY PASSED. This would make the repercussions of implementing their policies up-close-and-personal for the voters who sent them to D.C. and help change an abstract discussion into a more practical one.

DrewInGeorgia

I think I just heard about six hundred butt cheeks clench up.
BHA_in_Vermont

Yeah, I just don’t get this “ceiling” thing. Pass a budget that spends more than you have then argue against borrowing the money to pay for it.

No wonder the approval rating of Congress is just above the Ebola virus. Even lice have a higher popularity rating.

- Lice 67 Congress 19
http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

And I had thought the Platinum coin idea was loony.
- jimino
  
  How would you suggest we prioritize what we refuse to pay for? Who or what should take that hit?
- sickofthechit
  
  The Loony is a Canadian coin, I think. Certainly helped their economy…
- Don_B1
  
  It IS looney, but not as destructively looney as not raising the debt ceiling, which it is supposed to call attention to. But the Obama administration, along with Ben Bernanke, have made it clear that it will not be used.
  
  Now it is time for Republicans to declare they will allow the debt ceiling to be raised.

StilllHere

Lew’s balanced budgets didn’t include interest expense but did necessitate more borrowing to pay the interest. Only in Washington!

ms2647

With the NRA suggestion to put armed security officers, our children will be like prisoners in our own school system, guarded by security personnel. NRA lost their common sense. It is universal fact that if their are less gun (or no guns) there are less killings. If I know that there are no guns around, I’ll be moving around the parks or the theaters without being fearful. And I bet you 99.99 % of the time we’ll be capable of saving our selves from a physical attack and even a by stander will be very willing to help too. So our real freedom will be back if there are no guns around. Hope NRA next don’t go for Nuclear armaments in people’s possession as second amendmen right.
Hope the elected officials use their own mind and concious rather than someone else’s money and their minds to serve the people they are elected by. DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE GUNS AND ASSAULT WEPONS FROM ORDINARY PUBLIC. BLAMING MENTAL PROBLEM IS THE STUPIDITY ONE CAN EVER IMAGINE.

DrewInGeorgia

Maybe it’s Grammar’s fault.
NotChuck

“With the NRA suggestion to put armed security officers, our children will be like prisoners in our own school system, guarded by security personnel.” Do you suppose the current system of “lockdowns” (a term originating from prison security) to any perceived threat makes them feel less like prisoners than being guarded by security personnel? Speaking of our taxpayer-funded educational systems, is your syntax, spelling, logic, and perception of reality demonstrative of their end products, or are you high on something?

hennorama

Some firearms ideas:

1. Get rid of the Tiahrt Amendment (TA). It limits freedom of information, makes existing laws more difficult to enforce, and helps “a bad guy with a gun” get the gun.

Under TA, the ATF is restricted from publicly disclosing both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes. For instance, due to TA, it is nearly impossible to know how many Bushmaster .223s are used in crimes. This is like prohibiting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from disclosing the makes and models of vehicles with safety defects.

TA also requires that the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) destroy certain criminal background check records after only 24 hours. The Justice Department Inspector General found that the 24-hour destruction policy makes it easier for corrupt dealers “to falsify the NICS check to hide a knowing transfer of a gun to a prohibited person” (Department of Justice, 2004).”

TA prohibits the ATF from requiring annual gun dealer inventories. If a gun dealer is corrupt, they can claim that firearms are stolen or lost, then sell them “off the books,” making these firearms practically untraceable.�
For example, former gun dealer and National Rifle Association (NRA) Board Member Sandy Abrams, who eventually lost his license after being cited for more than 900 violations of federal gun laws, had 422 guns missing in one inspection, more than one-quarter of his inventory, and his shop had over 483 firearms traced to crimes (Brady Center, 2006).

Maybe the NRA should do background checks on their board members?

See:http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/Tiahrt

2. Require background checks for all firearms sales, including private sales and sales at gun shows.

3. Beef up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by getting all states to both send the data on felons and others restricted from firearms purchase, AND to use the NICS in their licensing and purchase transactions.

4. Limit ammunition capacities.

5. Require all firearms to be registered and insured if they are to be used off the owner’s privately-owned property. This is similar to vehicle registration and insurance requirements. Firearms and vehicles are roughly equivalent in both their numbers and involvements in fatalities in the US.

1Brett1

On #6, I think you’ve stated it in such a way (that a prospective gun owner should have a psychological exam) so that it isn’t unreasonable, with periodic “re-certification.”

That said, there could be (and probably would be) elements problematic/corrupted, e.g., psychologists rubber stamping/being too harsh in their assessment (the latter being borne out of a fear of liability issues for the clinician, i.e., fear of being held accountable should someone he/she deemed as passing such an exam later committing murder). I could see “Dr. Feelgood” types (those who would be sympathetic to gun rights) doing the rubber stamp thing, etc. However, I think this idea of your has merit and is worthy of discussion/examination.
- hennorama
  
  1Brett1 – TY for your response. Indeed I considered the “Dr. FIREgood” aspect, but ultimately thought this can be resolved by the Professional Review Board for the mental health professional, as well as the potential liability aspect if someone they certify to be free of “mental defect” purchases a firearm then murders someone the next day.
  
  Regardless, it would be far superior to current restrictions, IMO.
  - 1Brett1
    
    Having to pass a psychological exam to purchase/own a gun would be a good way to still protect confidentiality. This could be done without any systemic confidentiality breach. One would simply have to present an affidavit of some sort from a board-certified clinician stating he/she is mentally fine to purchase/own a gun
    - hennorama
      
      1Brett1 – indeed I considered this as well. Since purchasing a firearm is optional, any mental health status disclosure would be completely voluntary. Further, the actual exam remains private and still subject to HIPAA.
      
      One further point about the idea of mental health certification as a requirement for firearms purchases:
      
      The US military has done recruitment and predeployment psychiatric screening for nearly 100 years, focusing on identifying and disqualifying only those with gross psychiatric disorders. They recognize that not everyone should be given access to or training in the use of weapons designed to kill as many humans as possible in the shortest period of time.
      
      This seems reasonable, and something we might consider for firearms ownership, especially in light of the fact that one can legally purchase firearms with capabilities similar to military firearms.
      
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17274262
      
      http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=106899
      
      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11511&page=135
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Would you think someone who believes they need an assault rifle to guard against government tyranny and also listened to Rush and watched Fox to be mentally fit to own a gun?
    - 1Brett1
      
      Let’s see if I can reply to your nonsensical question…um, a professional clinician would make a professional determination based on psychiatric/psychological disturbances, e.g., delusions, paranoia, hallucinations, suicidal, etc. If this hypothetical person displayed those, the answer would be: no, they are not fit to own a gun. If those aforementioned disturbances were absent…most likely my answer would be: yes, they are fit. (You seem to be starting your weekend with particular inanity.)
    - Gregg Smith
      
      I was asking your opinion.
    - 1Brett1
      
      I gave you my opinion…to clarify, a diagnosis of mental illness should be made if there is a presence of some psychiatric/psychological disturbance.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Actually you did not give me your opinion regarding my question but I do agree with you and I’m not picking a fight. I just think we must be careful because politics enters everything. Political vendettas ensue.
    - jefe68
      
      If they were going about tyranny al ot I would be giving them a wide berth.
      
      The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security announced Friday that they had suspended James Yeager’s handgun carry permit.
      Yeager, 42, of Camden, posted videos claiming he would “start killing people” if the Obama administration took executive action to pass gun control measures.
      
      http://www.wbir.com/news/article/249212/2/West-TN-man-loses-handgun-carry-permit-after-making-video-threats
http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

I don’t see anyone out side of NPR taking this seriously.�
Sorry.
- hennorama
  
  RWB – No worries, and thank you for your response. I respect your views.
  
  Out of curiosity, do you personally have specific objections?
sickofthechit

When talking about background checks, don’t forget about Auctions. There is no background check here in Kentucky that I have ever seen.
- hennorama
  
  sickofthechit – excellent point about auctions. Let’s simply say background checks for ALL firearms sales, to make it crystal clear. One could do it either through Federally licensed dealers, or law enforcement.
Gregg Smith

Most mass shooting’s occur in gun-free zones. Killers look for them. The Aurora shooter chose the only theater that had a sign that said “No guns allowed”. Why no suggestion to eliminate them? Will your ideology allow you to even consider it?
- 1Brett1
  
  Perhaps your idea could go a step farther and communities could be gated, with huge signs at the entrances that say, “Caution: members of this community own and use guns for protection, enter at your own risk.”
  - Gregg Smith
    
    I don’t know about gated communities but certainly a sign in window that said as much would make the house safer. I think the paper that published which houses had guns certainly put a target on the ones who don’t have guns. No question. However, it’s not my idea and I am not smart enough to advocate for or against it. I asked a question. I think it should be considered that’s all. Will it be? The record is clear.
    - 1Brett1
      
      Not sure what you meant by “the record is clear,” but having a sign in one’s window about there being guns in the house might just invite a thief looking to steal guns. I don’t think this would make the house safer.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Well we disagree on that one big time.
      
      The record is clear that most mass shootings occur in gun free zones (since their advent) such as in Sandy Hook, Aurora and many others. Not always but most.
    - jefe68
      
      You live in a fantasy world. There are so many variables to someone breaking into ones home that there is no way to know for sure if owning a gun will protect you.
      
      If someone breaks into your home when you are in deep sleep, good luck finding your gun let alone being able to defend yourself.
      
      Also most burglaries happen when people are not at home.
      
      Putting a sign that you own a gun seems a fools errand to me.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Alrighty then.
NotChuck

Some first amendment ideas:

1. Get rid of the Freedom of Information Act. It limits government activities, makes existing laws more difficult to enforce, and helps “a bad guy” cover up the truth.

Under FOIA, the Justice Department has to resort to “executive privilege” to cover up its illegal gun purchases and transfers to Mexican drug cartels. For instance, due to Atty Gen Holder’s stonewalling, it is nearly impossible to know how many Bushmaster .223s are used in crimes. This is like prohibiting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from disclosing the makes and models of vehicles with safety defects.

TA also requires that the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) destroy certain criminal background check records after only 24 hours. Gee, something to do with Congress’s specific legislation that NICS checks wouldn’t result in back-door gun registration. Only the law, but who cares when the end justifies the means?

2. Require background checks for all computer and smart phone sales, including private sales and sales at electronics shows.

3. Beef up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by getting all states to both send the data on felons and others restricted from firearms purchase, AND to use the NICS in their licensing and purchase transactions of computers, smart phones, and all other communications devices not covered by the expanded warrantless wiretap program of the DOJ.

4. Limit communication capacities and bandwidth.

5. Require all computers to be registered and insured if they are to be used for any communication outside the owner’s privately-owned property. This is similar to vehicle registration and insurance requirements. Computers and wireless devices outnumber vehicles and are roughly equivalent in both their numbers and involvements to drunk driving fatalities in the US.

[EDIT/ADD]:

6. Require anyone purchasing a communication device to be certified free of “mental defect” via an examination by a mental health professional. This would be somewhat similar to passing an eye exam for a driver’s license.

Currently, one needs only to attest to never having been “adjudicated mentally defective” OR never having “been committed to a mental institution.” And if the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) finds no matching record that shows an adjudication of mental defect or involuntary commitment (or other disqualifying records), then “the transaction is automatically proceeded.” This is much less restrictive than having the Buyer provide positive proof of being free from “mental defect.”

This is especially important due to the fact that someone suffering mental health issues seldom possesses the insight that they are ill, and denial of illness is itself part of their illness. They view themselves as being perfectly fine and in no need of help or treatment.

[Holder: "You like guns? You must be mentally ill! We're adding your name to the 'No Fly' list."

Citizen: "No, I'm not!"

Holder: "Of course you are! See, you're in denial!"

Isn't that how the KGB used to operate?]

Because society recognizes the risks involved, we require those applying for a driver’s license to pass an eye exam, and to demonstrate their ability to operate a motor vehicle via a driving test. Why can’t we do something similar for computers and wireless devices, due to the risks involved in their misuse?

Oh, that’s right, those pesky First Amendment issues! Well, the Founding Fathers never envisioned technological advances that would further diminish other rights, so let’s just add the First Amendment to the garbage heap of dead white guy ideas.
- hennorama
  
  The Supreme Court held in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (AKA “the Heller decision”) that:
  
  ” 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
  
  Note this portion: “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
  
  Therefore, SCOTUS acknowledges that laws CAN limit the possession, carrying and the commercial sale of firearms.
  
  Please show how any of your reductio ad absurdum “first amendment ideas” could be legal.
  - NotChuck
    
    “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” �
    The Miller decision was based on whether a sawed-off shotgun was a weapon “in common use at the time.” They held that the “Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.”
    
    So-called “assault” rifles, are certainly in common use today; therefore, under Miller, they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Yet gun-banners argue that they’re too much like military-type weapons to be allowed in the hands of private citizens!
    
    But that’s exactly who the militia is! The Court which decided Miller looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of “militia” as set down by the authors of the Constitution: “The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
    
    The Court obviously regarded the “militia” as separate and distinct from the National Guard, whose weapons were provided for by government. Several states have militias today as state-recognized entities, separate and distinct from the National Guard or the State Patrol. Therefore, the term is neither obsolete nor irrelevant.
    
    “Please show how any of your reductio ad absurdum “first amendment ideas” could be legal.” The Supreme Court decision that held first amendment rights are limited, such as prohibitions on yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater (Schenck v. US). “It is a fundamental principle, long established, that freedom of speech and of the press does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility. . .” (Gitlow v.New York). Let’s begin with the legal definition of “responsibility.” Whose definition? Newspapers publishing names and addresses of law-abiding state-licensed gun owners? Since the gun-banning crowd has attempted to intimidate law-abiding gun owners, calling for death threats against NRA members, claiming they kill children, maybe further legislation is required to prohibit such abuses.
    
    My point is that if 2nd Amendment rights are violated by those who choose to disregard them, 1st Amendment rights will surely follow suit. My “reductio ad absurdum” ideas may not seem so absurd to people who are ready to disregard the 1st Amendment rights of those who violated their 2nd Amendment rights — and the Courts have already established the legality of placing limitations on those 1st Amendment rights.

1Brett1

Jack Beatty used a term, “mentally incompetent.” He was saying something about using the SSA as a resource to determine who is “mentally incompetent,” or something along those lines…I’m not sure precisely what Jack was intending in his use of the phrase. He may have been using the term in a general sense instead of a legal sense.

We, all of us, are mentally competent until or unless we have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. This judicial process is usually employed to determine guardianship (who will make decisions about the person’s–in question–life). Many people with severe mental illness are competent, in that they haven’t been adjudicated incompetent; they make their own decisions about their lives.

Receiving benefits from SSA is not necessarily determined on the basis of legal competence, so I’m not sure breaching such confidentiality would help in terms of background checks.

We certainly have a problem with funding and treatment of mental illness in the US, and some of that bleeds over into the gun control issues and debates, but I’m not sure how we should proceed on the mental health side of the debate. Aside from all of the legal breaches that would be involved if someone had to be put on a list somewhere if he/she had ever received mental health services, the problem (in terms of trying to assess who might be a potential threat in the future) is in determining where a demarcation line should be for who is considered too tainted to warrant owning a gun.

http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

HIPA is considered a rood block to what you are advocating.
- Kiep99
  
  The correct abbreviation is HIPAA for the inadequate patient privacy/security act.
- 1Brett1
  
  Well, no, I wasn’t advocating anything that would interfere with HIPPAA, regs with which I am familiar. In fact, in this comment I was questioning any breach of confidentiality of a person’s patient records as an effective tool in determining suitability to own a gun (but mostly I was establishing distinguishing what actually “mentally incompetent” means from a legal standpoint).
  
  I don’t know why you got that impression.
  
  Considering your past comments that are, ostensibly, neo-conservative in nature, and presumably against forms of gun control, I would guess that you might not like HIPPAA just from an excessive regulation standpoint, on principle, in favor of government intrusion into people’s private lives to search medical records (of course this would be for those “others,” people who, unlike you, deserve to have their privacy violated due to any potential mental health issue THEY might have).
  
  Second Amendment rights for those flag-waiving Americans who would never go seek mental health services (that limp-wristed liberal idea, a product of a sissy society, when in this Country’s golden times people didn’t need “mental health services” [said with a high-pitched, wimpy, whiny lisp]), well, the founding principle trumps confidentiality rights…is that about right?
NotChuck

“We, all of us, are mentally competent until or unless we have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. This judicial process is usually employed to determine guardianship (who will make decisions about the person’s–in question–life).”

Not exactly, 1Brett1. 150,000 Gulf War vets’ suffering from PTSD were added to the NICS database with no adjudication, merely a bureaucrat’s pen. They, who fought and suffered to preserve YOUR freedoms are denied their own. Do they have problems which should deny them gun ownership? Probably. But for life?

Senator Tom Coburn wanted an amendment to the latest DoD appropriations bill requiring judicial determination of each individual case, but Senator Chuck Schumer refused to consider it. It is this attitude, and the associated stigma among career soldiers, that prevents veterans from getting the help they need. Even worse, it is this refusal by politicians to recognize that these people need help instead of being marked for life as somehow flawed from service to their country that is contributing to the high suicide rate among our servicemen and women.

hennorama

Given the topic of discussion was firearms, Mr. Gjelten may want to reconsider his use of the phrase “The President has become such a target ….”

Gregg Smith

That’s right, the last time Sarah Plain used it, “a bullet in the brain” of Gabby Giffords was the “consequence”.
- NotChuck
  
  There was an ad on ABC the other night pushing a new movie full of gun violence, mayhem, etc, by a really old looking Sylvester Stallone. Title of the movie? “Bullet to the Head.” Next commercial. Diane Sawyer interviews Gabby Giffords! Such sensitivity.

Shawn Thies

GUNS…we do not have to demonize gun owners. And i don’t understand why responsible gun owners defend the right to own an assault gun. No one is taking all guns away, but if the Obama administration doesn’t take this assault weapon issue head on, then they truly are push-overs… if assault weapons are not available for the taking, it does not matter if a person in mentally ill or not if they are unavailable If the sandy hook murderer’s mom didnt have that weapon for the taking, there would not have been such a horrible massacre, nor would those precious children have multiple bullets sprayed into their bodies.

Roy-in-Boise

The areas that I personally would not have a problem with is to
classify large capacity magazine as “Destructive Devices” and requiring
an FFL for possession. A 5 shot Bushmaster is simply a rifle. Add a hi
capacity mag and the weapon is then transformed into a “Destructive
Device.” … My fear is that is this is not the route that will be
taken. Any form of confiscation or recall of privately owned guns will
result in a massive national backlash. The Administration is playing
with fire on this one. Recent supreme court decisions have pretty much
demonstrated that this is federal territory and I suspect many of the
various new state laws will be challenged in court. Governors
like Andrew Cuomo may say what they will but I doubt the legality or
constitutionality of many of these new proposals. Cuomo’s continual
reference to deer hunting is a distraction to the greater issue, he
needs to change his tune as that has nothing to do with the 2nd
amendment.

1Brett1

So, you’re against states’ rights? You seem conservative…none of my business, mind you, it’s just that conservative folk generally like the Federal government staying out of their state affairs…course, that probably has to do with state conservative positions being protected NOT liberal state issues; those don’t need protection (because we all know they just want more government anyway so let them see what that REALLY means, know what I’m sayin’?).

Derick_Mickles

Obama used mind control to force all the shooters to kill when the Fiscal Cliff talks were being held. Obama is a KGB Agent, and is responsible for Sandy Hook.

TomK_in_Boston

Well, Bush was an Iranian agent.
1Brett1

What’s really disturbing is (based on your previous visits to this forum): you really believe all of this.

I didn’t know they had unsupervised weekend passes for you?! (unless they are supervised and you’ve fooled your supervisor into letting you get online)…Behave yourself; you may want to get out again next weekend!
- Derick_Mickles
  
  What’s more disturbing is that you see a difference between the statement above and the idea that Guns killed people in the shootings. The people killed them you dolt, and each one was on psychotropic medication. I did it to make a point, because I knew you couldn’t resist helping me make it.
  - 1Brett1
    
    There’s no credible evidence that any of the killers in any of the mass shootings in the past couple of years was on psychotropic medication…but I guess that too was all part of Obama’s plan?
    
    He knows hearsay and unsubstantiated rumor will be discredited by dolts like me, right? …Very diabolical of Obama to NOT be a kind of Manchurian candidate but to have a whole army of them who attack at strategic moments when he gives the command. But don’t you think his mad plans are implemented by a combination of psychotropic meds AND some secret command word fed through hypnosis?
    - Derick_Mickles
      
      Private Gun Ownership is the most liberal idea in modern government. The Militia is defined as a non-professional force. AR-15′s are the modern day musket. The Founding Fathers were wise, and you are no liberal Brett. You remind me of the old saying “The only people left in the KKK are FBI Informants.”
    - jefe68
      
      Such inanity.
    - hennorama
      
      You may have omitted an s there, boss.
    - jefe68
      
      That as well…
    - Derick_Mickles
      
      P.S. Everyone of them was on medication and it’s not only credible, and substantiated, it’s easy to find. LOL! You really are losing control aren’t you. All the shootings happen during Fiscal Cliffs. Just like Bengazi, Obama and crew are caught red handed and sweating bullets.
- Derick_Mickles
  
  I notice you’re here all day everyday. Are you an employee of any State or Federal organization?
  - hennorama
    
    Like a swallow to Capistrano, the loon returns. WB, and thanks for the comic relief.
  - 1Brett1
    
    Yes, Derrick, I do work for a covert governmental agency, and we are monitoring your movements very closely through the tracking device we had installed in your jaw the last time you went to your dentist (who, by the way, also works with the same covert operations division).
    - Derick_Mickles
      
      I know. I work for one that outranks yours.

Derick_Mickles

The Bushmaster Rifle was found in the trunk of his car. It was not used in the shooting.

jefe68

No he used a semi-automatic rifle. Of course you’re not interested in facts, just spreading your foul memes on this forums. People like you are either clowns trying to make things up because they think it’s funny or they really do believe what they post. Which ever you are you represent what one would call pond scum.

TomK_in_Boston

If BHO has the nerve to issue the platinum coin (I know, he doesn’t), as a very dedicated swimmer, I hope Michael Phelps is on it:

http://nbcolympictalk.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/bal-michael-phelps-nominated-for-face-of-trill-001-e1357750268669.jpeg?w=264

Derick_Mickles

All the shootings happen around the times of Fiscal Cliff talks.

harverdphd

Flu panic…so much for government oversight and regulation.

sickofthechit

Did you wash your hands after leaving the bathroom? A study by one of the National Clinics (Cleveland I think) found that doctors were the worst violators spreading germs from patient to patient.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Now Charles, doesn’t that sign in bathrooms (“employees must wash hands afterwards”) in every retail and industrial bathroom just reek of BigBrotherism?
nj_v2

People run red lights and speed. Clear evidence we need to do away with traffic laws since they obviously aren’t working.

Or maybe you weren’t trying to make a more subtle point than the obviously inane one you seemed to be making.
- Gregg Smith
  
  You’re dead wrong. What we need are more traffic laws.
jefe68

Hyperbolic.

JONBOSTON

Two issues I take issue with Republicans and conservatives –guns and a woman’s right to choose. As for the former, notwithstanding the 2nd amendment, I do not understand why any reasonable person would object to limits or an outright ban on assault rifles (assuming it’s clearly defined). The right to bear arms can’t be interpreted so broadly to include all armaments no matter their firepower, if that were so then why not permit people to own grenade launchers, submachine guns, etc.? If Republicans want to demonstrate an ability to reach out to those moderate Democrat leaning voters who can be reached, this might be the issue.

TomK_in_Boston

When I started reading about the amazing rash of problems with the Boeing 787, with a cracked windshield and oil leak today, and I knew they had tried to bust their union by moving production to “right to work for less” SC, I strongly suspected that the problems were due to the MBAs searching the world for cheap labor to undercut their high quality, high cost American workers. IOW, standard corporate class warfare.

With a little google I found this article at the lefty rag, Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/boeing-has-an-airplane-problem-not-a-pr-problem/

“The company was convinced by one or more management consulting firms to outsource design and production of the 787’s components. While this idea might make sense for sourcing coffeemakers, it was a nonsense approach to assembling perhaps the most complicated and potentially dangerous machines shy of nuclear reactors. I’m sure blather from the HBR supported the idea that distances between factories in Seattle and Outer Mongolia were no farther than a VOIP chat, but the reality was a mess. Parts didn’t fit together with others. Some suppliers subcontracted work to their suppliers and then shrugged at problems with assembly. When one part wasn’t available, the next one that depended on it couldn’t be attached and the global supply chain all but seized up. Boeing had to spend $1 billion in 2009 to buy one of the worst offenders and bring the work back in-house.

It didn’t help that the outsourcing plan included skipping the detailed blueprints the company would have normally prepared, and allowing vendors to come up with their own. Delivered components arrived with instructions and notes written in Chinese, Italian, and other languages…..”

Well there you go. The effing “entitled” management scum strike again, grabbing their enormous compensation for being morons and siphoning wages out of the USA.

The icing on the cake would be finding that Bane Capital was involved, but I think that’s too much to hope for

Fredlinskip

At the time the 2nd Amendment was enacted, if a man 30 feet away was running at you with a hatchet in hand with intention to do you harm, you would be lucky to get a shot off, much less an accurate one.

A sane person should realize that no one should need a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a few seconds for self-defense. Those that like to use these weapons to get their “rocks off” in target practice, should realize that they need to balance their “freedom” to enjoy this pleasure against the “freedom” of someone who may some day for some unforeseen reason, become “unhinged” and commit mass murder.
Somewhere between a squirt gun and a missile launcher there should be a line drawn as to what a citizen needs own to protect themselves.
Keep in mind there will be even more efficient instruments of mass carnage invented for folks to own in the future. Let’s curb the trend now a bit.
Aye?

hennorama

Every time I read about “the right to bear arms” I think of wifebeater-wearing arrestees on COPS – they have the “right to bare arms,” and Stephen Colbert’s worst nightmare – the right to arm bears.
http://rlv.zcache.com/the_right_to_bare_arms_attitude_tank_top_tshirt-p235240751172458669qn8v_400.jpg
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/Wife%20beater.jpg
http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/dartfrog_bucket/the-right-to-arm-bears-demotivation.jpg
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210979/december-01-2008/exclusive—godless-killing-machines-mash-up
- 1Brett1
  
  I don’t agree with Colbert’s fear…I mean there could be a few plain-clothed, armed bears in national parks to stop crazy human shooters. This seems reasonable for bears’ personal protection. I’m gonna go out on a limb, though, and say conceal and carry laws probably wouldn’t work for bears; open carry seems a better way for them to go…I welcome any input on this forum from the bear community, however.
  - hennorama
    
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/kavanf1/armbears.jpg
TomK_in_Boston

Exactly. Somewhere between the deer rifle in the closet and the equipment of the 82′nd airborne is a line that should be drawn.

I have no problem with the deer rifle, but I must say I see no personal rights in the 2′nd amendment. If the Founding Fathers were concerned about personal rights, they would not have started the sentence with the bit about the Militia:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It seems obvious to me that the intent was that citizens would have their muskets handy when the Militia was called out, so the gvt would not have to provide them. However, the current equivalent of the Militia, the National Guard, does not make use of the members’ personal weapons, so the 2′nd Amendment has actually become completely irrelevant.
- Fredlinskip
  
  I agree.
  I wish news commentators and elected officials would speak as eloquently now and then, instead of more often then not, becoming intimidated by the less than sound arguments of NRA folks.
  
  As far as trying to have rational conversation with those among us who are arming themselves in the event Special Forces units drop in via helicopter in to take their high powered weapons away, I think that cause is lost. These folks should seek psychological help. Those who don’t, I wish would get together and set up their own “Free” military state of Warlords somewhere far away.�
  Since neither is likely to happen, the least the rest of us can do is pity these folks and ignore their ravings.
  
  IM(humble)O
- NotChuck
  
  You don’t need to see personal rights in the 2nd Amendment; the Supreme Court has already answered that for you. The Founding Fathers started the 2nd Amendment about the militia because they had already provided Congress the authority to provide for a small standing army. The citizens of the states were being reminded that they had the responsibility to keep any federal army in check from misuse by a potential tyrant. For the most part, citizens did not have muskets; they had rifles, which were technologically more advanced than muskets. Later, they had percussion cap ignition systems long before their adoption by the Army. Same with brass cartridges vs paper, lever action multiple shot rifles vs single shot, bolt action rifles vs trapdoors. The National Guard is not the current equivalent of the militia, it is a state organization that can be federalized. The militia is still the citizenry, and the 2nd Amendment is as relevant today as when it was written. After the “progressives” succeed in disarming the citizens, who will stop the military coup that overthrows the progressive welfare state?
  - TomK_in_Boston
    
    I don’t need DC insiders to help me read a simple sentence, I’m a native English speaker and I understand sentence structure. The second clause follows from the first. The Constitution says that BECAUSE the state – ie the government – needs a well-regulated militia, there is a right to bear arms.
    
    Once the arms-bearing has nothing to do with providing the government with its well-regulated militia, the whole thing is irrelevant. It’s as if I wrote “Because I need this work done, you have a right to be paid.” and you claim I should pay you when you’re not working.
    
    The FF would be amused that the “well-regulated militia” is the citizenry in your view.
    - NotChuck
      
      “The FF would be amused that the ‘well-regulated militia” is the citizenry in your view.”
      
      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason at the Virginia Convention, 1790. Sounds kinda like the citizenry to me!
      
      Actually, the Constitution — the document that defines what the federal government is supposed to do — says that Congress shall provide for the organizing, training, arming, and disciplining of the militia, and nothing about “well-regulated.” It also delegates to the states the authority to appoint its officers, train and discipline the militia.
      
      The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights — the other document that places limits on what the federal government can do (checks and balances) — refers to a “well-regulated militia” as being necessary to the security of a free state, while affirming the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms and demanding that it shall not be infringed. States and Governments have “powers.” People have “rights.”
      
      Any reading of the Founding Fathers — even by people who understand sentence structure — would know that they felt the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was a Natural Right that pre-dated the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution. Rights were not / are not conferred upon people by government. They are endowed by their Creator (no Creator, no Rights).
      
      Therefore, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is irrespective of the existence of the militia.
      
      Furthermore, the requirement to provide for arming the militia by Congress was never meant that they would provide the actual firearms. They couldn’t afford to! Why go to the expense of producing firearms for the militia if they were only being called up in times of emergency? They decided to require the individuals to bring their own weapons and ammo when they were mustered in, as long as it met minimum calibers and they provided a minimum weight of ammo.
      
      However, when the Supreme Court decided Miller v. US, they said that sawed-off shotguns could not be owned by citizens because they weren’t military style weapons, and that citizens should own military style weapons so they could be part of the militia. And their historical research concluded that the Founding Fathers expected the individuals who comprised the militia to provide their own weaponry.
      
      “The second clause [of the 2nd Amendment] follows from the first.” Actually, the first clause follows from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The second clause can stand alone as it’s own sentence. As the first clause refers to a free “state,” it is limiting a power set forth in the Constitution. The second clause is describing what cannot be done to a right of the “people.” It cannot be infringed.
      
      Unlike the other first ten Amendments, which are qualified with “Congress shall make no law,” “but in a manner prescribed by law,” “but upon probable cause,” “except on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” and “other than according to common law” the 2nd Amendment relies on no qualifiers. “Shall Not Be Infringed.” Therefore, no, I don’t agree that “reasonable gun regulations” have anything to do with a well-regulated militia. And I don’t agree that “reasonable gun regulations” are anything but an infringement of my right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and my right to self-defense from an overreaching progressive tyrannical government and other criminals.
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      The FF chose their words carefully. They did not simply say there is a right to bear arms, they did not say there is a right to bear arms because the government needs a militia – they said there is a right to bear arms because the government needs a WELL-REGULATED militia.
      
      So, fine, let’s play it your way. The citizens are the militia, so let’s get WELL-REGULATIN’
    - NotChuck
      
      You need to keep reading before you start typing. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does the word “because” appear?
      
      Besides, already been “well-regulated;” I’m enjoying my individual rights now. They didn’t stop just because I’m less “well-regulated” than in my previous careers.
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      I already explained sentence structure, I’m not your ESL teacher.
    - NotChuck
      
      You’re not anybody’s teacher, I hope, because you’ve shown yourself to be uneducable as well as intellectually uncurious — especially since you can’t produce the word from the text that gives the sentence the meaning you want it to have.
  - jefe68
    
    By the way, if the military wanted to take over this nation they could do it and all the armred citizens in this nation going on about tyranny and gun rights wont be able to a damn thing about it. A bunch of well armed citizens would not be much of a match for a company of Rangers. How about the 1st Cavalry Division or an armored division with drone and air support.
    
    You go on about “progressives” disarming the citizens, which is a complete load bull dung, as if you and your AR 15 would stand a glimmer of a chance against a well trained platoon of Marines from France let alone the US.
    - NotChuck
      
      “All the armred [sic] citizens in this nation . . . won’t [sic] be able to do a damn thing about it.” In an all-out firefight, probably not, at least against those who place paycheck and power above liberty. On the other hand, look what’s happening in Syria.
      
      “You go on about “progressives” disarming the citizens, which is a complete load bull dung, as if you and your AR 15 would stand a glimmer of a chance against a well trained platoon of Marines.” So by extension, you believe that we already live in a military dictatorship, where platoons of well-trained Marines allow us to enjoy our circumscribed freedoms? How are you so sure that at least some of those well-trained Marines don’t feel the same way I do?
    - jefe68
      
      No I don’t think we live in a military dictatorship and the fact that you even parse this makes we wonder about the level of paranoia you have on this subject.
      
      The US military is a lot more sophisticated than the Syrian military and better trained as well.
      If you think a bunch of guys with AR15′s can take on the US military you are very much mistaken. Anyway this kind idea and your Red Dawn world view on the subject is a bit much.
    - NotChuck
      
      Then why is everybody so afraid of a few guys with AR-15′s that they feel the need to take them away? Oh, that’s right, “if we save just one life. . . .” But if we have to mow down a few otherwise law-abiding citizens who disagree with having their property confiscated, well, that’s just the breaks. Their mistake was they preferred being citizens to being subjects.
- Fredlinskip
  
  I have “borrowed” much of your final paragraph and posted in another discussion- hope you are not offended.
  - NotChuck
    
    Fredlinskip – you might like to borrow this from the United States Code (federal law) as well:
    
    “10 USC § 311 – MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [former members of the armed forces up to age 65], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.�
    (b) The classes of the militia are—�
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and�
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
    
    Wow! I wonder how “well-regulated” the unorganized militia is? If they’re part of the militia, but not “well-regulated” do they just forfeit their right to keep and bear arms?
    
    To help TomK in Boston out with sentence structure, I added his word “Because” and inserted “unorganized militia” instead of “people” so he can read it better.
    
    “(Because) a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [unorganized militia] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    
    I wonder if he’s even aware that he is/was a member of the militia (assuming he’s an able-bodied citizen)?

Duras

I would like to say thanks to AIG for giving us another example of why we need serious social reforms.

Duras

Archie Bunker on gun control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM&list=LLe23KQy4yMdph6WkwyYvF0w

Gregg Smith

I love that clip!

M_issy_21

Is it possible for OnPoint to add a button for readers to have the program transcript online ? That way, we could select the news section we want to share online.

Gregg Smith

Piers Morgan found out the hard way that Ben Shapiro is not Alex Jones.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/11/video-piers-morgan-discovers-ben-shapiro-isnt-alex-jones/

http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

We’ve gotten to the “just link to partisan shit and don’t even try to put it in one’s own words” portion of the thread? Already?
- Gregg Smith
  
  I guess, I’m not as eloquent nor as knowledgeable as Mr. Shapiro.

Gregg Smith

An attempt at some non-partisan questions:

Was anyone, especially females, offended by Brent Musburger’s remarks on ESPN?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPdjX4Kya7o

Or Kathy Griffin’s performance on CNN?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKRccr6Q2Ow

ESPN apologized, CNN did not. Should both have apologized or should neither have apologized. Or should CNN apologized and not ESPN? Or was it just right?

Gregg Smith

I entered some text in a reply then disqus went a little bookie and quit responding so I hit refresh. I got a message from On Point that reminded me there was text on the page. It gave me 2 options: cancel and “reload”. Disgusting. How soon we forget.

Potter

How can a background check cover a situation where a family member, like Adam Lanza might take the assault rife an do what he did?

Get rid of assault rifles. Improve mental health education- it should not be such a stigma or difficult to get care. Families have a responsibility to intervene when someone who is ill refuses care. Let the owners of guns be known publicly. Liability insurance- yes too.

If the NRA wants to stand firm on their positions, then let’s campaign against them.

Joe Biden is, it seems, looking to get minimum done as teh five weeks of our ( and the media’s) attention spans come to an end.

ExcellentNews

How can we ban assault weapons ?!?! If we were to do this, the five billionaire owners of Blackstone Capital (good friends of Bush and the Republican Establishment) will see their annual profit cut by 6.5% !!!! Also, Chinese jobs making gun parts will be lost. A much better idea is to give another 50% tax cut to the billionaire oligarchs. The resulting explosion (no pun intended!) of job creation will surely also lead to less gun violence in schools. After all, we were the first country in the world to put the word “gun” in “school”, so we surely can give another tax perk to our automatic weapon manufacturers….

ExcellentNews

Also, did Jesus preach gun control? No – you will never find the words “gun control” in the Bible. So, preventing unstable trolls from buying 15 guns and 2500 ammo clips is not only anti-american, it is also anti-Christian! No wonder the liberal media wants an assault weapons ban…
- 1Brett1
  
  Well, duh?! Gun control was invented by liberals, just like dinosaurs; you don’t read anything about them in the Bible, either, so…
- Fredlinskip
  
  Lest this comment be misread, I believe sarcasm was the intent, folks.

JGC

Not many realize this, but Wayne LaPierre is actually a Cyborg. Really. I am sure it would be possible to peel back his “face” and reveal the circuitry that has enabled him to monotonously intone his support for all weaponry, regardless of use or intent to the 2nd amendment.

Here is an excerpt from Dick Cavett interviewing LaPierre: “I had Wayne as a guest on the show once. He may not remember, because I’m not sure he ever saw me. His eyes and consciousness seem to bypass you somehow, and focus somewhere in an undefined middle distance. The words sound memorized; he has an affect that might best be described as “nobody home.”

This fits with a description I read of a recent chance meeting of a parent of a shooting victim with LaPierre. He said face to face, LaPierre was gracious, and agreed to another more in-depth meeting with the parent, but then never responded to communications from that person ever after. In fact, went out of his way to avoid any communication with a shooting victim parent. Even went aggressively out of his way to avoid any victim parents.

What does that say about people who support the NRA and Waynebot LaPierre, as opposed to for example, Ducks Unlimited?

Gregg Smith

Brett you wrote:

Perhaps your idea could go a step farther and communities could be gated, with huge signs at the entrances that say, “Caution: members of this community own and use guns for protection, enter at your own risk.”

You sir, are prescient.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/patriotic-group-build-armed-defensible-neighborhood-fortress

Mike_Card

Sort of brings to mind the notion of “self-deportation.”
1Brett1

How did you know I’d enjoy this article…you know, for pure, fun-poking fodder?

The article starts out:

“A group of like-minded patriots, bound together by pride in American exceptionalism, plan on building an armed community to protect their liberty.”

They plan to call their “gated” community, Citadel, an “armed defensible neighborhood fortress.” It should “comprise 3,500 to 7,000 families of patriotic Americans.”

Residents plan to live by “Rightful Liberty.” Including (but not limited to) “keep[ing] their noses out of other neighbors’ business…” In fact the residents will be bound by a whole slew of tenets (that seem very loose, general and open to arbitrary interpretation). They plan to live by and be proficient in “the American icon of Liberty–the Rifle…” They also plan to have their own school system that “educate(s)” their children “not indoctrinate(s)”!

Oh, and here’s my favorite part of the article (of course, it’s all so good, ALL worthy of good satire):

“While Citadel may sound wonderful to many who are reading this, the community has posted a warning on their home page:

‘Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles.’”

I wonder what they’ll do if someone proves NOT to fit in? I see people minding their business and the aforementioned warning to be at odds.
- Gregg Smith
  
  They’ll a rich target for gun thieves.
  - 1Brett1
    
    Of course, you know that is a complete distortion of my point, in an earlier reply to you.
    
    As far as thieves go, they’ll not have to worry about that. I doubt there’ll be many visitors, either.
    
    Out of, say, 7,000 people, do you think there might be conflict, or at least some disagreement, from time to time? How would this “community” handle those who choose to dissent? I hope this comes to fruition…I’m sure we’ll hear of some mass tragedy in this community at some point, but of a different nature than in normal society….Mark my prescient words! Then, maybe bigger gates and taller fences, with each home being surrounded like a fortress; more rules and restrictions; bigger guns…and so on.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      C’mon man! It’s like a gun thief jackpot.
      
      I suppose for some it’s easy to believe anyone who has a bunch of guns is one step closer to a murderer. Not me.
      
      I would predict a crime free zone but who knows? Someone may go nuts and have the trigger pull their finger.
      
      I just thought you nailed it, that’s all, so I gave you your due. I don’t advocate one way or another just the right to do what they feel they need to do. I hope President Obama will stand for that much freedom. I hope they aren’t Bible thumpers too. The record when the first two amendments are practiced with zeal is the government doesn’t like it. They might burn you and your children alive.
- jefe68
  
  “Rightful Liberty”? What a load of bunk.
  These people sound like paranoid gun toting zealots. I’m reminded of all those “ right wing militias in the late 80′s and early 90′s which culminated in Ruby Ridge and the bombing in Oklahoma City’s federal building.
  
  They also plan to have their own school system that “educate(s)” their children “not indoctrinate(s)”!
  
  Really now, seems to me what they are advocating is indoctrination to their beliefe system.
brettearle

These so-called Patriots–who seek a closed, gated community–are, very likely, a group of hapless paranoids, who cannot accommodate the demographic and political changes in American society.

They use mass murders that are rare; tax revolt; abortion; gun control; Islamic fundamentalism; abortion; Immigration policy; the anachronistic concept of Rugged Individualism; the ill-perceived rise of Socialism; and a contempt for an egalitarian culture as a way to close themselves off from society…..because

THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT AMERICA WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE BIZARRE, EXTREME AND RADICAL PERCEPTION, AND CONCEPTION, THAT THEY HAVE FOR OUR COUNTRY.

May God have Mercy on their Souls.
- Gregg Smith
  
  Or not.
  
  Tell them what they think and criticize them for thinking it. Well played.
  - brettearle
    
    Thank you.
    
    And, especially coming from you, I take it, deeply and
    sincerely, as a special compliment and a very stellar feather in my
    cap….
    
    Thanks, again…..
jefe68

Do you ascribe to this kind of ideology?
- Gregg Smith
  
  I don’t care one way or the other.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Doesn’t matter if he can honestly say he doesn’t. He thinks it’s a news site, that’s good enough for click-pimping. And then next scaredy-cat at NPR will say “We need to get CNS in on this as one side of the conversation“.
  
  That’s the kind of mission CNS is on.
  - jefe68
    
    CNS is a lot of things, a news organization does not seem to be one of them.
    
    Posting a link says a lot about the person who posts it.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/citadel-community-idaho_n_2473303.html
  - Gregg Smith
    
    I don’t know a thing about CNS including your obsession with the messenger. Are you saying the story is made up? If not then who cares where it comes from?
    
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/citadel-community-idaho_n_2473303.html
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      “I don’t know a thing about CNS”
      
      Hey, you’re the ignorant, not I. I’m not saying anything about the story, just standing here in amazement that you know nothing about a news “service” that doesn’t get printed anywhere but in right-wing propaganda organs. But somehow, you, who doesn’t know anything about CNS, links to it.
      
      Your continual linking to right wing shitstormers speaks volumes about you.
      
      If something one of your click-pimping sites says is accurate, then someone else will say it.
      
      Linking to the HuffPo is much more reliable than linking to CNS.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      It’s the same story, who cares?
      
      Commenters around here are constantly belly-aching about irrelevant sources then trotting out Krugman, Media Matters or Think Progress. It’s hilarious.
Mike_Card

I’m a bit cautious, since it’s my first exposure to “cns news.” But does anyone else suspect that maybe this whole thing is made up by a journalistic staff of, say, one jokester?

The reverberations from the Kalispell culture seem to make it just too easy…
- Mike_Card
  
  This is probably only doing what the originators were hoping for, but the entertainment environment is just TOO rich! http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/patriot-group-looks-to-create-armed-community-in-idaho-montana/article_3f4368e3-407c-590e-9263-594456826987.html
- Gregg Smith
  
  I can’t vouch for the source but it makes perfect sense. Idaho is kinda famous for these things.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  CNS is not a News Service. They are a righty hack talking points propaganda pusher. They exist to produce shite which looks and sounds like journalism for fools or knaves who need their fears confirmed.
  
  Look to see where their stories run. Then look to see where McClatchy or Reuters’ output runs.

brettearle

These so-called Patriots–who seek a closed, gated community–are, very
likely, a group of hapless paranoids, who cannot accommodate the
demographic and political changes in American society.

They use
mass murders that are rare; tax revolt; abortion; gun control; Islamic
fundamentalism; abortion; Immigration policy; the anachronistic concept
of Rugged Individualism; the ill-perceived rise of Socialism; and a
contempt for an egalitarian culture as a way to close themselves off
from society…..because

THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT AMERICA
WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE BIZARRE, EXTREME AND RADICAL PERCEPTION, AND
CONCEPTION, THAT THEY HAVE FOR OUR COUNTRY.

May God have Mercy on their Souls.

Guests

From Tom’s Reading List