90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Guns, Algeria Hostages, Dreamliner Grounded

The President’s push on guns. Hostage nightmare in Algeria. Boeing’s Dreamliner grounded. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

An All Nippon Airways flight sits at Takamatsu airport in Takamatsu, western Japan after it made an emergency landing Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013. The flight to Tokyo from Ube in western Japan landed at the airport after a cockpit message showed battery problems, in the latest trouble for the Boeing 787 “Dreamliner.” (AP)

An All Nippon Airways flight sits at Takamatsu airport in Takamatsu, western Japan after it made an emergency landing Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013. The flight to Tokyo from Ube in western Japan landed at the airport after a cockpit message showed battery problems, in the latest trouble for the Boeing 787 “Dreamliner.” (AP)

Guns, hostages, and Lance Armstrong in the news this week. America and guns, as the President makes his pitch for new gun safety, controls, background checks, limits in defense of life.

Instant blowback claimed on the French in Mali in a hostage nightmare in Algeria. Don’t mess with the Algerian army.

We’ve got Boeing’s Dreamliner on the ground. The skies of Beijing in epic smog. Lance Armstrong confessing to Oprah. An inauguration on the way. And Dear Abby goes to her reward.

This hour, our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Jake Tapper, anchor and chief Washington correspondent for CNN, starting on January 23rd. Author of “The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor.” (@jaketapper)

Kelly O’Donnell, Capitol Hill correspondent for NBC News. (@kellyo)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

ABC News “President Obama said Wednesday that his plan to curb gun violence would not come to fruition ‘unless the American people demand it.’   And today, he began mobilizing his still-active presidential campaign apparatus to do just that.”

The Guardian “The Algerian military operation at the gas field near In Amenas is still going on, the communications minister said on national television. ‘Unfortunately we deplore some deaths and some people wounded,’ said Communications Minister Mohamed Said Belaid. ‘We don’t yet have the numbers.’”

Chicago Tribune “With its new plane ordered to stay on the ground, Boeing Co. confronts a full-fledged crisis as it struggles to regain the confidence of passengers and the airline customers who stood by the 787 Dreamliner during years of cost overruns and delivery delays.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Duras

    HSBC (and the banking industry) is above the law and republicans don’t care.  But just try to propose gun restrictions through a government body of our democraticishly elected representatives and you are King Obama.  How is it easier to get the Patriot Act passed than an assault weapons ban? 

    Bradley Manning has been in prison without a trial for around 3  years for whistle blowing.  Yet, the bankers who wined and dined at the White House and caused the financial collapse are still floating away on their golden parachutes. 

    I’m have never been a believer in the death penalty, but it is hard to argue against George Carlin’s logic, especially in light of HSBC:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

    • WRB2

      What about the LIBOR scandal, went no where over here.  People cared less, most of the media could not explain the connection to EVERY loan and credit card people have.

      We have come so far in so many ways but some times it still seems to come down to bread and circus.

      • Duras

        We can far after FDR.  After Reagan, republicans have successfully dismantled much of what American liberalism created.  And stupid republicans think the middle class is falling apart because, since 1980, all of the sudden, people decided to not work hard.  

    • William

       Republicans don’t care? Who is the President? Manning a whistle blower? Not even close..try traitor….

      • Duras

        No, you idiot republicans don’t care about banks being above the law.  It it republicanism deregulation and the unrealistic idea the moral hazard works when you let banks get too big to fail.  You created this crap, and when Obama says we need social reforms, you stupid stupid idiots call him a socialist, Marxist or whatever unreality you can dream of to keep this structure in place.  

        You are a serf.  Your head is manacled in neo-Feudalism.  Go protect you Lord of the Manner, Creators of Jobs, you stupid idiot.

        So, much for Manning who released a tap of American soldiers murdering unarmed people–yeah, murder is something that should never be brought to light.  You are disgusting.  

  • Fredlinskip

    Must admit I don’t quite get how rational people insist that they must have weapons capable of killing dozens of folks in seconds. 
    For self defense? They must be REALLY bad shots.
    Because it’s a “freedom” enshrined in B of R and we’s all about “Freedom”?
    No, not really, the 2nd Amendment is pretty ambiguous- it seems to endorse well-trained militias- not particularly armed to the teeth vigilantes. 
    Is it because we need to have super weapons to fend off our own Gov? 
    That’s so ridiculous a supposition it doesn’t even merit discussion.
      Is it because responsible gun owners deserve to enjoy the hobby they love with whatever weapon they choose? 
    I can understand that, but firmly believe they may need sacrifice this privilege (sorry), so as that it might be harder for those less responsible to access guns.
       Is it impossible to imagine that a once responsible gun- owner might one day lose it? Is it impossible to imagine a gun owner not locking his weapons away securely enough that someone not so responsible may one day get access?

    It seems to me that these folks, for all their bluster, don’t have “leg to stand on”, morally or ethically, but also realize that this hasn’t stopped them in the past.
    I’m hoping that sanity will prevail, some common sense steps will be taken, and the administration’s current initiatives will be passed.

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

      TLDR

      • Fredlinskip

        Understandable- as you indicated yesterday you hadn’t ever bothered to read the WHOLE sentence that is our 2nd amendment. 

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

          I last commented 6 days ago.  You must have me confused with some one else.

          • Fredlinskip

            You’re right- confused you with Brandstad (both post American flag)

    • sickofthechit

      They seem to be able to scream a lot louder than the rest of us, and they have guns….lots of guns.

    • NotChuck

      “Don’t quite get how rational people insist that they must have weapons capable of killing dozens of folks in seconds. 
      Self defense? They must be REALLY bad shots.”
      Last Fall, two NYPD cops hit eight innocent bystanders while taking down a single armed perp from a distance of 5 yards.  And they’re the “pro’s.” 

      Unless you’ve been in, or even been trained to react to, a life-or-death situation such as an assault by an armed assailant, please keep your criticisms of other people’s marksmanship to yourself. 

      • Fredlinskip

        So if same situation occurred, if someone in self-defense, who wasn’t a pro, had an assault weapon, there would have been less “collateral damage”, I suppose?
          At any rate, one singled out incident proves nothing.

        • NotChuck

          There goes your pretzel logic again.  The point was in a high adrenalin state, even the best people miss shots.  So YOUR point, I suppose, is to let the bad guys take the good guys out (the bad guys WILL have high capacity semi-automatic weapons) just to prevent collateral damage?  At any rate, there are thousands of examples of that, which proves something.

          • Fredlinskip

            See “New comment”

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    A galaxy that is 4 billion light years in width; now that’s a news story ! A galaxy so large that it challenges the “truth” of Einstein’s “Cosmological Principal”. Oh wait, maybe the real story is that this discovery demonstrates that the Science that was “certain” last week was not really “Scientific Truth” at all ! Oh, wait, wait; maybe the REAL STORY is that we humans are full of hubris and follow the leader !

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/14/quasar-cluster-largest-object-einstein_n_2470562.html?utm_hp_ref=uk?ncid=GEP

    Enjoy your weekend !

  • Ed75

    In Nigeria Catholic and other Christian churches have been bombed, while congregations were inside, many killed. The Obama administration says this is not religious violence (?), but is a result of poverty, so they give money to Nigeria, which is given to communities … who attack churches.

    In Egypt the Copts are starting to flee in big numbers. A woman was born Christian, converted to Islam on marrying a Muslim, and converted back on his death, and their children converted. They were put in prison, the authorities who signed the new identity cards with a new religion got five years.

    And the Egyptian government told the U.S. visiting group that there was religious freedom in the country, and the U.S. large funding continues.

    (Doesn’t President Moursi look like a gorilla, or is it me?)

  • StilllHere

    Debt ceiling, sequestration, budget … we’re another week closer and still no leadership by the president to get the out of control entitlement spending reformed.  $16T+ in debt and growing everyday.  The ice is getting thin.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Get your Waders on everybody.

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

    Stories not cover include:
    FTA:
    What has been made public is that, following the high court’s Jan. 23 decision, the Federal Bureau of Investigation pulled the plug on some 3,000 GPS trackers. The bureau’s general counsel, Andrew Weissmann, acknowledged that fact while speaking at a legal symposium at the University of San Francisco last year.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/fbi-surveillance-strategy/

    • Mike_Card

      What does it mean when you type FTA?  I assume something different from what it meant when penciled in by draftees during the “conflict” in Viet Nam.

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

    FTA:
    … Earlier this week, Fitch put the U.S. government on notice: Yes, it
    wants the debt limit raised without a major fight, but it also warned that the
    fundamental strengths of the country’s creditworthiness “are being eroded by
    the large, albeit steadily declining, structural budget deficit and high and
    rising public debt.” Without a credible medium term deficit reduction plan, the
    agency says, a downgrade of the U.S.
    credit rating is likely by the end of this year.   
    http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/17/weve-raised-the-debt-limit-many-times-be

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

    FTA:
    Aaron’s alleged “crime” was that he used MIT’s network to access a database of academic journal articles (JSTOR) and download millions of those articles to his laptop computer. He didn’t “hack” the network to secure those downloads: MIT is a famously open network. He didn’t crack any special password system to get behind JSTOR’s digital walls. He simply figured out how JSTOR was filing the articles that he wanted, and wrote a simple script to quickly gather those articles and then copy them to his machine.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/13/01/aarons-law/267247/#

  • StilllHere

    I’ve heard criticism that the Sandy bill and fiscal cliff law were both full of earmarks and pork.  True?  If so, nothing has changed.  Nobody in DC is taking the crisis of spending seriously and we are doomed.

    • hennorama

      StilllHere – yes, yes and the sky is falling, too.  One needs an ornithologist to determine whether you are Chicken Little, or a parrot.  The key difference seems to involve the beak, but I digress.

      Can you prove your claim that there is  “…crisis of spending … and we are doomed?”  Can you point out any actual negative impacts of recent Federal Deficits and increased Federal Debt?  Alternatively, how have the Federal Deficit and Federal Debt impacted YOU? 
      I don’t expect a response, but I’ve been wrong before.

  • sickofthechit

    Mr. (Richard?) McKay who is co-president of Whole Foods was on NPR Thursday Afternoon.  He needs to actually read the definition of words you doesn’t understand before he slings them around as freely as he did yesterday on an NPR program.

    He described the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) as fascism.  The 1966 Websters New World  Dictionary of the American Language College Edition defines it thusly;

    “2. a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship. forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc.”

    I guess that he believes it is “the
    retention of private ownership of the means of production under
    centralized governmental control” part of the definition that applies to the AHCA.  Exactly what “…means of production {is} under centralized governmental control,” in the AHCA?

    Reading the above definition I would have to say that elected Republicans (especially Governors and Legislators) encompass the majority (more than half) of the characteristics enumerated by Websters definition. Maybe that is where his ire needs to be aimed?

    I think he is being intellectually lazy to use that word in disparaging the Affordable Health Care Act.  As for the requirements within the Act governing minimal coverages to be offered, their current employee health care policy in Kentucky is subject to minimum requirements as outlined by our State’s Legislature and the State Insurance Department.  I would venture to guess that other State’s Legislatures and Insurance Departments also promulgate minimum standards even if an employer self-insures.

    Personally I feel we should have started with what I like to call “Universal Wellness Care for All”.  It would be a way to begin to educate us all to our personal needs and responsibilities when it comes to our health.  Using “wellness” as the basis is the most efficient way to begin curbing our expanding health care costs.  Low hanging fruit in other words.

    Charles A. Bowsher

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

      I would use the world “corporatism.”

      People are coming to realize the far reaching ramifications of the AHCA and the subsequent Supreme Court decision.  People are starting to organize to oppose them.  As all ways when the people lead the politicians will follow.

        http://www.mandateamendment.com/ 

      • 1Brett1

        AND….they have their very own FaceBook page too!!! …When you say, “people are starting to organize to oppose…” it’s a bit like a Texas secessionist saying, “people in many states are starting to organize to secede from the tyranny of the US.”     

    • Wm_James_from_Missouri

      Please support a simple, modified Single Payer Program. Payable at the time money is earned, every week , just like Medicare, and only when working. All cost are known up front. It may not give full coverage but would allow us to fill the gap with employer supplied insurance. This would be a huge gain for most of us, as it would allow, among other things, the ability to move from job to job for better wages. The current system(s) are killing us softly.

    • Don_B1

      Just as a note: What the “opposition” calls Obamacare is formally called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

      It is far from perfect but it will help move the huge health care delivery system that has had cost growth nearly double the rate of GDP growth for decades mostly because providers are paid by procedure rather than by patient wellness/illness to a different delivery system, much like that provided by groups such as the Cleveland Clinic.

      There is a path from the PPACA to a single-payer system, but don’t expect it to arrive instantly. Watch how Vermont, which is in the process of setting up a single-payer system for how that will work, at least for them.

    • Denis

      maybe people should rethink shoppng at Whole Foods [or as a young friend says "Whole Paycheck"].

  • http://profiles.google.com/dfgoog David Gauthier

    “Acceptable collateral damage” is how those who oppose an assault weapons bad regard massacres like Newton, whether they admit it or not.  That’s monserous! Their proposed solutions are too dangerous or impractical to be viable. 

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

      Your implied insult aside, are you proposing as stringent governmental control other items that have caused people to die?  

      • Acnestes

        How many other items can you name that are specifically designed to kill people?

        • peterlake

          I had no idea drunk driving was designed to kill 10,839 people last year.

          As for the gun issue: just make murder illegal.

          • Acnestes

            I don’t get your point, but in fact there are stricter controls over drunk driving than over guns.

          • peterlake

            So if there are stricter controls over drunk driving how omce 10,000+ people die from drunk accidents every year? Doesn’t that tell you something about the efficacy of the laws?

            In fact, guns are THE most strictly regulated consumer item in the USa now.

            Hammers kill more people than rifles every year.

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

            Even if that was not true it would still not trump the constitution.

          • hennorama

            2 of every 3 murders in the U.S. are by firearms.   In 2011 – the latest year for which detailed statistics are available – there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

            That’s 67.77%. 

            Firearms are by FAR the most common weapons used to commit homicide in the U.S.  Knives and other cutting instruments came in second, at about 13%.

            [EDIT/ADD] One thing that will surprise most people is that the FBI data is incomplete. Two states, Florida and Alabama, don’t report to the FBI. Don’t ask me why – ask the state legislators and the governors of these states.

          • peterlake

            So just make murder illegal. Problem solved.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – You are now the clear leader in “Silliest Argument Of The Week” category. Congratulations – that one will be hard to top.

          • peterlake

            The silliest argument is that an assault rifle is somehow more dangerous than any of the other hundreds of other long arms on the market.

            Apparently witch-hunting just appeals to you.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – you not only need a new talking point to parrot, you also need to pay better attention. Please point out any instance where I typed anything like “an assault rifle is somehow more dangerous than any of the other hundreds of other long arms on the market.”

            Good luck with your quest.

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

            Handguns not assault rifles or machine guns.  

          • hennorama

            RWB – sorry, but you’re flat out wrong. 8,583 is the total number of Murder Victims killed by ALL types of firearms in 2011, not just handguns.

            In 2011, according to FBI data, 6,220 Murder Victims were killed by handguns, 323 by rifles, 356 by shotguns, 97 by “other guns,” and 1,587 by “firearms, type not stated.”

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

            [EDIT/ADD] One thing that will surprise most people is that the FBI data is incomplete. Two states, Florida and Alabama, don’t report to the FBI. Don’t ask me why – ask the state legislators and the governors of these states.

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

             I was too brief in my last comment, I am sorry for the confusion.

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

             As you have dutifully recorded the vast majority of fire arm homicides come from hand guns.  

          • hennorama

            Format issues – replying “UP TOP.”

          • Gregg Smith

            Peter Lake is correct although he should have written, “Hammers/blunt objects”, but he did say “rifles”. That includes assault rifles. This illustrates an absurd hypocrisy. Hand guns cause much more murder and mayhem but no one is calling for their ban. They get what they can while they can. The equivalent of Sandy Hook happens weekly in Chicago, no one cares. How many Mexicans have been murdered by assault rifles given to cartels by Obama? Who cares? This is nuts. Obama is exploiting a tragedy to chip away at the second amendment. And do-gooders pontificating on blogs eat it up while the legislating of victimhood by executive order runs rampant.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – you’re wrong.  More people were killed with rifles than were killed with hammers in 2011.  If you can prove otherwise, please do.  Here’s my case.

            In 2011, there were 323 Murders and 45 Justifiable Homicides with rifles, according to FBI data.  That’s a minimum of 368 people intentionally killed by another human with a rifle in 2011.
            Preliminary 2011 data from the CDC indicates 851 accidental firearms
            deaths, and 19,766 suicides using firearms.  That’s another 20,617
            firearms deaths. 

            Extrapolating the Murder/Justifiable Homicide firearms deaths via rifle rate from the FBI data (4.01% of those killed with firearms) gives us a projected 826
            accidental deaths and suicides with rifles. Even if that rate was lower (which is likely), even six times lower, we’d still project 138 accidental
            deaths and suicides with rifles.

            This gives us projected totals ranging from 506 to 1194 people killed by
            rifles.  That compares to 496 Murders in 2011 from “Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” with no detail about hammers.

            You need to get another talking point to parrot.

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

          • peterlake

             Here’s a chart by a Pullitzer Prize winner that even you can understand.

            http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/michaelramirez/2013/01/17/106489

          • hennorama

            peterlake – I thought your earlier post that said “So just make murder illegal. Problem solved” was silly. Now you’re using a CARTOON as evidence. Hilarious.

            You may want to re-read what you typed, and the CARTOON. I’ll make it easy for you:

            You typed: “Hammers kill more people than rifles every year.”

            The CARTOON indicates (without citing a source) “(and AVERAGE HOMICIDES or DEATHS per year per category). RIFLES (453) BLUNT OBJECTS (674)

            Here are some of the problems you need to overcome to prove that “Hammers kill more people than rifles every year.”

            1. Hammers are not separately categorized as a subset of “Blunt Objects.”

            2. The CARTOON cites no source that can be checked

            3. Hammers don’t kill people; people kill people. Can you show how “hammers kill people?”

            Good luck in your quest.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – you not only need a new talking point to parrot, you also need to pay better attention.  Please point out any instance where I typed anything like “an assault rifle is somehow more dangerous than any of the other hundreds of other long arms on the market.”

            Good luck with your quest.

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

          How many other items can you name that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a right of the people to own?

          • Acnestes

            What are you, a politician?  Answer the question.

          • 1Brett1

            Good point; do they say anything about AK-47s, or AR-15s, or 30-round magazines in the Constitution? 

            Let’s bring back automatic weaponry  because that comes under the category of an “arm,” and the Constitution neither expressly singles these out nor restricts any specific types of weaponry, so… 

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

            I see no “common ground” on this issue.  I believe that the right to own weapons is as important to citizenship as is the right to vote.  Would you tolerate background checks and licencing of voters? Of course not and you would be right to do so.

          • 1Brett1

            We do have registration for voting (and that must be within a narrow timeline to a given election). There are other restrictions, as well, e.g., you have to be 18 yrs.old, can only vote once and only in your district, you must show your registration card prior to voting, some members of society (felons) are barred from voting…I am not advocating your Second Amendment rights be taken away, just that prudent restrictions on certain aspects of how the modern world chooses to interpret those rights should be exercised.

            You really see no “common ground”? No room for any compromise? 

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

            I truly don’t.  Gun control is a culture-war effort to rub middle America’s nose in the fact that the world is run by its betters.  Otherwise more would be done to protect minorities from violence. 

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

            Why don’t you and the NRA make a concerted effort to get African-Americans on board with gun culture?

            I’m always hearing from the GOP how “conservative values” are going to take off with that demographic of voters.

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

             That is a good idea.  We are making advances in that direction as well as others. 

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-gun-culture-won-over-liberals

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

            Sadly this is a raw political argument.  It is not about public safety.  Or the constitution.  Or anything else that people hear are talking about. 
            It is about an exercise in political power.  Winners get to tell losers what to do.  It is not much different than what you see in high school.  Geeks and jocks argue over tater tots but the principle still gets to “tutor” his secretary. 

  • 1Brett1

    Here are some gems I’ve heard this week: “If Martin Luther King were alive today he’d agree that if slaves had had guns they could have stopped their oppressive masters and freed themselves.” Here’s another one: ” If jews had had guns, they could have stopped the Nazis.” …Sounds kind of fun; let me try: “if Jesus had had a gun, he could have stopped Herod’s slaughter of the innocents.”

    • Mike_Card

      If Pearl Harbor had had guns, the Japanese never would have bombed…wait–

      • NotChuck

        If American citizens had had guns, the Japanese never would have invaded . . ., oh, wait–

        • Gregg Smith

          If America had retaliated with nukes, the war would have immediately ended, millions of deaths would have been prevented and a mortal enemy would become a trusted ally…, oh wait–

    • Wm_James_from_Missouri

      If Peter Gunn had a gun, he be in reruns.

    • hennorama

      The fools who utter this nonsense get airtime only to capture ratings.  For them the term “logical thought” is an oxymoron.  Let’s try one:

      “If only the Newtown shooter’s mother had a gun, she’d would have been able to stop him.”

      Yeah, that didn’t exactly work out, did it?

    • Gregg Smith

      Liberals love the word “if”. It enables them to write their own story and project dastardly implications.

      • Mike_Card

        I can’t tell whether you’ve become “a liberal,” or if you’re now just telling “liberals” what they think.

        • Gregg Smith

          I am telling you what I think about liberals as evidenced by the comments above and below, all hiding behind that very big word. The nasty implications drip like snot from noses held high.

  • nj_v2

    Rethuglicon/right-wing jackassery of the week:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/house-gop-science-committee-akin-gingrey.php?ref=fpb

    Meet The House GOP’s Anti-Science Committee

    [[ Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) told an audience this week that former colleague Todd Akin was “partially right” when he claimed women resist pregnancy from “legitimate rape.” Gingrey has something else in common with Akin — both used to serve on the House Committee on Science. ]]

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/11/1435261/pro-gun-advocate-arming-black-people-would-have-prevented-slavery/?mobile=nc

    Pro-Gun Advocate: Arming Black People Would Have Prevented Slavery

    [[ I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history. ]]

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/01/gov_bobby_jindal_calls_for_eli.html#incart_river_default

    Gov. Bobby Jindal calls for elimination of all Louisiana income and corporate taxes

    [[ Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to eliminate Louisiana's income and corporate taxes and pay for those cuts with increased sales taxes, the governor's office confirmed Thursday. The governor's office has not yet provided the details of the plan. ]]

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/bachmann_still_hasnt_paid_her_presidential_campaign_staff/

    Bachmann still hasn’t paid presidential campaign staffers

    [[ Over a year after she dropped out, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann has refused to pay five staffers from her failed presidential bid, according to a former top campaign official. Peter Waldron, her controversial former national field coordinator, told Salon the dispute started when former Iowa straw poll staffers refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement that would bar them from discussing any “unethical, immoral, or criminal activity” they witnessed on the campaign with police or reporters. ]]

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/03/1395761/house-republicans-continue-doma/?mobile=nc

    House Republicans Vote To Continue Defending Unconstitutional DOMA

    [[ On a 228-196 vote, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives adopted a rules package for the 113th Congress that explicitly authorizes the House’s legal arm to spend taxpayer dollars to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). They embraced this unnecessary spending minutes after newly re-elected Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) warned that the rising national debt was an “anchor” weighing down the American Dream. ]]

  • Fred_in_Newton_MA

    Jack, or others, please comment on issue of oversight of US Attorneys & other prosecutors.  Swartz case has brought to light charges that Carmen Ortiz has engaged in repeated excess against her targets, no matter what the situation.  Of note is the Caswell Motel civil forfeiture action, currently awaiting a magistrate’s verdict, where a decades-old family business was seized by her office following drug arrests of motel patrons on the property.  Published stories say that the owners actually have a lower number of drug incidents than nearby businesses, including Walmart, and cooperated with police in making arrests.  The Town of Tewksbury would get most of the money if the property is sold at auction; the family would lose their life’s savings.  Shouldn’t there be some means of recourse to citizens,  perhaps an ombudsman system, to review and, if warranted, reign in or penalize prosecutors who are overzealous, engage in politically motivated prosecutions, or violate ethical standards?  My understanding is that these people are pretty much immune from any standards of reasonable conduct or even negligence.

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

      This miscarriage of justice just keeps getting worse.    

  • nj_v2

    Recon jackasserty, Part 2…

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/01/rep-stockman-threatens-obama-impeachment-over-guns-154141.html

    Rep. Stockman threatens Obama impeachment over guns

    [[ Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) is threatening to file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he moves to change gun regulations through executive order.

    “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said. ]]

    In a statement, Stockman didn’t hold back, saying Obama is launching an “attack on the very founding principles of this republic.” ]]

    http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2013/01/pfaw-delivers-178000-petitions-calling-bachmann-s-removal-intelligence-commit

    PFAW Delivers 178,000 Petitions Calling for Bachmann’s Removal from Intelligence Committee

    [[ Today, People For the American Way will deliver 178,000 petitions to House Speaker John Boehner urging him to remove Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 113th Congress. Bachmann earned rebukes from Boehner, John McCain and others last year when she launched a smear campaign against Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, alleging that Abedin and other Muslim-American public servants were agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. ]]

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ann-coulter-if-you-compare-white-populations-us?ref=fpblg

    Ann Coulter: ‘If You Compare White Populations,’ U.S. Has Same Murder Rate As Belgium

    [[ Right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter on Monday said that the United States has a demographic problem rather than a gun problem, arguing that the country has a comparable murder rate to Belgium "if you compare white populations." ]]

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/16/1451351/pennsylvania-house-republicans-introduce-bill-to-rig-the-2016-presidential-election/?mobile=nc

    Pennsylvania House Republicans Introduce Bill To Rig The 2016 Presidential Election

    [[ Earlier this week, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus endorsed a Republican plan to rig the next presidential election to make it nearly impossible for the Democratic candidate to win the White House, no matter who the American people vote for. The election-rigging plan, which would allocate electoral votes by congressional district rather than by states as a whole in a handful of states that consistently vote for Democratic presidential candidates, would have allowed Mitt Romney to narrowly win the Electoral College last November despite losing the popular vote by nearly four points. ]]

    • hennorama

      While generally trying to avoid Ms. Coulter’s image and words, as they tend to nauseate me, at times I can’t avoid them.  At these times, I always recall what I say when bidding adieu to a friend I visit weekly – “See you next Tuesday, beotch!”

    • anon

      Against my better judgment, I couldn’t resist going to see what Ann Coulter said. 

      “Coulter just returned from a trip to England, where she said residents ” ‘have not bought into this whole diversity enthusiasm.’ ”

      Did she miss London on her trip? 

  • Gary Trees

    More of a plea to not talk about something…
    …can we avoid the Manti Te’o non-story.  I really don’t understand why this is getting so much attention.  It’s stupid.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Ditto Armstrong. We’re way past saturation.

      • nj_v2

        Agreed, but not likely. They mentioned him twice already just in the intro. Once something or someone gets Opra-ized, the glut is unstoppable.

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

      The important story there is how the Media went along with a story that was too good to check.  I had thought the standard was, “I your mom says she loves you; check it. Twice.”  But that must have been too old school for some. 

    • hennorama

      Fortunately, I’m ignorant of this story, other than an awareness that there’s some sort of controversy.  Please do not enlighten me. :-)

  • Coastghost

    This week’s events in Mali and Algeria could well lead the pedestrian American (voter or not) to wonder exactly what his government’s views are. He understands that US policy towards North Africa was crafted in no small measure by the Three Weird Sisters (Clinton, Rice, and Powers) as the Arab Spring sprang two years ago; but if the Three Weird Sisters helped craft and initiate this policy if only in its rudiments, what kind of follow through have they managed? As recently as September Rice seemed incapable of spinning a credible narrative concerning what did and did not occur in Benghazi. Clinton has had four months now (and an intervening concussion and blood clot) to get straight the story she may or may not tell to Congress next week. Powers is MIA in the Benghazi episode altogether, at least NPR has not gone out of its way to report on her distinct contributions of late. With impeccable wisdom NPR producers and editors have rightly judged the Benghazi episode to be overblown, even as embarrassments go: after all, we lost only one US ambassador, so our diplomatic efforts elsewhere in the world and across the region must have retained at least some of their credibility . . . .

    • jimino

      For some reason I cannot fathom, you seem utterly incapable of understanding how deaths occur in unbelievably dangerous locations like Libya and Algeria but utterly unconcerned about why no one did anything to prevent thousands more getting killed in a single day in the heart of New York City. 

      Could you please explain in logical detail your thinking on this matter.

      • Coastghost

        I share your concern over the 11 Sep 2001 attack: in point of fact, I charge the bulk of that to President Bill Clinton. It was Pres Clinton, after all, who failed to secure the death of Osama bin Laden with the cruise missile attacks he ordered on Afghanistan in August 1998. Learning subsequently that the attacks had failed to take out bin Laden, Clinton promptly pivoted to focus on Slobodan Milosevic into the middle of 1999, the Milosevic whose regime posed NO comparable threat to US interests as bin Laden’s growing al Qaeda network. But Clinton did not pursue bin Laden, and it was THOSE specific attacks in August 1998 that led bin Laden to give KSM the al Qaeda green light for what turned into 11 Sep 2001. It’s now up to Obama to enunciate and execute US policy in the region, and all I hear is his subordinates sputter while managing affairs poorly as only grave complications continue to emerge.

        • Mike_Card

          So, if it weren’t for the deep-cover jihadist Clinton, 9/11 would never have happened?

          • Coastghost

            I say only that Clinton failed with the follow-through, that Milosevic hadn’t just attacked any US embassies, and that bin Laden remained in Afghanistan through the end of Clinton’s term (an entire two years and five months more of what exact effort expended on Clinton’s part, I cannot say, granted he had distractions to contend with along and along, though largely self-created).

  • nj_v2

    Dimocrap jackassery of the week:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/aaron-swartz-s-unbending-prosecutors-insisted-on-prison-time.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

    Aaron Swartz’s Unbending Prosecutors Insisted on Prison Time
    [[ Swartz faced tough U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz and her assistant Stephen Heymann, who rejected any deal that did not involve a prison sentence—which may have helped drive the cyber programmer to despair. ]]

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse
    Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann: accountability for prosecutorial abuseImposing real consequences on these federal prosecutors in the Aaron Swartz case is vital for both justice and reform
    [[ Whenever an avoidable tragedy occurs, it's common for there to be an intense spate of anger in its immediate aftermath which quickly dissipates as people move on to the next outrage. That's a key dynamic that enables people in positions of authority to evade consequences for their bad acts. But as more facts emerge regarding the conduct of the federal prosecutors in the case of Aaron Swartz - Massachusetts' US attorney Carmen Ortiz and assistant US attorney Stephen Heymann - the opposite seems to be taking place: there is greater and greater momentum for real investigations, accountability and reform. It is urgent that this opportunity not be squandered, that this interest be sustained. ]]

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/17/doj-sends-bundle-of-completely-censored-documents-in-response-to-aclu-lawsuit/


    DOJ sends bundle of completely censored documents in response to ACLU lawsuit

    [[ Responding to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Department of Justice (DOJ) turned over a bundle of documents that are completely blacked out.

    The lawsuit was filed after the DOJ ignored a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information on how the agency interpreted a 2011 Supreme Court decision (PDF) that bans law enforcement from using GPS technology to track Americans without a warrant.

    The Department responded to the lawsuit with 111 pages of attorney memos, but only two pages are legible. The rest are covered by large black rectangles that blot out all useful information. ]]

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130116-epa-backed-off-weatherford-water-contamination-probe-after-gas-drilling-company-protested.ece


    EPA backed off Weatherford water contamination probe after gas drilling company protested
    [[ WEATHERFORD — When a man in a Fort Worth suburb reported his family’s drinking water had begun “bubbling” like champagne, the federal government sounded an alarm: An oil company may have tainted their wells while drilling for natural gas.

    At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was so serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said at least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated with flammable methane. More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.

    Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing. Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination. ]]

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

      I wish you would make separate postings. I would “like” more of them.  

  • Coastghost

    Leon Panetta knew within HOURS of the attack on the BP installation that it constituted a terrorist attack: he didn’t have to ask Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton, or so it seems.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I read at the BBC web site that the Mukhdar BelMukhdar’s operation was too intricate and complex to have been cooked up in response to last Friday’s operation in Mali.  
        And I hear on the BBC World News an Algerian fighter, if I’m not mistaken, saying that it will take months but the extremist jihadis will be put down.  This is different than a country more or less welcoming a well-organized and (seemingly) socially responsible Muslim group, as could be seen to be happening in Syria.  Of course, the jihadis here seem to be so well-organized and well-funded because they take hostages and get paid (by France, anyway, I hear) to release those hostages.
         And Algeria seems to be saying enough.  It’s kind of a relief, but too bad the line couldn’t have been drawn when it was one hostage, rather than waiting for an enormous event like this.

  • MrNutso

    What went wrong is that we cannot continue to rely on foreign energy sources and expect to not have US citizens attacked.  And if we do, we can’t expect foreign governments to defend their own interests let alone ours.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QMDZ3LH5U2B4GAT7J2HS4TCP6E Jim

    Forget about politics, Obama, and the republican congress.

    THe BIGGEST FRAUD and INTIMIDATION of America since Dick CHeney, Karl Rove, and GW BUsh… is that despicable cyclist.

    Look, he did not come clean Lance Armstrong… if he wants to come clean he should do it under oath in front of a grand jury and answer many many questions including who was part of his lies in the UCI. Lives were destroyed and tarnished by this ONE man, ONE man.

    If the media were to simply ignore what is going on with this guy then America would make one of the biggest mistake of her history.

    Yes, Marion Jones admitted to her fault with performance enhancement drugs… we can move on immediately after her announcement.

    But for what Armstrong did to so many people… including Betsy Andrieu, Greg Lemond, and many, many innocent drivers… 

    well.. I strongly believe he should be in JAIL… JAIL… 

    Lastly, it cuts through the notion of many fans… HE IS NO AMERICAN HERO… HE IS A FRAUD.

    … I like to thank Travis Tygart and his work on this case. he risks his professional career to stop this big lie.

    • MrNutso

      There is nothing to say about LA.  He needs to be tossed on the history’s heap of frauds and cheaters.

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    This business of private parties being required to do a background check is a massive joke unless there is also a national gun registry for ALL guns. If no one, especially no federal authority, knows what guns you own, there is nothing to keep you from selling a gun to anyone you choose with or without a background check.

  • Coastghost

    BTW: what exactly is the extent of gun control advocate Barack Obama’s experience with firearms? Has Obama ever personally owned or fired a handgun or a long-gun of any type? Has he ever gone hunting? Skeet shooting? Would he know exactly how to load a firearm?

    • IsaacWalton

      What’s your point? Doesn’t matter. I shoot clays, hunt, and have a hand gun. Certainly fine with me that we ban assault style guns. I don’t have to have experience with crystal meth to know it’s a good idea it’s illegal.

      • Coastghost

        My point is exactly that Obama is so aloof culturally from the deeply-rooted traditions of American gun culture that he utterly lacks credibility with most of those he’s challenging with his noble proposals. The NRA is not utterly off in characterizing Obama as an effete elitist, and something of a hypocritcal Harvard man to boot. 

        • IsaacWalton

          Times have CHANGED—clearly he won and re-won election. Fewer hunters, fewer people in rural areas that cling to this traditions. I’m a HISPANIC FILIPINO living in red country with deer hunting rednecks…am I breaking TRADITION? I love showing up at the bow and gun range. Yeah, I get a few stares…but WAKE UP I’m the face of the new America. 

          It’s the NRA leadership’s immaturity in characterizing him as an effete elitist that makes THEM lose credibility.

          He’s the President..no way around that and he’s doing what the majority of America ( small, but still a majority) wants.

          If the NRA and their supporters want a different America…then get off your sofa, stop watching Duck Commander and organize. “Take Back America” as they say. Until they do, stop whining….they should know this better than anyone…no one likes a sore loser.

        • MrNutso

          What are the deeply-rooted traditions of American gun culture?

          • Coastghost

            Even WBUR could begin to address your fatuous question by citing Lexington and Concord . . . .

          • Mike_Card

            Thinking of Michele Batshit’s Concord?  Or the one taught in actual American history classes?

        • 1Brett1

          Isn’t your comment just a little too loaded for any serious discussion, e.g., “Obama is so aloof culturally…,” …[Obama's] “noble proposals” [read as intended sarcasm], “the NRA is not…off in characterizing Obama as an effete elitist,” “…a hypocritical Harvard man…”?

          Is, say, Wayne Lapiere so aloof culturally and unresponsive to gun-control advocates due to his position and who he is/the insular culture he’s in? 

          • Coastghost

            Loaded, yes, but permitting or inviting discussion: arguably, Obama is as aloof from America’s native gun culture as he is from America’s poor blacks (why in other words did his career as community organizer in Chicago yield no better results socially and politically than the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague that city?). Obama’s Harvard credentials are not responsible for his remoteness and aloofness: his Harvard credentials are the seal of his remoteness and aloofness from many aspects of American life, and his lack of organic connectivity extends in both directions politically, as the US Hispanic community surely knew by the beginning of November 2012.  

          • 1Brett1

            Well, can we at least agree that he is less aloof culturally than, say, Romney?

          • Coastghost

            As long as we agree that Obama hardly profits immensely from such a comparison.

          • anamaria23

            President Obama’s “career” as a community organizeR began at the age of 24 and ended three years later. Hard to see what  actions 25 years ago could have done to prevent the “epidemic” in that city, especially with the all out success by the NRA calling all the shots in Congress re:
             gun management in this country,
            Tell us, what has LaPierre’s resume done to prevent the gun violence in Chicago immersed as he is the “native gun culture’?
            “Harveard credentials are the seal of of his remoteness and aloofness”.  YOu mean he doesn’t go target shooting every week-end with an assault rifle?   What a dolt. 
             

          • Coastghost

            Don’t be disingenuous, dear: Obama’s career as community organizer persisted after he returned to Chicago following Harvard graduation. His career was on the ground in Chicago from 1991 to 2004: with his local political ambition, he was in much better position than Wayne Lapierre and the NRA to address gun violence on Chicago’s Southside, but did he do so effectively? How much did he even try? He had means motive and opportunity, but I can’t tell he made use of any of them effectively. Obama has lived in well-insulated bubbles most of his life, whether overseas or in Hawaii, whether in NYC (NOT in Harlem, not ever in Harlem) or at Harvard, and despite living wherever he resided in Chicago: the man remains remote.

          • StilllHere

            Obama has as many accomplishments from his community service experience as he does from his terms in the Illinois and US Senate.  That is, zero.

        • Mike_Card

          That settles it; President Obama has no qualifications to serve as President.  Start up that impeachment machine.

    • IsaacWalton

      Besides there are GENERALS coming forward who have shot more weapons than ANY OF US and saying it makes sense to reduce these types of guns. 

    • jimino

      Why should anyone listen to you?  What are your qualifications and experience in this area?  Prove to us you are worthy of any credibility.  

      • Coastghost

        I can sink a mouse in its mousetrap with a single shot from a .22 rifle at about twenty feet, with my glasses on (it might’ve been closer to thirty feet, if that makes it sound much more favorably impressive). Loaded the rifle myself. I’ve never tried to sink a mouse (with or without a mousetrap) with a .38 revolver. I’m no hunter or skeetshooter, but I know how to load and unload and fire my pump shotgun. (Imagine! I own a farm but never hunt deer on it, shame on me.)

        • Mike_Card

          And that has what to do with what?  Other than your assertion that you can shoot a trapped animal?

          • Coastghost

            I insist on requisite specificity: this was a trapped rodent. It or a close relative had ruined at least one loaf of bread. (jimino, if you observe, was questioning my familiarity with firearms.)

      • StilllHere

        Do you hold yourself to the same high standard?

  • gary stasko

    What is the current easiest way to kill a group of people?  The recent Supreme Court case in Washington (2007) says that citizens needing 50 caliber machine gun is not a right.

    • JGC

      Put them on a Dreamliner headed for Japan?

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    I think EVERYONE understands that the gun does not kill by itself.

    Unless you can find EVERY “going to be a wing nut” shooter before they act, the EXISTENCE of these high capacity magazines and rapid rate of fire weapons is the problem.

    • hennorama

      BHA_in_Vermont – I agree with the spirit of your post, and have two comments:
      1. Firearms can and do accidentally discharge.  851 people died due to accidental discharge in the US in 2011.  Nearly all of these involved people mishandling a firearm, which lends credence to your point.
      2.  “high capacity magazines and rapid rate of fire weapons” are merely a part of the problem of gun violence.  If we were only discussing mass shootings, then I’d agree with you 100%.  Handguns are far more frequently involved as a cause of death compared to “long arms.”  In 2011, according to FBI data, 6,220 Murder Victims were killed by handguns, 323 by rifles, 356 by shotguns, 97 by “other guns,” and 1,587 by “firearms, type not stated.”
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

      [EDIT/ADD] One thing that will surprise most people is that the FBI data is incomplete. Two states, Florida and Alabama, don’t report to the FBI. Don’t ask me why – ask the state legislators and the governors of these states.

  • John Cusick

    The tow leading causes of death among children and teenagers are automobiles and drowning, far out-pacing firearms death. Why are we not addressing the banning of cars and swimming pools?

    • gary stasko

      We regulate the heck out of both and have reduce the death rate.

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

        Seriously. I love old-timey advertising, and have a book discussing magazine ads between the wars.

        In 1937 or so a Dodge ad showed its upwardly mobile owners leaving some more-than-comfortable party in their shiny sedan, the graciuos host with a tray of drinks out in the driveway, serving the driver and passenger.

        I will have to scan this and post it. You have to see it to believe what used to be accepted behavior w.r.t. drinking and driving.

    • Melanie Wilson

      How ridiculous! Guns are manufactured for the explicit purpose of killing people or animals. This argument is such a red herring. Can’t you gun nuts do better than that?

      • DrewInGeorgia

        No.

      • Coastghost

        Not exactly, Melanie: guns are manufactured only with the explicit purpose of firing the ammunition loaded into them. Any intent to kill rests with the person firing the gun: many gunowners simply aim at inanimate targets, and gun manufacturers seem well aware of this. Your argument is a red herring suffering from hysteria.

        • Clark MGB

          I am so glad someone finally pointed this out. I have several guns that have NEVER killed or injured ANYTHING. Shooting is an Olympic sport for God’s sake.

    • MrNutso

      I am not aware of anyone mentally ill or otherwise walking in to a school or movie theater and throw cars or swimming pools at the rate 200 per minute at defenseless people.

    • 1Brett1

      Don’t know about drownings; I’d have to check the numbers on that to see if more teenagers die from drownings than gun violence, but let’s not detract from your overall point (as flimsy as it is, irrespective of the “drowning” disputation). Cars are not designed purely to kill or injure like guns. Secondly, there are many more teenagers driving in cars, so it stands to reason more teenagers will die in cars. Of teenagers involved with cars, how many die from those cars? Of teenagers involved with guns, how many die as a result? …Maybe, what should be addressed–if we are then going to talk about acts of “banning”–is this notion that armchair, anecdotal data collection is often used for the purposes of making some ridiculous point on an online forum…now THAT is worth banning!

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Flu?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    We ban and heavily regulate sales of explosives  – and sudafed. Why is it guns in particular should be exempt from scrutiny?

  • andreawilder

    Carmen Ortiz–drove Aaron Swartz into bankruptcy, threatened him with 35 years jail time, no future use of computers, no voting rights because a felon….and she teared up at a news conference because he committed suicide?
    Completely beyond bizarre, a tragedy.

  • Melanie Wilson

    Did somebody in this country elect the NRA? I certainly never voted for them, and I resent the kow-towing to them that goes on day in and day out.

    • Davesix6

      The NRA represents it’s members who are voting citizens of this nation.
      I’ve never voted for any pro gun contol group Melanie, however I understand those groups speak on behalf of their members.
      Make sense?

      • Mike_Card

        The NRA represents the firearms industry, some of whom are American corporate persons, none of whom have the right to vote.

        A number of individuals hold individual memberships, but the number of those members who are American citizens has never been disclosed by the NRA, and the total membership has been estimated–in the press–as possibly as large as 4.25 million.  That number has never been affirmed by the NRA.

      • nj_v2

        Nothing this guy posts makes sense.

      • StilllHere

        Simply explained, even the leftwing hacks here should get it, but some probably won’t.

    • IsaacWalton

      For far too long they have been, in some cases, re-writing our laws with (mostly) republicans sneaking riders onto unrelated legislation. The same kind of sneaky tactics that have crippled the ATF.

      • NotChuck

        The ATF crippled the ATF by engaging in some stupid endeavors, i.e., falsifying data, botched raids, and most recently “Operation Fast And Furious” and the subsequent coverup.

        • IsaacWalton

          So…who do you suppose should regulate firearms? Just because they had issues doesn’t mean you totally render a department incapable of doing the job. Guns move from state to state…no way the states can take care of it. Are you defending the immature singe minded and lunatic actions of the NRA!?!?

          • NotChuck

            How about an ATF where the house has been cleaned and it’s not following an agenda?  How many citizens have to die before you get the message?  It’s a corrupt agency!  Why would you leave something as important as firearms regulation to such a flawed individual like Eric Holder?

    • StilllHere

      Same for corrupt union thugs?

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    The NY legislature cobbled together and passed into law a series of gun laws with no debates or public hearings. It’s hard to believe the majority of these legislators read and carefully understood these bills. That’s why people are concerned. Background checks, no problem for most gun owners. But not a bunch of bills put together overnight (in 24 hours) and literally rammed down the throats of its citizens. That’s not a democratic process.

    • adks12020

      It was one bill; it was 78 pages.  It’s not exactly a huge task to review something of that length in a day. The representatives in my area knew their constituencies well enough to vote against it. They were just outnumbered.  Such is the way of legislation. 

      • IsaacWalton

        Besides, it’s THOSE same tactics that have been used to sneak in legislation (on unrelated legislation) that has crippled the ATF.

        Like the one that made the Director of ATF position dependent on Senate approval, and the Tiahrt Ammendment.One good turn deserves another.

        • Steve_in_Vermont

          Touché!

    • hennorama

      Steve_in_Vermont – I agree with your concern about the speed of passage of the NY SAFE Act, but laws can be changed if problems crop up..

      (Apologies in advance for the following):  One other point – you may wish to rethink your use of the term “literally rammed down the throats of its citizens,” as this literally did not occur.  You likely meant “figuratively.”  Sorry, this is just a pet peeve.

      http://grammarist.com/usage/literally-figuratively/

      • Steve_in_Vermont

        Thanks, That’s what happens when I do something  in a hurry. I stand corrected.

        • hennorama

          No worries Steve – hit shappens.

    • NotChuck

      And the result was a bill that made instant criminals out of every cop in the state who had a duty pistol that was capable of holding more than 7 rounds!  But I guess they had to pass it to see what was in it!

  • IsaacWalton

    President isn’t going to linger on GC in his inaugural address…wake up caller. He’ll talk about moving forward sensibly and peacefully.

  • MrNutso

    So it will definately be a diatribe and not just a speech.

  • http://www.facebook.com/drpmeade Paul S Meade

    It all seems to me that we are continually dancing around the issue of why does anyone need an assault weapon? It all seems rooted in some deep seated fear in certain members of the populace that someone, somewhere at sometime is going to threaten our liberty and we need high firepower to defend ourselves.

    If that ever happens, good luck with your cache of firearms vs. heavily armored attack vehicles. Same with roaming bands of urban gangsters invading the suburbs or countryside.

    What a paranoid society we seem to live in, or the weapon manufacturers want us to believe we live in. 

    • gary stasko

      Exactly, cannot even win their own arguement on level of firepower to resist government tyranny.  Try to point out that 3006 hunting riffle with scope will keep the “authorities” at a far great distance until the press arrives to try and publicize the cause.

  • StilllHere

    Did somebody check Youtube for an inflammatory video that might be the cause of the attack in Algeria?

  • Scott B

    I have a WWII Japanese carbine my father brought home from WWII. It’s never been fired. But now I wonder if I have an “assault” weapon as defined by NY’s new laws, as it has what might be construed as a “pistol grip”, as it’s certainly not a straight stock, and a bayonet fixture.  My .22 lever-action has a tube magazine that will hold more than seven rounds. Is that no an assault weapon? The only thing it’s ever assaulted were cans and rotten fruit.  How many NY citizens, that would never own an assault weapon, are now owners of such weapons?  Is that Civil War rifle hanging over the mantle now an assault weapon, having to be registered and forbidden to be sold within NY state, because it has a bayonet fixture?
     
    While I do not believe that anyone needs an “AR”-type weapon, nor magazines that hold dozens of rounds; and background checks for gun sale is a good idea; this law was shoved through without the chance for the ink to dry before it was on and off the desk of its signers. It seems to be making owners of guns such as mine assault-weapon owners.

    • NotChuck

      And almost every cop in the state . . . 

      • hennorama

        NotChuck – wrong.  Nice try, though.

        While the new law did not include a written exemption for police, prior law has an exemption that still applies.  The NY SAFE Act will also likely be quickly amended to include specific exemptions for law enforcement  to negate the confusion.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/18/ny-guv-looks-to-clarify-gun-law-after-concern-about-exemption-for-police/

        • NotChuck

          Nice try yourself!  Can’t imagine you sourcing FauxNews!  The law was passed, as reported in Politico, without the exemption. The prior law exemption will be void when the NY “Safe” Act takes effect, unless the act is amended.  Also, as reported in Politico, Cuomo insisted the review period prior to passage be waived, so they could get it passed before people thought too much about it.  This is how poorly thought-out legislation becomes stupid law, fraught with unintended consequences.

          • hennorama

            NotChuck – TY for your response. I agree that passage of the NY SAFE Act was hasty, and personally disagree with some of its provisions.

            However, your post said “And the result was a bill that made instant criminals out of every cop in the state who had a duty pistol that was capable of holding more than 7 rounds!” This is inaccurate for two reasons:

            1. New magazine capacity limits do not go into effect until April 15, 2013, not “instant[ly].” The existing limit of 10 rounds for private parties is in effect until that date. See the FAQs under “Magazines” in the following site:

            http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

            2. Law enforcement is still exempt under prior law. The fact that the NY SAFE Act does not contain a specific law enforcement exemption does not mean it automatically supercedes existing law.

            I encourage you to prove otherwise.

            As to citing FoxNews, I generally have no problem with their reporting of hard news. They run into trouble when they try to pass off opinion and argument as “News.” Fortunately, their bias is well-known and apparent to all. This makes it simpler to filter their “News.”

    • hennorama

      Scott B – if you want to check if your firearm is an “assault weapon” per the NY SAFE Act, NY State has a website for you:
      http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

      The first FAQ under “Assault Weapons” is “I own a gun that I use for hunting, is it an assault weapon?”

      Answer: Most guns that are used for hunting are not assault weapons and are not affected by this law. Typical shotguns and hunting rifles are exempt as the law specifies military style assault weapons by design characteristics. For example, any pump, lever, or bolt action shotgun or rifle cannot be an assault weapon.”

      So you needn’t worry about your lever-action .22 rifle being an “assault weapon.”  The WWII Japanese carbine is probably a bolt-action weapon and therefore not an assault weapon under the NY SAFE Act.  Since it was manufactured more than 50 years ago, it also qualifies as an antique, and for some exceptions to other rules.

      There’s also the FAQ “I am not sure if the gun I own is an assualt weapon.  How do I find out?”  If you click [Answer] there are other links leading to further details.

      If you can’t find an answer there, you could always check with local law enforcement in your area.

      • Scott B

        I did find out that my guns are fine, but the law is so broad, and was written and enacted so fast that they didn’t even know what it did to many, including the cops, who are now using illegal guns because they hold more than 7 round. This “Do it, then fix it later” stuff hurts everyone, and hurts democracy.

        • hennorama

          Scott B – I’m glad you were able to get an answer about your firearms as pertains to the NY SAFE Act.

          As I said to another poster on this thread (NotChuck, below):

          “I agree that passage of the NY SAFE Act was hasty, and personally disagree with some of its provisions.

          However, your post said “And the result was a bill that made instant criminals out of every cop in the state who had a duty pistol that was capable of holding more than 7 rounds!” This is inaccurate for two reasons:

          1. New magazine capacity limits do not go into effect until April 15, 2013, not “instant[ly].” The existing limit of 10 rounds for private parties is in effect until that date. See the FAQs under “Magazines” in the following site:

          http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

          2. Law enforcement is still exempt under prior law. The fact that the NY SAFE Act does not contain a specific law enforcement exemption does not mean it automatically supercedes existing law.”

  • Coastghost

    WBUR, NPR, and “On Point”: EVERY DAY that you tell us about the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO IT! Until or unless you reduce your production and broadcast schedules to consume less electricity both in your own universe and in the country you engage with electricity-hungry stereos, radios, laptops, PCs, cars and trucks galore, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera–YOU are contributing to climate change, each and every day. (Have you noticed I listen to your shows less and less? I have reasons . . . )

    • nj_v2

      This is about the stupidist thing posted on the boards today. As if the the conniptions you went through over the gun photo a few weeks ago wasn’t embarrassing enough.

      And, who the hell “liked” this, and why?Does a person have to live in an off-the-grid house, forage for their own food, and make their own clothes from hides of animals they shot with a bow and arrow they made themselves in order to criticize the industrial system we live in?

      Like, really, WTF?

      • Coastghost

        I wasn’t embarrassed by the fit I threw over the premature posting of the photo of the AR-15 Bushmaster: so I cannot ask you to suffer from embarrassment on my behalf.   Be that as it may: electricity generation and consumption are two of the largest drivers of global warming, to hear NPR tell us as frequently as we are told: and it’s the case that all of the energy that is consumed so that NPR can maintain its 24/7/365 broadcast and production schedules, just so it can continue to dutifully serve the eight or nine percent of the US population it serves weekly, contributes directly to the poor quality of the atmosphere we now can expect in the next century and the century beyond that. Since roughly 92 percent of Americans make no weekly recourse to any NPR programming, padding NPR production and broadcast schedules simply to keep cash flow levels comfortable is hardly responsible environmental policy. NPR, born roughly at the same time as Earth Day, is failing not only its devoted listeners but its self-justifying consumption of electricity and energy (remember the years and years that NPR proudly boasted of the power of its “driveway moments”? people so taken with the arc of the narrative being spun that they had to just sit witlessly running the engines of their cars just to hear the piece’s conclusion!) shows plainly and starkly that its environmental mouth is not where its Federal, state, and local money is.

        • nj_v2

          Not surprised you missed the point, and in the most stultifyingly verbose manner possible.

  • nj_v2

    Half the show ended up being imagining/predicting/prognosticating what Obama might/could/will/should say in the inaugural speech. This hardly fits with the “week in the news” topic for the program.

    Rather than review actual things that happened, and possibly even look at un- or under-reported events, this is just more talking head prediction punditry, which is what most so-called news outlets now fill much of their pages and airspace with.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      I agree, I damn near fell asleep…twice.

      The Inane Clown Posse seems to have all members present so I’m out. Hope everybody has a good weekend.

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

    I was curious to hear Jake Tapper talk about how reasonable gun owners’ interests are not being heard much in DC newsrooms. I don’t know if he’s watching as much mainstream media as I am, and what I’ve seen are unhinged gun nuts on TV, a lot of them.

    First, I suggest that responsible gun owners may not feel comfortable “outing” themselves to their more crazy gun owning brethren.

    Second, the mainstream press has fetishized the power of the NRA, and has tiptoed around it the way it never has around, say, Planned Parenthood. It would have been nice to hear someone so savvy and inside as Tapper to realize that out loud.

    • WRB2

      There are a lot of us out there.  Problem is that we do not make good sound bites / are not news worthy.

      Calm, reasonable, some are intelligent, might be your neighbor.

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

        Some of them are–I live not far from a hunting club, and have no fear of stray bullets when I’m on the road nearby. (And it’s near a state park–never any incidents I’ve heard of about bullets going afield.)

        But the whole sensationalism-hunting is part of is the reason that these folks not judged by media gatekeepers to be “newsworthy”. The NRA-centric coverage inside the beltway is so dyed into the narrative so much that it yields a warped picture, and comes close to consuming the proverbial oxygen available for the subject.

        Outside the Beltway, I’ve heard only a few gun store owners interviewed since Newtown. I hope that my local news stations are doing right by them, fairly showing their views, because after watching a few of them sound off about “black helicopter” style stuff, I am concerned that the “Sheriff Andy Taylor” sort (from The Andy Griffith Show) are out there but not on TV. I really wonder if The Local TV News wants to run video of that sort, because it’s not sensational enough.

        On the national media level, it’s taken a month to scratch beneath the surface after Newtown for those “DC newsrooms” to say, just a bit, on the air, what us liberals have been saying about the NRA for years: Beholden to the gunmakers, saying on one hand “enforce the laws” and working like hell to weaken the ATF on the other hand.

        For a media insider like Tapper to suddenly turn around and become a media critic of what he’s been a part of sounds disingenuous to me.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          When I got my first .22 as a boy I joined the NRA. It was oriented toward hunting, target shooting, taking care of the gun, etc. Quite dull and vanilla. WTF happened? Is it the same thing that happened to the once respectable GoP?

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

            Hey, at least you didn’t “shoot your eye out”.

  • Gregg Smith

    CBS did a poll that found 74% thought armed guards would reduce mass shootings. Scott Pelly ignored that part in his broadcast.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/?pageNum=2

  • TomK_in_Boston

    I hope the “Dreamliner” nightmare is a lesson to the corporate oligarchs. Boeing decided it was a good idea to have parts made all over the world, to find the cheapest suppliers with access to slave labor and no environmental laws, and then assemble them in the USA. At the same time, they were trying to bust their Union by moving production to “right to work for less” SC.

    Now the chickens have come home to roost. Hey, you entitled MBA types, if you claim to have an “American” corporation, do you think you could prioritize mfg in the USA and paying decent wages? Those short-term savings from globalization can vanish like tears in the rain if you get a battery from china with the wires crossed.

    • Coastghost

      Alas! if only Obama knew how to pick a lithium battery manufacturing operation with as much prowess as he dedicated to his Solyndra investment! (by your lights only union employees qualify as “American laborers”: whereas unions represent American labor as poorly as they do these days because of the 20th century’s history of inane or preferential union work rules and union dues extracted to support corrupt union bosses and organized crime: American labor unions don’t appeal automatically to most American laborers for perfectly legitimate reasons) (BTW: it was the Obama NLRB that interfered with Boeing production in SC, but then SC hardly qualifies as a US state according to so many of the enlightened minds of the Vaunted Northeast Corridor.)

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Yeah, the inane work rules that just happened to coincide with the greatest middle class prosperity in history. Wonder why, huh? We’d be a hell of a lot better off if corps like BA returned to the old American system of working with new, small American cos to build a local supply chain.

        this just in:

        “PEORIA, Ill. (AP) — Caterpillar Inc. says it has found evidence of deliberate ‘‘accounting misconduct’’ at a recently acquired company in China.

        Caterpillar removed several managers at a subsidiary of the Chinese company and will take a non-cash $580 million charge in the fourth quarter.”

        All those problems just to avoid paying decent wages to Americans. Anyone still not understanding why the wealth and income doesn’t flow to the middle anymore?

        • StilllHere

          Set the wayback machine Sherman, that’s your only hope.

      • hypocracy1

        Why do you hate America?

        • Coastghost

          Why do you impute hatred of America to me? I only complain like a good American.

  • jimino

    In light of the coverage of what’s happening in and around Mali in addition to the NRA’s fight on behalf of the 2nd Amendment, I propose that the NRA call upon its members to form a citizen militia that will be deployed to fight the Islamofascists that I am sure many of its members consider to be an existential threat to country.  Isn’t this EXACTLY what they claim is the basis for and purpose of their rights under the 2nd Amendment?  They already have military-style weapons.  They claim to already be be well trained in their use.  PERFECT!

    Come on you Bushmaster-owning NRA members who have fantasized about taking up arms as part of a citizen militia in defense of your country.  This is your chance to have your dreams come true and your beliefs put to good use. 

    • OnPointComments

      If you were living in Mali right now, would you wish that you had a gun?  Or would you stick to your principles and be unarmed?  Perhaps you and your compatriots could go to Mali and get a law enacted banning assault weapons and requiring registration of all firearms and bring peace to the Malians.  This is your chance to have your dreams come true and your beliefs put to good use.

      • jimino

        The basis of the NRA’s position on weapons is the 2nd Amendment.  Can you explain to me what a “militia” as used in the 2nd Amendment is and under what conditions it would be appropriately put into action?  Or is that term of no significance whatsoever?

        • TomK_in_Boston

          The first clause in the 2′nd amendment about the militia is invisible to the wingnuts. It fades from their vision in a mysterious disability that causes them to see only “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That’s what the FF would have written if they were concerned with a god-given personal right to bear arms. Apparently, they were not.

          • NotChuck

            Still trying to re-write it to suit you?

        • OnPointComments

          I agree with Justice Scalia’s interpretation that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ,” does not impose any limitation on the “operative” clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      • ExcellentNews

        Oh but you are so smart! If “I” was living in Mali right now, i would wish that NOBODY had weapons. In any case, given how we are rewarding job exporters, predatory bankers, and letting the K-street religious fundamentalists call the shots (pun intended!) – we will be just like Mali in one more generation…

    • TomK_in_Boston

      C’mon, jimino, you might as well ask a neo-con chicken hawk to actually serve, or have his children serve!

    • NotChuck

      I didn’t know the NRA had the authority to call upon its members to form a citizen militia. That militia already exists under 10 USC 311 which defines the organized militia (National Guard and naval militia) and the unorganized militia (males between 17 and 45, or 65 if a veteran) who aren’t in the organized militia.  The government doesn’t supply arms to the unorganized militia.  So when the government activates the organized militia to go to Mali, be sure to bring your own Bushmaster — and see how well that works for you against real assault rifles.

    • StilllHere

      We’re a little busy fighting the Islamofascist in the White House.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      if they come here we will defend even you.  however the point of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the US from becoming a tyranny. a gun is like a fire extinguisher or a seatbelt you never want to use it but you dont ever want to be without if you do need it 

  • ExcellentNews

    To Sarah at 41:00 from the Republican Central Committee: Please get in the kitchen! The job of women is to make babies so that the ruling oligarchy can have an unlimited supply of low-wage desperate workers, and hapless soldiers willing to die in Gadzikistan to protect corporate interests there. All this talk about women’s rights, taxing CEOs and bankers, keeping military weapons out of the hands of the unstable – it is plain un-american, un-christian, un-republican and the fault of the terrorist liberal media.

  • hennorama

    RWB – responding here due to DISQUS formatting issues.  You typed “As you have dutifully recorded the vast majority of fire arm homicides come from hand guns.”

    I’ve never said otherwise.  Handguns are an enormous part of firearms violence in the US.  I want to point out that when discussing FBI data, the terms “Murder” and “Homicide” are not interchangeable.  Murder excludes “nonnegligent manslaughter,” such as justifiable homicide.  I’ve interchanged these terms myself, but the distinction is important when examining the data.

    “Murder Definition
    The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
    The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.”

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain.pdf

    In addition to the 8,583 Murder Victims killed by ALL types of firearms in 2011, there were 390 Justifiable Homicides by Law Enforcement (JHLE) using firearms.  That’s over 99% of JHLEs.  299 were by handguns, 33 by rifles, 10 by shotguns, and 48 by “firearms, type not stated.”

    There were also another 201 Justifiable Homicides by Private Citizen (JHPC) using firearms, more than 77% of all JHPCs.  153 were by handguns, 12 by rifles, 10 by shotguns, and 26 by “firearms, type not stated.”

    So this gives us (again excluding Florida and Alabama, and excluding all suicides and negligent and accidental firearms deaths) another 591 people INTENTIONALLY killed by firearms in 2011, bringing the Grim Total to AT LEAST 9,174.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

    Don’t you think we should do something to limit and reduce this Grim Total?

    [EDIT/ADD]: BTW – this Grim Total for 2011 exceeds (by more than 1000 deaths!) the combined US military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (4488 + 2175), plus military contractors killed in Iraq (1487).

    http://antiwar.com/casualties/

    http://icasualties.org/

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

       I’m missing your point. 
      Yes to many people die. 
      I wish it wasn’t so. 

      • hennorama

        RWB – indeed, the point was that too many people die intentionally and accidentally from firearms discharges in the US each year.

         Wishing won’t change that.

        A secondary implicit point, which I found to be incredible when I discovered it, is that Florida and Alabama don’t report all relevant data to the FBI.  That’s another part of the problem that needs resolution. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          seems like people who die from firearms are just as dead as people who die any other way

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Hey, here’s a pic of the battery from the JAL “Dreamliner”, on left, with the normal on right. Holy cow!

    http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/assets/0/371/BoeingFireBattery.jpg

    meanwhile “The Wall Street Journal reports that in approving the Dreamliner, the FAA “relied exclusively on data generated by Boeing” that indicated the plane’s lithium-ion battery “featured redundant safeguards that were essentially foolproof.””That’s the new American system, let the corps regulate themselves.

    • JONBOSTON

      Your cartoon show is getting very old. It’s a shame that those on the left play on the ignorance of others to criticize Boeing, probably the single largest exporter of American-made products and a significant contributor to a positive trade balance. What’s so depressing is that fact, reason, and common sense no longer matters when expressing a point of view. Witness your comments about Boeing.They are so ludicrous and idiotic ( like much of your Bain capital comments) and so utterly lacking in any understanding of business you must be either a student, a union organizer, or a public sector employee. You engage in nothing but cliches and caricature. Last week you made the wild claim that Boeing’s troubles were caused by outsourcing. No facts, no proof of anything, just absurd unsubstantiated claims that are taken at face value by the uninformed, ill-informed or just plain stupid (aka the Obama voter).

      Do you honestly believe that the FAA was not heavily involved in the design, testing, and evaluation of this technologically advanced aircraft? Or that any Boeing executive would knowingly make a purchasing decision for a critical component that increased the risk of the FAA grounding the 767s over safety concerns, thereby tanking the share price and raising concerns with customers and passengers?  I’ll tell you a little secret–most major corporations welcome government regulation. Why? Because it entrenches the market position of existing players and raises entry barriers for potential new entrants , thus reducing the threat of new competition. If you want to break up oligopolies, then lower unnecessary entry barriers caused by excessive government regulations.

      The NLRB complaint against Boeing violated what most Americans consider to be a core tenet of American capitalism, the ability to move capital or business to where you think it has the best chance for success. Boeing’s  assembly line in S. Car. did not cause any union member to lose a job, have their wages or benefits reduced, or suffer any change in status or working conditions. What it did do was cause anxiety among the 1200 workers in S. Car that the plant could be shut down by the NLRB. Not to the mention the billions invested by Boeing in the plant that was at risk. 

      If you want to rail against oligarchs and if you’re concerned about American jobs, be they union or non-union, you should have contempt for the union oligarchs that ran the now defunct Hostess Brands Baker’s union. The refusal of these morons to accept a US Bankruptcy court -approved new agreement on wages and and pension benefits caused the liquidation of Hostess Brands , the closing of 36 American plants, and the loss of 18,500 jobs. If you want to criticize outsourcing, criticize the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco workers, and Grain miller’s union. They outsourced 18,500 decent jobs.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Sorry about posting material from Fox and the Wall St Journal with all that lefty bias.

        • JONBOSTON

          I regard this as a non-responsive reply. I couldn’t care less about your sources for information. Have you a response? And while I have your attention , you’ve never responded to my asking you to identify the deregulations and tax changes  which supposedly benefited the top earners at the expense of the middle class. Are you keeping it a secret?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            I couldn’t care less what you regard as non-responsive, and I’ve answered those questions many times.

          • JONBOSTON

            It must be comforting to be an ideologue. You never have to concern yourself with facts, reason and common sense.

          • StilllHere

            Bingo.

          • pete18

            Really, where? Could you point us to that section? I was very curious about your answer and never saw it?

    • StilllHere

      FoxNews, are you kidding.  Please, you have zero credibility.

      • Thinkfreeer

        If you know that, you much watch frequently. Otherwise you are just a blowhard.

  • Pointpanic

    I thank “On POint” for taking my call today and I stand by my comments. But later, it occurred to me that what I should have asked President Obama for in his innnnnauguration was to workto overturn the “Citizens United” decision which allows unlimited funding of candidates and elections by well-heeled individuals and corporations. This is a complex issue but the infestation of big moneyinto our elections is hijacking our democracy at the expense of the average citizen’s First Amendment rights and the environment. Not to mention the generation of poverty and unemployment.

    • StilllHere

      Really, any evidence to support that.  Seems like a lot of money, maybe even more money, was spent on/by candidates that lost.  These are big refutations of the theory that money buys elections.  Moreover, all that money got into the economy instead of staying in locked in a savings account, so good for everyone.

      • Pointpanic

        This time, it was true, Still here. there could be many reasons for that’like Romney making an ass of himself, for example but over time, big money could easily win out. “good for everyone”? Are you sure all thatmoney didn’t go to the top rather than everyone? furthermore, monied interests tend to enjoy access to the levers of power that you and I don’t . That’s not democracy. Limiting campaign finance could easily put a dent in that.

        • StilllHere

          The money went to advertising agencies, tv stations, pr firms, campaign workers, doughnut shops, Subways, cabbies, bellhops, cleaning ladies, waitresses, drug dealers, … basically America.

          • Pointpanic

            Surely some money “trickled down” ,of course. But it hardly indicates a sea change in our economy or social progress. Besides ,do you really want to equate ad agencies ,Tv Stations and pr firms with bellhops and cleaning ladies et al?

          • StilllHere

            It’s all good, and naturally socially progressive.

    • Thinkfreeer

      Well, you are obviously anti business. And money is evil. Let’s all hold hands and sing, shall we? We don’t have a democracy, it’s a democratic republic. The people do not (generally) vote on laws, Congress does. Thus the need for influence of some kind. You are welcome to go influence them. Good luck without forming some kind of group. And, guess what, you’re going to need some cash to support your efforts.

      Any fair action on media/advertising front would also ban unions, religious groups, etc. from influencing politics. Also, it should restrict news outlets to news, and make them refrain from injecting their agendas and commentary. Unfortunately the news outlets have become agenda driven and politically charged. They invite “guests” (like this show does) who inject their agendas. Not a day has gone by since Sandy Hook that NPR has not had some kind of gun control “news” story near the lead. CNN puts a foreign disgraced “journalist” in prime time to rabidly attack gun rights in the US.

      • Pointpanic

        Sorry to spoil your simplistic picture , Thinkfreeer, but I’m not anti-business on a Mom and Pop level but I am against big business enjoying a monopoly on the levers of power which we all are supposed to have access to. true, we don’t make laws, that’s what Congress is for. But overturning CU would not ban money altogether. It would simply allow Congress to place limits on spending, to level the playing field for everybody. yes, it would apply alos to unions et al but come on, Unions have a mere fraction of the warchest that major corporations do
          Besides, unlike corporations ,Unions represent the interests of humans while human interest must defer to the corporate pursuit of the bottom line.Now if you want ot split hairs ,okay. We’re a democratic republic. But one “of the people ,by the people, for the people. That has what ahs been hijacked by well heeled corporate interests.

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

        Rabidly attack gun rights?

        Dude, I saw that video. Of the two folks on camera, Piers Morgan isn’t the one who gets awarded the adverb rabidly.

        I hope you’re not armed, because someone like you who’s swallowed that Kool Aid is a danger to yourself and others.

  • Dee

    Obama lousy deals with the Republicans short changes
    the unemployed and the middle class….

    Obama need to make board and sweeping measures in
    his negotiations with the Republicans instead of squand-
    ering away his bargainng power to make broad & sweep-
    ing of demanding broad and sweeping measures–such
    as keeping unempoyment benefits and job training in
    place until the job rate drops below 5 % percent as the former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich has suggested
    and refusing to end the payroll tax cut to workers until
    the unemployment rate runs below that same level. 

    This makes perfect economic sense and yet Obama has squandered away his bargaining power with nickle and diming the unemployed and workers while Republicans
    get a two year extension on the Bush Tax cuts in 2010 (which don’t even create jobs we know from a CBO Re-
    port in November). and those Bush tax cuts were made permanent in incomes up to 450,000.00 last week.
    (see URL below .)

    Little wonder Wall Streeters were popping the champaign last week and trying to sober up many days later…while
    the middle class were wondering how they were going to afford the extra pocket money daily for odds and ends…

    Obama shows he is no bold progressive thinker who is
    out to get a square deal for the unemployed and the workers.(Or throw the Israelis under the bus if they
    don’t agree to stop building settlement and get out
    of the Palestinian Territory. This is what the world
    expects today .., and he should deliver. )

    And while he should be staring down the Republicans and telling them “to drop dead” on getting more cuts to entitle-ment program and programs to the poor he beats around the bush and offers weak excuses…

    This is not the kind of President I want for the next 4 yrs and I think he better shape up and listen to Labor and social and political policy makers and get broader
    in his scope scope & make meaningful policy decisions.  

    Dee

    P.S. I don’t accept Obama’s military and drone policy and his special forces raids in the Middle East….It is way tooviolent and hawkish and it doesn’t show respect for sover-eign rights of other nations . Or indeed, indivdual rights nor
    solve the underlying injustices by US corporations & US puppets in the region…

    P.P.S. Whatever happened to JFK’s advise to never fail tonegotiate? Or indeed, end this demonization of the
    Muslim people by the Zionist apologists in Israel and Washington. This is what needs to end today also as 
    it shows the narrow mindness & racism of the extreme right… 

    The GOP blocks the publishing of the CBO Report on the Bush Tax Cuts…There is no correlation with job growth.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

    The victims the ligering unemployed looking for jobs that
    were never created…to begin with

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/economy/lingering-unemployment-poses-long-term-risk.html?pagewanted=all

    • Other Chris

      Nice try, Dee.

    • JONBOSTON

      Looking forward to your update on the latest atrocities done by the savages and barbarians in the Middle East, especially Algeria and Mali. What are you waiting for, the body count to be reported?

    • brettearle

      THERE GOES DEE AGAIN WITH HER DESPERATE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE THE WORD, ‘ZIONIST’, IN ANY COMMENT SHE MAKES, EVEN IF THE TOPIC IS ABOUT PURCHASING PERFUME ON EBAY.

    • JONBOSTON

      Body count is 23 innocent hostages butchered by Islamic savages. Any comments or just another Zionist conspiracy?

      • hennorama

        JONBOSTON – here’s an “update on the latest atrocities done by the savages and barbarians in the” UNITED STATES, since the Newtown massacre.

        “Body count is” 1027 people “butchered by” Americans.  1027 or more firearms deaths in the US since Newtown. That’s “the body count to be reported.” 

        “Any comments”?

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

        • JONBOSTON

          You paint all conservatives with a broad brush and assume too much. This may surprise you but I happen to support gun control efforts.[ I'm also pro-choice].The second amendment, like the first amendment, is not an unlimited right. Government can and should impose reasonable limits on the use of firearms.

          • hennorama

            JONBOSTON – TY for your response.

            My post was as a counterpoint to two specific posts by you, and was not “paint[ing] all conservatives with a broad brush and assum[ing] too much.” The main objection was to the characterizations contained in “the latest atrocities done by the savages and barbarians in the Middle East” and “23 innocent hostages butchered by Islamic savages.”

            Talk about “paint[ing] … with a broad brush and assum[ing] too much.”

            I merely used some of your own words to point out their absurdity. I would have little argument had you left out the word “Islamic.” Talk about a “broad brush.” Try to imagine if I used the term “Christian Americans” in my post. A bit objectionable and likely inaccurate, right?

            In addition, do we have enough information as yet to determine how these hostages died? Were any killed by Algerian Special Forces? You assume they were all “butchered by Islamic savages.”

            My use of the number of US firearms deaths since Newtown was intended to point out the imbalance of your apparent outrage. Nearly 45 times as many people have been killed by firearms in the US since Newtown compared to the number of people killed in Algeria. Is your outrage due to what you assume is the likely religion of the perpetrators in Algeria, the number of deaths involved, or something else?

          • JONBOSTON

            I’m glad I can explain my response.  Whether or not the 23 hostages were killed by the terrorists is irrelevant–they were put in harms way by the savages. 

            My issue is with “Dee” and her constant pathological obsession against Israel. For the past few months, whenever I see her delusional garbage posted, I respond with the controversial NYC subway notice ” In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad”. To quote the leader of the group that posted these signs, “The point is any war on civilians is savagery. The rockets going into Israel by Gaza is savagery, blowing up buses is savagery, targeting a bus of Jewish mothers and children is savagery, Daniel Pearl’s beheading is savagery, etc.” That’s how I feel.

             I am very pro-Israel. I believe the situation facing Israel is a conflict of barbarism and envy against civilization and creativity. Israel stands as a lone democratic outpost in the Mideast against 700 million Arabs who  would prefer the extinction of Israel. It treats its Arab citizens better than Arab countries treat their own citizens. And the world stands idly by because Israel lacks oil, has only 8 million people, and who cares about Jews anyway. Sadly, with the exception of the US, what’s morally right and just means nothing to the world community –they act out of self-interest and nothing more.

          • hennorama

            JONBOSTON – TY for your explanatory response. I respect and appreciate your views.

            I agree that the deliberate targeting of civilians is savage, uncivilized and barbaric. That’s the unfortunate nature of terrorism and some tactics in warfare. As I said, I would have little argument had you left out the word “Islamic.” Now you’ve introduced the terms “Arabs” and “Jews.”

            Are religion, ethnicity and national origin the sole determining factors in your viewpoints? For example, had the perpetrators in Algeria been Christians from a European nation, or Hindus from India, would your reaction have been the same?. What if they had been Protestant Armenians from Lebanon? How about European Jews from Algeria?

            Do you see how the use of the terms “Islamic,” “Arabs” and “Jews” as classifiers might be problematic?

            Israel is not the “lone democratic outpost” in the Middle East. The CIA World Factbook classifies the governments in the Middle East that are not monarchies, emirates or theocratic republics as follows:

            Democracy (a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed): NONE

            Democratic republic (a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them): NONE

            Parliamentary democracy (a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government – a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers – according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament): IRAQ, ISRAEL

            Republic (a representative democracy in which the people’s elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation): ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN, GEORGIA, LEBANON

            Republican parliamentary democracy: (A hybrid of Parliamentary democracy and Republic. For more, see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/europe/turkey/governmentprofile.html) TURKEY

            Republic under an authoritarian regime: SYRIA

            Source:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_mde.html

          • JONBOSTON

            I do not shape my views by one’s ethnicity , race or religion. However, atrocities seem to be more concentrated in the Islamic world. While the Israelis bring us technological progress , scientific and medical achievement , etc. , the Islamic world has brought us beheadings, suicide belts, female subjugation, etc.  I used the word ” Islamic” to distinguish them from the Palestinians , which is the main focus of Dee’s diatribes.

          • hennorama

            Fair enough. TY for your explanatory response.

  • JGC

    There were two stories this week that perfectly illustrate why having armed guards in schools is not the panacea the NRA would try to press on a public desperate to protect their children. 

    One is courtesy of our friend, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona. He runs a volunteer posse, which has most of its expertise in supporting immigration raids, but is now branching out into providing patrols to dozens of their public schools.  “Every morning, the volunteers go out in cars and uniforms just like those used by the Maricopa County deputies under Sheriff Arpaio’s command; there is no way to tell them apart.  They roll by, scrutinize the people around the schools,looking for someone they feel does not belong…” (from the NYT, 17 Jan 2013 by Fernanda Santos) 

    The other story comes out of Meridian, Mississippi, where school students are being routinely arrested without probable cause at the same time that lawmakers are “considering plans to place armed officers or guards in schools” in the wake of Sandy Hook. They refer to it as “the school to prison pipeline”, where students are being “incarcerated for dress code violations, flatulence, profanity and disrespect…merely on the referral of school personnel”, even kids as young as in the second and third grades. (This story published in the NYT, 16 Jan 2013, by Campbell Robertson)

    • http://twitter.com/allen2saint allen 2saint

      Agreed. In CT, it’s likely an armed guard would have known Adam and been an easy target to him. The kid was a child of an employee, so I doubt any safety measure would have prevented it EXCEPT not getting the kid some help and limiting access to high capacity magazines. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        check your facts next time. the mother did not work there. how exaclty are you going to prevent desperate insane criminals from having access to high capicity magazines? they have no problem shooting dozens but you think they are afraid to violate a gun law? get some facts and get real

    • Gregg Smith

      I guess the implication that police are intent on shaking down innocents to scratch their collective ego has some merit. It can happen, I suppose. But armed guards does not have to mean police. In my view an armed principal would have sufficed. It seem clear to me, regarding Sandy Hook, the only thing that could have prevented slaughter was a good guy/gal with a gun on the scene. We can debate the downside but the upside is pretty strong. 

      • WRB2

        Sorry Gregg, but if we keep following the talking points put out by the creatons who have gotten us into this mess we might loose our semi-autos.  I call them that because the time to talk about gun control is when there has not just been a Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. (happening too often).  The time to talk is when there is not emotions running high on one side or the other.  Many of us send our money to the NRA and sadly the NRA is following the lead of big business and saying it’s our way or the high way.  We want what we want when we want it.  Frankly semi-automatic weapons are not as important as the messed up financial system, the out of control health care system or our sub-optimal education system.  Not by a long shot (pun intended).

        There are many other things that could have prevented it, but sadly not a lot so binary as a good guy/gal with a gun.  The school could have had a state of art entry/security system that would have stopped entry.  Perhaps he would have gone elsewhere and done the same thing to someone else.  Perhaps the town where he lived could have said no assault weapons or hang guns (until 2 yrs ago) allowed, like Chicago Illinois or many of their northern suburbs have.  Then his mother might only have had bolt actions, wheel guns or say a 10/22.  The statement that they only thing….just plain insulting to a lot of people, include you.  I bet you are smarter than that.  It might be the cheapest way, it might be the fastest way, but it’s not the only way.

        There needs to be a long term ongoing discussion about what we should do.  We should agree not only upon actions but also measurements and metrics to judge success by.  We need to understand that some of the rules we put in place not might be too strict and perhaps we will back off in three years.  Perhaps they will be too lax and we will need to change them in different ways.  This topic is not something we should look for a quick fix for.  If we do odds are it will include a ban on assault weapons, which frankly will not work to solve this problem alone.  It may make things worse.

        Please, you are smarter than just mirroring the talking points from the NRA.  None of us like the idea of 10 round magazines.  But for years the NRA said no regulations.  We should have said 30 or 25 and I bet that would not be up for discussions now.  7 rounds is just dumb, Gov Como is not his father, not even close.  His father would have listened to both sides and come up with an equitable answer.

        • hennorama

          WRB2 – TY for your thoughful comments  I respect your views.  Apologies in advance for the following; it’s not intended as criticism, nor am I having fun at your expense.  It’s not even a comment about your post, really.  I simply couldn’t resist.

          Some typos are sort of “Freudian slips” and make me chuckle.  For example, I doubt anyone wants you to “loose [y]our semi-autos” except perhaps at the firing range or on your “back 40.”
          In this context, “loose” means “free” or “remove restraints on” a.k.a “fire at will.”  Again, my apologies.

          • WRB2

            None taken.  Grammar is far from my one of the strengths.  While I haven’t written any in about 15 years I still speak COBOL much better than I do American English.  

            Great observation and thanks for sharing!  Have a great weekend and I hope you have MLK Day off to enjoy and remember.  We all deserve it

        • Gregg Smith

          I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote but you took what I wrote a bit further than I did. I don’t doubt there are plenty of things that could have prevented the tragedy. My position has been the same since before the NRA suggested armed guards. I don’t get their memos. Perhaps I should’t have used the word “prevented” and should have used “stopped”. When all else fails, and it did, someone needs a gun. We certainly don’t want to legislate against it. 

          • WRB2

            I agree we need to stop the stupidity of trying to legislate at the federal level.  IMHO local legislation is much more effective and acceptable.

            I’ve lived in a village where many different firearms were banned and it was fine.  Now I live in a city where they are not and I’m OK with that too.  Actually much happier not but firearm carry and ownership is a small part of the major reasons.

            I do not disagree that an armed professional would have stopped many of these sad events very quickly but I do not want the US to become like many countries.

        • JGC

          I know you are speaking specifically to Gregg, but even though I don’t have much personal experience concerning guns, (and here I am speaking to people in general, not you in particular):  There are a lot of people like me, and that doesn’t mean we don’t have a place at the table for discussing next steps in constructing anti-violence measures, which may or may not include bans/partial bans on certain weaponry and/or ammunition. 

          I do agree with much of what you say, though, especially collecting the data to guide and justify policy. 30, 25, or 10 round magazines, I have no idea. Let’s find the data and let that do the speaking on where we need to draw the line.    

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m in the same boat as you. I’m not and never have been a gun enthusiast. The data shows no evidence assault rifle bans have ever worked. Common sense says if the principal had a gun the kids would have had a better chance. I understand that is fortune telling but it does quack like a duck. I don’t see how that upside should be dismissed in any debate for solutions. And I see no evidence an assault rifle ban would have any affect at all.  You will notice, none is given. The argument seems to be it’s a no-brainer, why discuss it? Knee-jerk reactions in emotionally vulnerable times bug me.

          • WRB2

            yes, Yes, YES, YEAAASSSSS. Part of what concerns me is that we are playing at the federal level at warp speed.  I think we need to put in place things that the individual states can add to, NOT rules that states don’t need.  

            Our Constitution is masterfully designed to allow this to happen with ease.  Universal background checks for all gun sales, THANK YOU Pres. Obama and VP Biden, we should have had that years ago.I grew up in NY State and lived in NYC for nine years.  Love it but if I was still there I would be volunteering to campaign against Como tomorrow.  I really liked his father, IMHO this son did not get all of his goodness. 

      • JGC

        I don’t even necessarily think it is ego, so much as possibly misplaced overenthusiasm on the part of a dedicated volunteer force. ( I can’t help but think of George Zimmerman here, Neighborhood Watchman Extraordinaire.) As for both police and volunteer patrols, if they are within the schools and on the school grounds, it  can be guaranteed that they will start to see some of the kids they are protecting instead as potential “perps”, particularly at the high school level.  They will all be carrying their hammers in search of a nail. Maybe they could be stationed just outside of a schoolground perimeter (a gated school community?), and have absolutely minimal contact with the children. I prefer the idea of a smart entry system like WRB2 is describing below, over more guns. 

        And I just don’t think most teachers want to go the way of being armed as part of their job description. It is going to end up being a multi-tiered prescription for the schools.

        • Gregg Smith

          Yea, I don’t mean to disparage police, I was just acknowledging your point. I don’t think teachers should be required to pack. But my view is they should not be prevented if they meet certain criteria. I think the gun free zones have been a disaster. I can even see a hybrid job description. A great teacher who also happened to be a trained marksman fluent in the psychology of the  troubled would be worth more. I think that if it were known that schools have a few of these teachers it would make schools safer even if they are not identified. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      these new gun control laws have all sorts of manditory minimum prison sentences designed to fill our for profit prisons. personally i think allowing the teachers to be armed is a much better idea

      • brettearle

        To see profit, in the strategy of Protection, is to see cynicism, perhaps, in hiring more crossing guards where there are more accidents involving children in a certain neighborhood; or else it is to see cynicism, perhaps, in stocking school libraries with more books, because children might be reading less often.

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

          I don’t get the connection between for-profit prisons and what Futo said.

          Arizona’s ground zero for bad policy designed to fill up the gov’s friends’ for-profit prisons. (The “Vere are yur Paperz?” law comes to mind first.)

          If anyone can show us that new strict gun laws there are being lobbied for by those private “prisoneers”, I’ll listen.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            we know the gun manufacturers are the major financial backers of anti gun control efforts and that makes sense because thats their business. the only people i can think of who benefit from creating a bunch of new manditory minimum sentences would be the prison/law enforcement/ industrial complex because i can’t think of any scenerio where making a law abiding citizen a felon for putting one too many bullets in their gun benefits anyone else. these laws are just so bizarre they dont make any sense unless the goal is to create new “clients” for prisons and such. if you can explain how these laws make sense otherwise please tell me becasue they clearly wont have any impact on crime or safety.

  • Gregg Smith

    Not that anyone cares but I thought about you guys this last week. It rained… and rained and rained. And it was a slow soaking’ rain, nearly 5 days worth. Once the ground is totally saturated, everything changes… and it keeps coming. I’ll spare ya’ll the details of what that means for farmers keeping livestock but it’s more than you might imagine… rounded up. 

    I dig it. It’s doing what you have to do. We all do that everyday. My mantra is: “Nothing’s easy”. It’s a liberating notion because, if true, it can only follow that nothing is hard either. Or I could be bitter because greedy right-wingnuts are too stupid to realize unless we roll back our standard of living 100 years we’ll melt.. or drown… or something. I never thought that but I did think of ya’ll and even though the talk last week was AGW induced drought I felt sure some here would blame flooding on AGW too.

    We went to look at a small skid steer loader for sale. The seller lived well off the beaten path. When we got there, at night, he was wearing a holstered handgun. We didn’t think a thing about it. We didn’t feel in danger. We didn’t pay it any attention. I did think of ya’ll though.

    No point really. 

    • 1Brett1

      …the movie from the 1950s, The Bad Seed, was on yesterday. There was something about the little, sociopathic, blond girl…I don’t know, there was something reminiscent of your approach in her. Some might say because she felt very clever in all of her machinations yet it was easy to see through her…I don’t know.

      No point really.

      • Gregg Smith

        I’ll defer to the expert on me, you, because Lord knows I’m aways up to something and you always know exactly what it is. 

        • 1Brett1

          ? I said, “some might say…” but “…I don’t know.” 

          I mean you made your comment on this forum, and it alluded to topics of climate change and handguns and how personal events reminded you of some on here and their opinions…but you said you had “no point, really.” So, we can all (as in “y’all”) take you at face value and not read any purpose into your comment.   

          “…you always know exactly what it is.” 

          Oh, and don’t tell me what I think!

          • brettearle

            Brett, 

            Give him some room to breathe, his fumes are beginning to pollute the thread……

            which means that this website might soon be guilty of global warming.

      • Mike_Card

        Was Patty Duke noted in anything else?  Or was she The Bad Egg?

    • brettearle

       Did you ask him for a written review of his last 6 sessions with a psychotherapist?

      • Gregg Smith

        Good one!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      gosh i hope he only had 7 rounds in the magizine if he had 8 he would be a felon under the new proposed law

    • JGC

      I’m glad you’re thinking about us. Maybe Tom Ashbrook would let us do a spinoff of his program, and the name of his second hour could be changed to “No Point”.  ;)

       

      • Gregg Smith

        That’s funny, can you be on point while making no point? You could on a show called “No Point”. I like it.

  • http://twitter.com/allen2saint allen 2saint

    “Constitution” militants, trust me, if the government ever decides to make a move, your silly AR15′s aren’t going to make a difference. Lord. 

    • brettearle

      Yes, that is the obvious pathetic fallacy, in the Right to Bear Arms.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        ask the jewish people who lived in germany in 1940s how well gun control worked out for them

        • WRB2

          We should not be looking at bans, but rather management.  Better background checks for everyone.  Reasonable ways to get people with emotional (mental?) issues help and when they are better judged and labeled as such in any registry.

          Feds should not ban, they should guide and make it easy for states to manage. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well we already have background checks at gun shows in mass. people who have mental health determinations are already prohibited from buying guns. i dont really s ee any problem with updating the databases where they have not been to include the determinations of mental illness. where it gets sticky is the current bill which would require you to give all your private medical records to the police. all this will do is keep crazy people from seeking treatment so they dont get on the crazy list it wont keep anyone from having a gun that should not.

          • WRB2

            Sounds like a great approach, states regulate access to fire arms.  A lot of states do very well for their state.  Problem is that some people look at these large shootings as a national issue and IMHO it is not.

            Our political system is so out of hand, so disrespectful, so binary that we are heading down some paths that are way too dangerous.

            It will be too long a discussion to get every state to decided what is the UNIVERSAL level.  The feds should require a state run database that includes an aspect of mental illness.  We need to have an up to national listing of all convictions that would  prohibit someone from owning a firearm.  The key is that is needs to be kept up to date.  Rather than holding back funding from states who do not keep this up to date.  Give extra funding to the states who are the best for the previous year.  Judge this by measurements and metrics that are well published so everyone can see the results.

        • brettearle

          You actually believe that the Ghetto Jews, in Eastern Europe, could have stopped the Gestapo–if Jewish families were heavily armed?

          Are you kidding me?

          Had they been armed, there would have been a mini-Holocaust, before the real one….

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and you base that on….?

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – you may have missed it, but the German military invaded and occupied Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France, pushed British troops out of Europe, nearly bombed and starved Great Britian into submission, invaded Yugoslavia, Greece, North Africa and Russia and were finally defeated after 5 1/2 of total war, only when the entire free world allied against them.

          Given that, it’s not very likely “the jewish people who lived in germany in 1940s” would have had much success regadless of how well they might have been armed.

          Strike two.  Try again.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            hmm you may have missed it but Hitler never tried to invade us. you know why? because we all have guns.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – nice attempt to change your argument. You typed “ask the jewish people who lived in germany in 1940s how well gun control worked out for them” and now want to counter with a foolish argument about “Hitler never tried to invade us.”

            Exactly what does that have to do with “ask[ing] the jewish people who lived in germany in 1940s how well gun control worked out for them?”

            Is this strike four or five now?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you might need to get your eyes checked ump. providing additional information is not changing my argument it is providing more evidence to support my conclusion. BTW you havent provided even a rational arguement much less any facts. The simple fact is the jewish people did not have guns and they got exterminated. you arent a holocaust denier are you?

          • Guest

            Futo Buddy – you shan’t be getting any arguments from me today. As I said Sen. Alexander quoting Alex Haley at today’s Inauguration, which had a nice bipartisan ring to it, put me in a pacific mood. Enjoy your day.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy -  As I said earlier, Sen. Alexander quoting Alex Haley at today’s Inauguration had a nice bipartisan ring to it, and put me in a pacific mood.  You shan’t be getting any arguments from me on this day.
            Enjoy your day.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i guess its a matter of opinion what may have happened but we know that they did not have guns and were exterminated, seems like a theme in history. forgive me, but was switzerland on that list? i wonder why Hitler never invaded there?

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – again, are you attempting to address my post or simply asking yet another rhetorical question? Exactly what does any lack of German invasion of Switzerland during WWII have to do with “ask[ing] the jewish people who lived in germany in 1940s how well gun control worked out for them?”

            You might also do some actual research if you truly “wonder why Hitler never invaded” Switzerland. As I am neither an historian nor a timetravelling mind reader, I suggest you consult some historians or travel back in time to get the answer.

            I doubt you will make any such effort, given your previous admission of willful ignorance.

            Is this strike ten, eleven, or twelve now?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol i am sorry if your willful ignorance prevents you from divorcing yourself from your preconceived notions. maybe you should look at what you wrote. all i said was i dont have time to read a dozen links just because you are unable to provide a direct answer to direct question.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – you shan’t be getting any arguments from me today. As I said Sen. Alexander quoting Alex Haley at today’s Inauguration, which had a nice bipartisan ring to it, put me in a pacific mood. Enjoy your day.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – you shan’t be getting any arguments from me today. As I said Sen. Alexander quoting Alex Haley at today’s Inauguration, which had a nice bipartisan ring to it, put me in a pacific mood. Enjoy your day.

        • 1Brett1

          Shhh! Gregg Smith thinks I make people like you up!

          • Gregg Smith

            Please don’t tell me what I think.

          • 1Brett1

            From an earlier post (yesterday) on this same forum:

            Brett [stupid things I've heard from neocons]: “If jews had had guns, they could have stopped the Nazis.” 

            Gregg: “Liberals love the word “if”. It enables them to write their own story and project dastardly implications.” 

          • Gregg Smith

            Huh?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            historically, jewish people with guns are called isralies now and jewish people without guns called ashes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      thats why we need more gun rights not less thanks for proving our point. and i dont know but the afganies and iraqies have done a pretty good job with their AKs ask the soviet union about the afganies and their AKs

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – you may have missed it, but ” the afganies and iraqies” [sic] had other weapons besides “their AKs.”

        Billion of dollars in aid were funneled to the Afghans for weapons and training, and the Afghans obtained Stinger missles and various heavy weapons to use against the Soviet military.  Without these weapons they would not have succeeding in dislodging Soviet occupiers.

        The Iraqis had a standing army, which was easily defeated.  Not a great example for your argument.  The subsequent insurgency’s main successes against Coalition forces were from the use of IEDs, mortars, rockets, snipers and suicide bombers.  Mass attacks using “their AKs” were seldom very successful and generally resulted in enormous casualties to the insurgents.

        You need a new argument.  Better luck next time.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          LOL so who is funneling the stinger missiles to the afgans today that have kept the most powerful military at bay for over a decade with a tiny population? ars make great sniper rifles good reason for everyone to buy one and very concise argument for people to be allowed to own stinger missiles. i will take a dozen please. Iraq is also a tiny country compared to the US yet we were unable to subdue them. BTW we allow every male in iraq to keep one ak-47 in their home why should we treat our own citizens worse than our enemies? 

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – nice attempt to change your argument. You typed “ask the soviet union about the afganies and their AKs” and now turn to the circumstances of the US military’s occupation of Afghanistan. Last I checked, the US military has not been dislodged from Afghanistan by anyone.

            The US military also quite handily defeated the Iraqi military and the subsequent insurgency had little success against the US military “with their AKs.”

            You wish to do something you urge others to do – “check your facts next time” and/or “get some facts and get real.”

            Is this strike three or four now?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well “ump” you had an issue witht he soviet example so i provided another. i must have missed our defeat of the insurgency in Iraq. oh now i remember that was when bush stood in front of the mission accomplished banner? seems like we left the quagmire of iraq with our tail between our legs and i am glad we did. i also dont view our afgan quagmire as much of a victory apparently its a matter of opinion

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for your response.

            Hearing Sen. Lamar Alexander’s quoting of Alex Haley at today’s Inauguration, which had a nice bipartisan ring to it, put me in a pacific mood. Enjoy your day.

            Here’s the quote: “Find the good and praise it.”

      • Thinkfreeer

        Absolutely! If the full on US military can’t win in 11, 12, 13, how many? years in Afghanistan, There’s no way they have a chance in the US.

  • Thinkfreeer

    Jake Tapper commented, about his question for Obama, that Obama was upset that “this was the FOURTH major massacre on my “watch,” (as if he is responsible (like God) for every little thing that happens in the US.)”
    I wonder which four of the 15 mass murder shootings during his term he was referring to. If it was deaths, the top four were, 27, 13, 13, and 12. If it was deaths plus injuries, those four are different. If it was just the ones using an AR-15 style rifle, those are again different. If it was the four with the most rounds fired, those were again a different four. I’m baffled. Or, could it be that he is not relying on facts and only emotions? As many are saying, that “tragedy.” This evokes theater, passion, not reasoned debate.Obama said – “If there’s even one life can can be saved, we have an obligation to try.” He may feel that way, but it is not a rational reason to do anything. If that were the standard, there are numerous issues that need his attention. And, if he really wanted to prevent innocent deaths, it might be a good idea to stop unseen drones raining random death on the ground from safe remote locations.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i bet we could save more than 1 life by banning cars that go faster than 20 mph! won’t someone please think of the children?

      • WRB2

        We need to have a zero tolerance for drinking and driving.  That would be more effective.

        • Coastghost

          With more and more cell phones driving cars these days, you might think we’d have fewer drunk drivers, but even if so, we’ve no improvement to boast.

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – I’ve heard of self-driving cars, but not “cell phones driving cars.”  Did your cat jump on your keyboard, were you still half asleep when you posted this, or have I somehow missed this new automotive phenomenon?

            Coastie … you got some ‘splainin’ to do!

          • Coastghost

            Oh sure, around here cell phones drive cars all the time, as long as they’re held to the left or right ear of a driver the way fungus extends from the brain of a zombified ant. This global warming, I tell you . . .

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – ah, yes. In some parts these are called Textasses. Others call ‘em DWhiPs (Driving While Phoning). This is a partially self-correcting condition. NHTSA said 3,092 people died in 2010 in “distraction-affected” crashes, a new measurement tallying the effect of texting, phoning or answering a call while driving.

            No data on how many of these were drivers, though.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            we need to ban cell phones or at least have universal background checks for them! wont someone please think of the children?

        • Thinkfreeer

          I have absolutely no tolerance for zero-tolerance policies!

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          because we tolerate it now? or because people only  crash when they are drunk? the problem is the high speeds we need to limit the capacity of vehicles to 20 mph! unless you want kids to die you need to agree with me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      children in pakistan and afganistan are expendable?

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

     From The Article.  I am quoting what I see as most important.  

  • Gregg Smith

    Politifact’s lie of the year went to Romney for saying Chrysler planned to build Jeeps in China. Chrysler plans to build Jeeps in China.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130114/AUTO04/301140373

    • JGC

      My recollection is that Romney (implied? said?) that Chrysler was shifting jobs from the U.S. to China for the production of the Jeep, at the expense of American workers.  No U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost.  Like your article says, these Chinese manufacturing jobs are for Jeeps to stay in the local Chinese market, not outsourcing Jeep production to China for import to U.S. buyers. 

      • Bill_GKD

        Romney ran the one in question on the heels of an add saying:

        ”Barack Obama says he saved the auto industry. But for who? Ohio or
        China? Under President Obama, GM cut 15,000 American jobs, but they are
        planning to double the number of cars built in China, which means 15,000
        more jobs for China. And now comes word that Chrysler is planning to
        build cars in, you guessed it, China.”

        http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/gm_also_disputes_romney_on_auto_jobs/

        From the same article Romney also said:

        “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state,
        Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production
        to China.”

        I think that the campaign was clearly trying to give the impression to voters that Chinese production would come at the expense of American jobs, given the ground that it had been laying just prior to running the other ad.

      • Gregg Smith

        Romney never said that jobs were being shifted or outsourced but Politifact claimed he did. Chrysler is expanding and they are doing so in China instead of America.

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

        Once more, Gregg’s bald statement of fact doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

        • Gregg Smith

          I posted the ad, what didI get wrong?

    • Mike_Card

      Am needing some context for this.

      • Gregg Smith

        It was a campaign ad by Romney. 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVv6w0EC7Qs

        I think it came up in a debate too. It was true then as well but the timing was not good for Obama. So much fuss was made that Chrysler’s CEO denied the report which ultimately turned out to be true. Politifact actually misrepresented Romney’s claim but that’s typical. They awarded it the “Lie of the Year”.

        • Mike_Card

          With the whoppers that came out of the Romney/Ryan campaign, if the one about Jeep production wasn’t the winner, I’m sure there are multiple runners up.

          But why did that come up today?  Or is that a reply of yours to some other entry that Disqus fu**ed up?

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s news because Chrysler just made it official. But the damage is done. Romney was telling the truth but was labeled with the lie of the year. No biggee really, it happens all the time. The media will never be fair to Republicans, it’s a fact of life. No need to bitch but I will point it out.

          • Mike_Card

            Thanks.  I think that question of media fairness is certainly open–another day, tho.

          • jefe68

            Oh boo hoo, the media is unfair to the poor GOP.

  • Fredlinskip

    Apparently the best arguments “rational” folks make against ban on certain “assault” weapons are:
    1) It’s 1st step to taking all our guns away. 
    No legislators advocate that. Get real.
    2) They think “good” guys need same capacity weapon as “bad” guy. 
    Lots of holes that can be poked in that argument.
    It’s not because there aren’t enough guns, that our murder rate is about 20 times the average of other developed countries. 

      For one, studies confirm that having gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death and that of your spouse and children- No matter how guns are stored or what type owned. 
     I can understand NRA efforts to suppress actual studies of such issues.
      Most burglaries occur when no one is home. In those rare incidents where a burglar is in your home while you are, if you think he(she) might be heavily armed you may want to think twice before going out of your way to initiate shoot-out, EVEN if you were highly trained. If the burglar turns out to be some local kid in once in a lifetime drunken act you shouldn’t need to spray him(her) with dozens of bullets to make your point.
      Supplying military arsenal to everyone will not lead to less gun violence. This is common sense. 

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

       Yeah look at all the peace in Mexico and all the violence in Switzerland.

      • WRB2

        My son was saying that in Switzerland people are required to serve and keep their weapons at home.  Very heavily armed country, low crime rate, have lots of “assault weapons” in it, though not the number of people with multiple as we have. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          actually many swiss have several guns they are even allowed heavy weapons such as rocket launchers and cannons with a permit of course. the govt even subsidises ammuntion. lets stop blaming the inanimate objects and take a look at the humans as the problem.

          • WRB2

            Could not agree more.  We need some creative short term fixes while we work out the true causes and address them.  Really hard to do at a national level.  Not sure it’s ever been done, but we are all Americans and when we put our mind to it we can do anything.

          • jefe68

            I tried to find any evidence to support your claim that the Swiss are allowed to own rocket launchers and cannons. I came up with nothing.
            You seem to be posting a lot of bad information based on what seems to me to be a comic book notion of reality.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well did you come up with anything to disprove it? your inability to find evidence is not evidence of absence so try to come up with some “good” information before you call mine bad

    • Gregg Smith

      It seems to me that an argument against an assault weapon ban is not required. What is the argument for it? Where is the evidence it’s worked?

      • Fredlinskip

          There are plenty of arguments for AW ban. Read posts below.
          But it seems to me an argument for an AW for a ban is really not even required. 

        It should be obvious that flooding the country with more AW’s is not a good idea.

        • Gregg Smith

          If you want to make new legislation then you should be able to demonstrate how it would be effective. 

          There is a world of difference between opposing a ban on assault weapons and “Supplying military arsenal to everyone” or “flooding the country with more AW’s”.

          • 1Brett1

            “If you want to make new legislation then you should be able to demonstrate how it would be effective.”

            Yeah, women and African-Americans should have provided demonstrable evidence that giving them their civil rights would be effective, before they were given the right to vote! 

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s sick.

          • jefe68

            Why is it that anytime civil rights or race is brought up you use the meme “that’s sick”?

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s not anytime those things are brought up, it’s when the race card is played out of the blue.

          • jefe68

            Sorry you do this all the time.
            It’s juvenile.

            I’m not doing that. Posting an article about how the 2nd Amendment came into being is not using the race card.
            If you see it as such that says more about you and how you relate to race.

          • Gregg Smith

            Are gun nuts racists?

          • StilllHere

            It’s the only card he has left.

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

            It’s an attempt at inoculation and sometimes false equivalence.

            Gregg may be totally non racist. But he needs to show us sometimes that he has a line to be crossed by calling other things genuinely racist when they are.

            Of course, he has no compunction about the racism his side needs to win. Like the character Stephen Colbert plays, that’s bound to happen when one “doesn’t see color”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the civil rights movement would have been impossible if african americans and their supporters were not able to protect themselves using firearms. < just take a look at malcom over there

          • Fredlinskip

            Martin Luther would disagree. 
            So would Gandhi.
            Please go out and shoot something- you’re awfully wound up.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            ROFL take a look at pictures of MLK in public those gentlemen surrounding him arent carrying slingshots to keep him from being killed by white supreamicists (which is a good thing since shilngshots are illegal in Mass)
            ghandi-”Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will lookupon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” keep it up and i will bring the dhali lama into  it lol
             

          • Fredlinskip

             Military arsenal (seen AW’s referenced as) … to everyone- somehat sarcastic reference to NRA’s solution of adding more guns.“flooding country”? If we end up, shortly with twice as many AW’s in citizens hands then at present because we fail to act,  then country would  have “Mega Bunch” more AW’s. Better?As far as demonstrating effectiveness, further studies are necessary, but one things for sure, after ban, , no one will be able to use these unavailable AW’s  to perpetuate murder or commit crime

          • Gregg Smith

            No one is handing out guns. Passing laws first and then studying the effects later is not good governance.

          • jefe68

            So by this logic seat belt laws should not have been passed.

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s crazy, they passed the laws because there was so much evidence they worked. It’s still a bad law.

          • jefe68

            The auto industry fought the seat belt laws and how is it crazy?

            The seat belt law is a a bad law?

            What’s crazy is how you react to my comments.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            if you want to die in a car wreck dont wear your belt if you do dont wear it why do we need big brother to make that decision?

          • Gregg Smith

            They could not fight the evidence which came first.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            wow they actually have a ban that makes the millions of such guns just cease to exist when they sign it? they really should have done that sooner just like they did with drugs. those are completly unavailable and no longer able to cause anyone harm thank god they are banned.
             

          • Fredlinskip

            They’re not coming to get your guns- so sleep tight with whatever you want under your pillow if you think it makes you safer.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i guess you havent seen the law they passed in new york or the proposed laws in Mass.
            thank you for noting my god given right to sleep with whatever i want under my pillow personally i perfer a semiautomatic  shotgun but i respect other americans who choose a ar15 with a 30 rnd clip. (too lumpy)everyone needs to sleep

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what are the reasons because it worked so well in 1994? that did a great job of preventing columbine!

          • Fredlinskip

            Maybe it did a great job in preventing the one in your neighborhood.
            I guess we’ll never know.
            New ban is not going to do anything about weapons already out there. But I’m 100% sure (no studies necessary) that any weapons that are never put in circulation will never be used for a crime.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            my neighborhood is fine the schools here arent gun free zones. whats you plan then stop making new weapons? make the available ones more expensive and harder to get so that only the wealthy and real criminals will go through the risk and effort to get them?

      • JGC

        I am heavy duty on the New York Times today. They published an op-ed “I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.” by former Australian prime minister John Howard on 17 Jan 2013.  Howard (stalwart BFF of GWB) talked about the measures he drove after a semiautomatic rampage by a psychologically disturbed man in Tasmania who killed 35 people in 1996.  Howard 1.)banned the importation of automatic and semiautomatic weapons into Australia, 2.)persuaded the states to enact their own uniform laws prohibiting ownership, possession and sale of all such weapons and 3.)instituted a federally financed gun buy-back scheme.  

        He finished the op-ed, ” The Australian Institute  of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buy-back scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres – each with more than four victims – causing a total of 102 deaths.  There has not been a single massacre  in that category since 1996.”

        • Gregg Smith

          I’m a big fan of John Howard especially during the Iraq days. However, I don’t think comparisons are analogous because our Constitutions are different. But even so, violent crime has risen in Australia after banning certain guns.

          http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

          • 1Brett1

            Weren’t you, the other day, using Switzerland to promote the idea of armed citizenry being a good thing? …So, it’s okay to use another country as an example if it fits one’s narrative, not okay if it doesn’t? But, if one can find some data (whether skewed or not) that makes the example bad for the opposing viewpoint, then the example can be reinstated as a good one? 

          • Gregg Smith

            No, I was making the case that more guns does not mean more crime. Regarding Australia, violent crimes went up after the ban. That’s not a narrative, it’s a fact. I refuted the claim and still gave my view that it’s apples and oranges. I weakened my own point on purpose. That’s what honest debate is. What’s the problem?

            Again, I hate to beat a dead horse but why is your comment about me? How many times do you evoke my name in comments to others? JGC and I were talking nicely about an issue and your comment avoids that issue and is all about me. Why get personal, I’ve already stipulated how awful I am?

          • 1Brett1

            Your take on Australia is a cherry picked characterization. How am I to know that in one of your references to a country as a good example of strong gun ownership shows good results, and another example of another country that has implemented gun control measures is a good example of how that adversely affects society are intended as different types of arguments; you only seem to establish their intent after they have been refuted (ostensibly giving you some kind of cover).

            Yes, you are kicking a dead horse, it’s not personal (yet when you bring up how personal it is you sound justified; when I do, I’m “making it personal). I will challenge how you argue your points; that doesn’t mean I’m making it about you, just as when you said in one of your replies to me that my argument was “bizarre” is not personal. This persistent “dead horse” of yours becomes a trump card, a way to shut down debate. Your use of the word “bizarre” does just that…so, no hypocrisy, please.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yea, but you didn’t challenge my points now did you?

          • JGC

            I chose Australia as an example for two reasons: it was a prominent recent example of gun control that reduced deaths, and it was highlighted by a head of state of that country who has been characterized as a conservative governing PM. 

          • JGC

            I am simmering, too. There are many points of view in the world, and I guess some don’t understand that “family” can disagree, agreeably. AGREEABLY.  Maybe the stakes are too high, for some. But maybe most cannot let their position be challenged one iota.    (What is an “iota” BTW? Oh, nevermind…)   

          • jefe68

            That’s the way this guy rolls.
            He’s not interested in a debate. 

        • Thinkfreeer

          It’s not unconstitutional in Australia

          • JGC

            You are correct to say it works within the Australian constitution. The request was for evidence: can it work?  It is not necessarily constitutional in the U.S.   And actually in the op-ed ex-PM Howard does specify the differences between U.S. and Australian law. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          did he mention how home invasions skyrocketed? did he say how many more people are beaten and stabbed to death?

          • JGC

            Wait a minute…did home invasions in Australia really skyrocket?  And if they did, was it at the point of a semi-automatic or at the point of Red Ryder BB gun?  I am taking a verbatim piece from a conservative/Republican administration-friendly prime minister as “evidence” for: does a ban on assault weapons work?  And if anyone can believe a conservative Australian prime minister, then, yes, in their country, it does work.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats your point?

          • JGC

            I am turning to the greater public audience here:

            ‘nuf said.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you havent seen rep david linskys proposal to force people to store their guns at gun clubs? they also have proposals to just take lawfully purchased guns from people in Mass. The problem is that these rules only affect the good guys and do not affect the bad guys. Why do you think people dont break in while you are home? Why do you want elderly women to be defenseless against criminals? Your “common sense” is funny because in the previos sentence you use the term “gun violence”. that term implys that guns are violent but thats impossible since guns are inanimant. Maybe you should go listen to the 911 call of the woman in georgia who defended her kids from a home invader. she shot him 5 times yet he was still able to lead police on a high speed chase and a foot persuit. Lucky for her it was just one person often 3-6 people will be involved in these home invasions. You should go try to get a class A LTC in boston or worcester then tell us all about how easy it was.

      • Fredlinskip

          For every congressman who wants to effect legislation effecting all guns there’s probably one on other end of spectrum that thinks all kids should be given AW’s on their 16th birthday (along with some violent video games). 
        One congressman does not a majority make.
        Your paranoid. No ones coming to take guns away from “elderly widows” or anyone else.
        People could not commit “violence” with AW’s if they didn’t have easy access to them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          um this is massachusetts and the govener agrees with him. My wifes pistol holds 10 rounds under the proposal if she puts 8 bullets in it she will be a felon. This is a person who has a perfect record her whole life AND has permission to own it from the local police chief. fred could you do me a favor and define AW? in switzerland every teen boy is given an “AW” and they dont have hardly any crime. and not to nitpick but i think you meant “affecting”. oh and you would feel better with people commiting violence as long its not using scary balck guns? yes that worked out fine for the people in the world trade center and oklahoma city

          • Fredlinskip

            I think of “AW’s” as those associated with military use and (many) multiple round magazines. Ban would include multiple round clips associated with some “semi-auto” weapons. Straighten me out if I’m off base here.
              I am of opinion that one shouldn’t need weapon capable of killing dozens of folks in a few seconds to defend oneself.
              I am of the opinion that millions of these weapons in our country is not making us safer. In fact it increases the likelihood that they could fall in “wrong” hands.
             This is just plain old common sense.
            I’m sorry you feel so offended that your wife, a responsible owner has to count bullets so that she doesn’t become a felon. Some folks MAY have to sacrifice a little bit so as to decrease the chances of wrong folks getting a hold of these weapons.
              These are my opinions- you’ve a right to your own.
              By the way, about McVeigh- there are # of posters here who apparently believe he was a patriotic hero. Why?
            Because somehow they have read into the constitution that it’s a good idea to stockpile weapons in order to attack our own country should the whim arise.

            Switzerland? I haven’t the time to study the issue, but it’s probably not as cut and dry as “more AW’s= less crime” Will do so when time allows.

            Appreciate the spelling correction.
            Good day.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            actually I have no problem calling actual military weapons assult weapons, the problem is that these people want to ban guns just because they look simular to military weapons. can you explain how that 8th bullet increases “the chances of wrong folks getting a hold of these weapons” and why my wife should give up her constitutional and god given rights so people can feel safer by makeing her less safe? i dont have the exact fgures but most people put the total # of americans killed in these masss shooting between 200-400 when mcveigh killed roughly the same # in one act.  the guy in aurora had all sorts of bombs so its not hard to imagine if he was unable to get the guns he would have used those instead perhaps killing far more people. my basic argument is that we will not solve the problem of people wanting to commit mass murders by restricting the rights of other people to own guns. the whole idea of “gun violence” is silly. it implys that the guns are being violent and not the people who have decided to be murderers and that simply making a gun harder to get  for law abiding people will take away the murderous intents or murderers.

          • jefe68

            You’re post is full of misinformation.
            First off men in Switzerland are all trained in the military and issued 50 rounds. Only 50 rounds. Every 18-30 years old Swiss male between has to do three months’ military training, and many more regular refresher courses.

            Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12#ixzz2IXcLq7U8
            As far as I understand the new laws regarding clips your wife would not be breaking any laws as I understand if any of the magazine laws come into effect it would effect new gun magazine sales. 

            Try to be less hyperbolic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what does the fact that the swiss no longer issue ammunition have to do with anything? in Switzerland most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer’s name in a bound book.
             here is the proposal in mass http://www.goal.org/action-alert.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GoalNews-GunOwnersActionLeague+%28GOAL+News+-+Gun+Owners%27+Action+League%29
            maybe you should actually read it instead of making things up? is hyperbolic your word of the day? do you think it makes you sound clever? maybe you should read about what the laws in switzerland are and not cherry pick from an article that cherry picked from wikipedia?

  • Mike_Card

    Five persons wounded by gunfire in 3 different gun shows–N. Carolina, Indiana, Ohio–on Saturday.  Guns don’t kill people, guns wound people.

    • 1Brett1

      …well, it’s because these are gun free zones–no, wait…

      I wonder how many of those on this forum who seem to be advocating for no gun owner restrictions would react to someone going berserk at a gun show?…Actually, I can imagine. Someone at a gun show would probably eventually pull out a gun and kill or incapacitate the shooter and the gun libertarian would claim, “see, armed citizenry stopped the carnage!” This would be the claim no matter how many died.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        hmm i wonder how many people attended gun shows on saturday, they have been setting a lot of records lately.  i wonder how many attendees had heart attacks at the gun shows. given the number of people and the deomgraphics one has to imagine its quite a few more than 5. Now lets compare the number or people injured to a typical sunday of football and i doubt we will not even have to include all the drunk driving deaths after the game to get a larger number of people injured while enjoying that pasttime. hell more than 5 players get hauled off the field on a typical sunday with serious injuries.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          why do you think no one has ever “gone beserk” at a gun show? you think its just a coincidence?

    • WRB2

      Interesting observation.  An observation I’ve had at gun shows is that the majority of folks there are very price sensitive and a few might not have the discipline and maturity that the VAST majority of gun owners have.

      We need a bit more information than a sub-sound-bite before we should draw a conclusion, or at least I do.  Who owned the guns that discharged?  Was it in anger or a really stupid mistake.  What were they doing when they went off?  Perhaps trying a loaded pistol in a new holster?  

      I’ve never seen any seller at any gun show handing people a loaded firearm.  Sellers are there to make money and the local gun show community is very small and tight. If anyone did they would get banned for life and be stuck with a lot of expensive inventory.  Most sellers I’ve met have a very healthy respect for a loaded firearm.

      My guess, OK a SWAG (Super Wide A55 Guess) is that it was person who came in with it.  There should be a rule a gun shows that you can not bring a loaded weapon into the show.  Pull your magazine out and put it into the other pocket.

      It’s a good observation but let’s not feed the stupidity that is running wild and get all the info, you are smart than stooping to the level most PACs operate at.

      • Mike_Card

        Here’s my source:  http://news.msn.com/us/5-hurt-in-accidental-shootings-at-3-us-gun-shows?gt1=51501

        It sounds like all 3 incidents involved loaded weapons that were accidentally discharged.  The effect on the human body is irrespective of intent, I would say.

        • WRB2

          True.  How many people died yesterday as a result of drunk driving?  

          The people who miss controlled their firearms yesterday should not have the right to carry (open or concealed) a hand gun for five years.  If they want to request the privileged to do so then they should be required to attend some level of training and be tested for skills on safety and handgun handling every year for the next five.

          • Mike_Card

            I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m sure you could google it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i would like to know how many old men had heart attacks at strip clubs on saturday.
            seems about as relevent to the debate. even more germaine is how many people were injured vs the total # of attendees? i bet its less than at a football game or any other simular event where alcohol is served

          • WRB2

            Do not forget world cup matches (the other football), that might tilt the scales a bit too

          • Mike_Card

            I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m sure you could google it.

      • 1Brett1

        Essentially, what you are saying is, “let’s not discuss what could happen at places where guns are present, but what did happen at a given incident only, and we should wait for an in-depth investigation before we make any judgments.”  Ah, but when there is any talk about any event in gun restricted areas it’s, “let’s not talk about how gun-restriction can save lives statistically but what might happen in gun-free zones and what has happened in some gun-free zones.”

        So, those who don’t want restrictions on gun ownership wish to apply different standards to their side of the argument than the other side. 

        • WRB2

          Not at all.  I am saying that everything we need to make laws about should have full and complete information about it.  Wall Street is based upon the belief that all investors have that and we see how well that has worked (while S-OX has helped).

          I’m not saying that we should not start discussions with sound-bites, but we should be careful about drawing decisive conclusions with less that a reasonably complete set of facts for both side.

          Frankly weapon free zones are fine, but frankly we have done a sub optimal of making people in gun free zones safe.  Be that with better designed access to those spaces or professional guards (I like the idea of sky marshalesk random rotations) or some other solution.  

          Both sides need to back down from the binary approach, name calling and find some common ground.  We need a national discussion, a few good strong quick fixes, but with the understanding that we may adjust some of them as we continue the discussion.  We need to keep talking, learning and understanding both sides.  We need to think of creative alternatives that help fund safety, understanding and freedom.  

  • 1Brett1

    “Gun Free” zones doesn’t mean no one in the area has a gun; it just means citizens should not carry guns and are violating the law of they do. There also isn’t any evidence to suggest any of these mass shootings has occurred because of this signage (as if any of these killers went out, saying, “I must kill,” then said, “oh, look, here’s a ‘gun free zone’ that’ll be a good place for me to kill”). It’s difficult to say what the motives have been for these killers, but no reasonable person would say the killers’ reasons were because they were gun free zones.

    There are already plenty of schools with armed guards. There’s no evidence to suggest these prevent such killings. To button down all schools would be quite an act, not only philosophically but from a fiscal standpoint. 

    • Gregg Smith

      I just disagree, Sandy Hook, Aurora, VA Tech, go down the list. They are gun free zones. The killers are insane not stupid. The Aurora shooter went out of his way to find the gun free theater. Meanwhile there are other cases where guns are allowed that concealed carriers took out the bad guy pronto. This has all been well documented by very reasonable people. 

      • 1Brett1

        You can disagree; that’s your prerogative. The fact remains it is just your personal opinion and not fact. You don’t know what was in the killers’ minds. 

        Examples can be made on either side of the argument; how is it that examples that turn out favorably for your viewpoint are to be used, yet ones that don’t are to be dismissed? You are asking people to prove things all the time, yet these standards don’t apply to you. Holding up an example of a person who killed an intruder or whatever, isn’t proof of anything. It is always going to be after-the-fact analysis. There’s no way to determine what the outcome would have been in a given situation if a person would have been unarmed, or if the person armed would have been overpowered, or so on…if we are going to use “facts” then statistical data would be more reliable (although those can also be manipulated to fit a narrative). “The Aurora shooter went out of his way to find the gun free theater.” You don’t know why the shooter picked that theatre; it appears it had more to do with the movie being played (he was identifying with characters in the movie in some way) and not that it was a “gun free zone.” 

        • Gregg Smith

          First of all, you have no idea what is favorable to my viewpoint. You make it all up. My only viewpoint regarding this issue is saving kids.

          And I don’t ask for proof of squat. I don’t know where you get that. I can’t prove what might have happened. At the same time we know the victims were unarmed and helpless and it’s because of laws. I can prove that.

          Now, if you are making the leap that my recent reply to Fredlinskip was asking for “proof” then it’s too weird to debate. If you think (not saying you do but your implication seems clear) society should elect leaders to skirt the legislative process to enact laws without having to demonstrate how they will (or even might) help, even with a decade of records to look at regarding bans, then I won’t go there. Too bizarre.

          • 1Brett1

            Your viewpoint isn’t simply “saving kids.” You have been advocating for armed guards in schools; you have since this “debate” started on here over a month ago. 

            As far as where I get your “proof” meme. You have regularly said that to pass gun control legislation, a burden of proof needs to be shown that any legislation is effective before any laws are passed. There’s nothing “bizarre” about my accusation. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Despite the obvious advantages, I have never advocated armed guards in schools, liar. 

            No, I said the onus is on the lawmakers to make the case for their law. And I said it in reply to the notion lawmakers are not held to that standard and instead the onus is on the plebes to prove the law is bad. I find it bizarre, sue me.

            Here’s what I wrote: “If you want to make new legislation then you should be able to demonstrate how it would be effective.”

            How do you turn that into demanding proof? I never even used the word. It’s mind reading again.

          • 1Brett1

            What? you’ve said repeatedly that you think having armed guards in schools is a good idea (even a “no brainer”). You haven’t stipulated what form those should take (you’ve mentioned armed teachers/principals, but also “armed guards”). 

            How can one demonstrate something will work without proof? You idiocy has reached new highs (or is that lows?)

          • Gregg Smith

            I have said since day one that the best chance those students could have had is if the principal or a teacher were armed. So if you call them “Armed Guards” then you are right. But I have repeatedly rejected the idea of armed sentries at the entrances displaying fire power. I don’t, and have never advocated that.

            You have to have a plan, if you can’t make a case you shouldn’t pass a law, that’s all.

          • 1Brett1

            Ah, so, you advocate, purely, armed teachers/ principals. Well, thank you for that clarification. It seems you’re  interest is less in a well-trained, visible deterrent than a vigilante packing a pistol…to each his own then.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so a person who carrys a firerm for protection is a vigilante? maybe you should go lookth at up

          • 1Brett1

            “I would suggest something like the Air Marshals.”-Gregg, on bringing security to schools at 10:40am this morning. 

            I suppose by “Air Marshalls”you meant teachers, or principals?How ’bout appointingarmed block captains? That seems up your ally!

          • Gregg Smith

            Yes that’s what I meant.Low key packers not armed guards  patrolling.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          3 theaters near the gunmans house were playing the batman movie. he did not go to the biggest one or the one nearest to his house he went to the one that was a posted gun free zone.

          • 1Brett1

            Prove what you are stating as fact. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            why? am i a liar? maybe you should disprove it. it would not be too hard you have a computer and google have at it

          • 1Brett1

            I’ve disproved it: there are no substantiating statements credible or otherwise that support what you are saying. You would only be a liar if you deliberately knew this…I can not prove that either.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            where did you disprove it?
             i must have missed that. did he pick the closest or largest theater?

          • 1Brett1

            You only fool yourself…you have nothing to support your assertions that you know the killer went to that theatre simply because it was a “gun free zone.” lol.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            do you have an alternate explaination as to why he did not choose the closest or largest theater?

          • Gregg Smith

            There were actually 7 theaters showing the movie within 20 minutes of his home. He didn’t pick the closest or the most crowded. He picked the only one that did not permit concealed carry. They had a sign posted at the entrance.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, I haven’t found anything about what you and F. Buddy are saying, only that the theatre was a gun free zone. Fact remains, you don’t know what the shooter’s state of mind or deluded intentions were.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yea, either we’re making it all up or you need better news sources, probably the former. It’s easier to live in your cocoon if you think that way.

          • 1Brett1

            Well, at least you admit it, as you haven’t provided any reputable (or any, for that matter) sources for your assertions, reputable sources which would permit me to find some merit in your conclusion that the killer purposely sought out this theatre simply because it was a “gun free zone.”  

        • Gregg Smith

          No, I can’t read minds but there is tons of documented circumstantial evidence. There is testimony. There are hard to ignore correlations. And you have to assume murderers are not cunning. Have you seriously never heard this?

  • 1Brett1

    How many armed guards should be at each school campus? One? Three? Five? Should they be uniformed, plain-clothed police officers? Or should they be well-trained, plain-clothed teachers or paid “volunteers” concealing their armed identities? These “guards” would need to have their guns handy at all times to be effective. They would also have to have the good luck to be precisely where the shooter is to stop him/her. Considering the cost and community imposition, there are a lot of variables that sound iffy as to ensuring success.  

    • Gregg Smith

      I would suggest something like the Air Marshals. No one knows who they are or what jets they occupy. But it’s well known there may be one. Why not just allow certain teachers or principals who meet stringent criteria to pack? It works in Texas. Instead of labeling schools gun free zones just make it known the school does not prohibit teachers from packing. 

      • 1Brett1

        Well, if it were a matter of choice between an armed marshall (someone in a highly trained position who is in law enforcement) and a packing teacher or principal, I would opt for the law enforcement specialist every time. There is too much problematic about arming regular citizens in a school setting. The “it works in Texas” phrase, sorry, unfortunately, doesn’t hold much water. For one reason (out of many) it is difficult to cherry pick one statistic or example in any culture and point to success or failure. How many gun-related injuries/deaths are reported from Texas culture being the way it is? Is one question (of many).

        • Gregg Smith

          I don’t like the idea of treating every kindergarten like a prison but there is no doubt it would work. Maybe add a little razor wire and air support. There would be no more mass shootings. 

          I would not suggest packing teachers did not meet stringent criteria, i.e “highly trained”. In Texas they do, should we not even look at it?

          • 1Brett1

            I’ll rake your first paragraph as humor…as to your second paragraph: by “highly trained,” I am referring to the kind of training police officers undergo (in simulated chaotic situations, over and over, training and retraining); and, I’ll admit, I am not as aware, ostensibly, of how armed teachers are trained as you. Are they subjected to the same intensive, ongoing training that police officers undergo? As to your question, I would not be averse to “looking at it.” That is if “it” would be an impartial scientific study/analysis to see if current models yield any information of merit as to what specifically works and doesn’t work. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            1brett 100% of mass shootings are in “gun free zones” so how much more research do you need that they do not work?

          • 1Brett1

            FB, Gregg and I were talking about studying armed guards in schools; pay attention.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i think the whole thing is a red herring the nra had to come up with fast and doesnt really make a lot of sense although many schools have cops they are there to arrest the kids and be a deterrant not to defend from squads of outside attackers

          • JGC

            I do not disagree with that statement!

          • Gregg Smith

            It wasn’t humor. The point is it would work. We CAN eliminate any future mass shooting with near certainty. If that’s the goal then it should be considered if for nothing else but a baseline. 

            By, “looking at it” I mean not dismissing it out of hand.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well we arent able to keep drugs and guns out of prisons so why would that work for kindergartens?

          • jefe68

            “Maybe add a little razor wire and air support. There would be no more mass shootings.”

            That’s sick.

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s a bit overkill and I would not advocate it but I can’t call the notion of saving kids “sick”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so lemme get this straight you trust teachers with your children and principals to oversee the people who are with your children all day but you dont trust them with guns? cops have such a great track record of never commiting crimes or going crazy so lets make sure they are the only ones with guns right? here is a statistic for you 100% of mass shootings occur in “gun free zones” why arent you in favor of doing away with those? how many more have to die before you see the truth?

      • jefe68

        Yeah, Texas is a great example of things that work. They have some of the worst levels of poverty and health care in the nation and you think the way they deal with gun violence should be an example?

        Arming teachers and administrators is absurd.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          lol so you trust them to be alone with children but you do not trust them to exercise their god given rights to carry a weapon? so what’s absurd?

          • 1Brett1

            Because a person can be trusted to help a child solve a math problem or dissect a syntactically correct sentence, by extension he/she should be implicitly trusted to wield a gun around children and act just like a trained police officer in a surprise, chaotic, violent event?  Talk about absurd. God didn’t give us rights to own guns, men did (our founders were men not gods).

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            our founders were men who understood our rights came from god. one of these rights is the right to self defense, its universal. we trust our teachers with our children but you think they are not qualified to exercise their basic rights?

          • 1Brett1

            lol! Our founders were men (namely Madison) who recognized they needed the Bill of Rights to appease the southern states so they could get enough support to ratify the Constitution. We do have a basic right to defend ourselves; there’s a big leap from that to a “god-given right to own an AK-47,” or a Glock with a high capacity magazine, however. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            really whats the difference? bring a knife to a gun fight and lemme know how that turns out for you

          • 1Brett1

            F. Buddy, did you think of that clever retort all by yourself?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            its an oldie but a goodie. still waiting for you to explain your assertion

    • hennorama

      The idea of armed guards at schools is not really tactically viable, since a school is a fixed position with multiple undefended points and numerous potential victims.  From an attacker’s perspective, it’s far safer to attack from long range, with a scoped rifle, rather than via frontal assault.  Imagine if there were not one but two or more attackers with scoped rifles who could communicate, and coordinate their attack.  Of course, this presumes the attackers care about their own safety, which is not always the case.

      One or two or three armed guards or even numerous armed employees would not have much chance to defend an attack of that nature.  This idea is more along the lines of “we need to do something to show the public we’re doing something” idea.  Not likely to be effective, but it feels good.

      It’s actually a distraction from the real problems – firearms are far too easy for a disturbed person or criminal to access, and far too easy to be misused spontaneously as a result of their wide availability.  Mass shootings are rare events.  Efforts to reduce firearms violence should focus on the more common instances of firearms misuse first.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actually arming teachers would not cost a penny you just have to give them the option. And once schools are no longer a “gun free zone” these types of things will not happen since they only happen in gun free zones.

      • 1Brett1

        It’s naive to suggest this “would not cost a penny,” from everything from legislation, to local policy development, to training, there would be real costs incurred and that would mean taxes raised/something else being cut.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          a one page law could change the statute in mass for example guns arent banned in schools they may be carried with permission just need to change that  to say without permission. the expense of one word change is worth it to save the children right? anyways we are already paying them to make laws and buy paper and such. as far as training thats already required for liscensure and paid for by the particiapants. no one would be required to carry a gun just allowed. we trust these people with our childrens lives everyday and they must pass strict background checks already but you are afraid to allow them to decide if they want to have the ability to defend themselves and your kids should a madman decide to kill them?
          dont be so naive
          if we want to save a few bucks i would suggest we stop paying 12 people to plant each tree in worcester i could come up with lots of other ways but that should cover the ink needed to alter the law slightly.

          • 1Brett1

            Amazingly, your fantasy ideas about how easy it would be to put armed authority in schools won’t make the reality any cheaper.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            really what do you think it will cost to make a minor change in the law?

          • 1Brett1

            lol; it would be more than “not cost a penny.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            we are paying them to make laws already so how much more would it cost to make this slight change?

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – care to provide any proof to your contention “once schools are no longer a “gun free zone” these types of things will not happen since they only happen in gun free zones.”?

        Also, what do you mean by “these types of things?”  If you are talking about instances of multiple firearms deaths, here’s some contrary info:

        These are instances of mass murders in the US during the past decade that did not occur in a “gun free zone” (unless you define a household as a “gun-free zone”)

        ALL of the following FAMILICIDES (a type of murder or murder-suicide in which at least one spouse and one or more children are killed; or in which a parent or parents and possibly other relatives such as siblings and grandparents are killed) involved firearms:

        2011 Grapevine, TX   6 Dead
        2010 Appomatox, VA  8 Dead
        2009 Los Angeles, CA 6 Dead
        2008 Covina, CA 9 Dead 2 Injured
        2008 Memphis, TN 6 Dead 3 Injured
        2006 Kansas City, KS 6 Dead
        2004 Fresno, CA 9 Dead

        Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_familicides_in_the_United_States

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          hmm looks like less than 10 victums in all those cases. not that that matters. would you perfer that your familicides take place like the guy who chopped his kids with an ax and then burned them alive while the social worker was outside or maybe like lizzy bordan.( maybe she should have been limited to less than 40 whacks? i mean who really NEEDS more thaan 7 whacks?) oh no i hope i did not just give you the idea to ban axes. because how would the banning of axes and guns stop all the women who drown their kids during fits of post partum depression? why dont you want to give any blame or focus any attention that people are deciding to kill their whole family? its silly to focus on the means because like this guy said <— by any means necessary.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – another deflection, containing four questions and zero answers.

            Still waiting for you to prove your contention “once schools are no longer a “gun free zone” these types of things will not happen since they only happen in gun free zones.”

            Also still waiting for you to answer what you mean by “these types of things.”

            Is this now strike nine or ten?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            mass shootings in public places are the topic right? sorry someone tried to confuse the issue by bringing up familicide. mass public shootings only happen in “gun free zones” not sure about your strike system what kind of game are you playing?

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – a semi-answer, again in the form of a question. Clear answers are not your strong suit.

            Your Jeopardy question/answer implies that you think “these types of things” are “mass shootings in public places.” You further imply that you limit “gun free zones” to “public” places.

            Please:

            1. define your terminology

            2. prove your contention “once schools are no longer a “gun free zone” these types of things will not happen since they only happen in gun free zones.”

            I’ll answer your query ” what kind of game are you playing?” using your favorite technique. Have you ever heard of the game of baseball?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            wow you get 9 strikes in baseball? who made you the umpire here? you are being silly
            my statement speaks for itself and is pretty clear for anyone who is not trying to call strikes. If you think I am wrong say why and what you think is right. thats how you have a debate

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – I make no claim to be any sort of official, referee or umpire. I was simply trying to keep track of the number of your posts that I’ve refuted. The total is now so high that I’ve honestly lost count. If you wish, I’d be happy to use the term “refutation” rather than “strike.”

            You made two claims in your original post 1. “arming teachers would not cost a penny” and 2. “once schools are no longer a “gun free zone” these types of things will not happen since they only happen in gun free zones.” I’ve merely (repeatedly) asked you to provide any evidence/proof supporting your claim #2.

            If your claim is unsupportable, please say so. If you have any evidence to support it, please provide it.

            Again, using your words, “thats how you have a debate.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol what did you refute?

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for again proving your lack of reading comprehension. Well done.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – please also show how the Familicides cited were NOT “mass shootings in public places” if you can. I realize that will require you to do actual research rather than simply expressing your opinion and therefore is unlikely to occur, again given your previously admitted willful ignorance and lack of caring.

            After all, it was you typed to another poster “did you come up with anything to disprove it? your inability to find evidence is not evidence of absence so try to come up with some “good” information before you call mine bad.”

            What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? I for one won’t be holding my breath.

            See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/18/week-in-the-news-obama-on-guns-algeria-hostages-dreamliner-grounded#comment-773323029

          • Gregg Smith

            More homework assignments? Why does everything have to be on your pious terms? Is that the only way you can claim victory and puff your ego? No one cares what you think.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – I’m going to make a single exception to my “unilaterally imposed temporary cessation of hostilities.”

            This is at least the second time you’ve typed something similar to “No one cares what you think” in reference to me. The last time was on Dec. 18, 2012, when you typed “I don’t care what you think…”

            See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/12/14/special-report#comment-739667591

            I find it interesting for someone who proclaims the above to “care what [I] think” not only enough to read my posts, but also to comment on them. Since none of the posts you commented on were directed to you, I’m not certain if it’s irony, contradiction, or paradox. This is why I’ve kept track of your comments to me since I disengaged with you about a month ago, and stopped commenting on your posts. At first it was just as a lark, but as you continued it turned into a sort of a “WTF?” phenomenon.

            You’ve made 30 direct comments to my posts since Dec. 18, 2012, when you typed “I don’t care what you think…” I’d post the list but it’s unwieldly in length and I see no point in making you look even more foolish.

            Maybe I’ll make a monthly exception – who knows?

          • Gregg Smith

            Whatever. You are not a serious  person.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you brought it up. where did those things take place were they inside a home or in a public place(do you need me to define “public place” too?

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for again not supporting your original argument, and for showing that your own words have no meaning, even to yourself. Well done.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thanks for making a personal attack instead of engauging in debate

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – if by “personal attack” you mean “using your own words against you,” then mea culpa, and you’re quite welcome.

          • StilllHere

            That’s how he plays.

          • jefe68

            You are fast becoming the new king of hyperbole on this forum. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            just so i know, what other rhetorical techinques are being scored in your game? i am not sure how your game adds to discourse whats the point of it?

  • JONBOSTON

    The problem with much of the gun control debate is that politicians have failed to define what they are trying to achieve. Is it to reduce gun violence in general or prevent a Newtown type massacre. If the former, then shouldn’t the debate be very different than what we are hearing today? The incredible violence in our inner cities will not be reduced by an assault weapons ban. Isn’t the real problem the proliferation of handguns in cities? And if so, what if anything can be done without offending the Second Amendment. As for Newtown-type violence, the real problem deals with mentally-deranged young men getting their hands on weapons. What we need to admit is that the mental health laws need to be re-examined and that the greater needs of the community must be taken into account, even at the expense of the individual. During the 70′s and 80′s, too much of the civil liberties pendulum swung in favor of setting troubled individuals free of an institutionalized environment. When the problem was just the homeless, we could look the other way and ignore the issue. When it’s the insane shooting up schools, college campuses and theaters, we could not.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      and after we figure out a law to stop crazy people from doing crazy things we should pass a law to ban the flu since that killed 26 people in Mass this year already

      • jefe68

        Hyperbolic nonsense. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yes it is in order to point out how absurd it is to think the US govt can effectivliy ban anything because it has failed in pretty much every case. all it does is turn more law abiding people into criminals like drug or alcohol prohibition. the only one who benefits is the law enforcement/prison/industrial complex which expands and expands but has little effect on the “crimes” it is supposed to stop. lets win or surrender in the war on drugs before you start a war on guns

          • WRB2

            Gotta agree with you on this one.  We seem to have forgot the longest war we have been in, the war on drugs.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            if people were really serious about stopping violence we would end prohibition of drugs

          • Mike_Card

            As long as you disregard the wars on poverty and cancer.

          • jefe68

            I agree, the war on drugs is a failure. I’m not for legalizing hard drugs however.  

            But how went from the flu meme to the drug war is a bit much. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            both are examples of the govt’s inability to effectivly ban things from existance. one is clearly a joke, the war on drugs is also a joke but not funny when you really think about it.

      • StilllHere

        It does seem consistent with the sentiment.

    • 1Brett1

      I don’t agree with most of your posts, but I don’t wish to presume where you might be going with your comment here (if anywhere). I’ll accept it at it’s face value and say you do raise some very valid questions and points. 

      The mental health issue is a tricky one, and, specifically, I don’t know what the answers are. I have been in the mental health field since the 1970s. I agree that (as is true with all issues that affect our society) there are pendulum swings that seem in hindsight to be too much in one direction or the other.

      Beyond disqualifying people from purchasing/owning a firearm who have demonstrated some expression of a danger to themselves or others, I don’t know how much intrusion into private lives we, as a society, can make without infringing on privacy rights. I am not convinced not knowing where this demarcation line should be is a valid reason to preclude our society from taking a closer look at this issue, however; it is worthy of a lot of discussion.

      I am concerned, given how those pendulums rarely seem to swing to a place that isn’t too far, how any push-back would go. Prior to the 1970s, mental health issues were treated, essentially, in purely institutional ways. I’ve worked with many people in my life who had mild disorders and had their rights taken away, were wrongfully institutionalized, were tortured (electroshock/lobotomy), abused, etc. Although, we can learn from mistakes as a society, and I would hope any measures undertaken can take the past into consideration.

      • JONBOSTON

        The point of my post is that if you don’t define the problem, how can you find a solution…

        • Gregg Smith

          If one considers previous comments by Obama, Biden and Holder and then looks at the “solutions” it’s not hard to conclude the “problem” is the 2nd Amendment. Marco Rubio said they were gutless not to admit it. I agree.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/marco-rubio-obama-guns_n_2496713.html

          • anamaria23

            Marco Rubio’s statement  was perhaps one of the most reckless and  immature statements to come out of the GOP, yet.   He should get an A+ rating  from the NRA for    that one .
            How many extremists are going to run with it
            Perhaps Mr. Rubio should volunteer his services to ride the ambulances that transport the  dead, or talk to the ER docs where the dead are presented.  Perhaps he should have been there at Sandy Hook with the first responders.    Perhaps he should look hard at Gabby Giffords.  Perhaps he should sit with those who grieve for a lifetime.  Perhaps he should meet with the mayors who attend the funerals each week.  I did not see  rubio rushing to Sandy Hook to be of service or comfort.  That would take real courage, not sit in some glitzy studio and mock the President.

            Sure, let’s give everyone a gun to keep under our pillow, or carry to the beach or on the subway. Just so that some can use assault rifles for sport? What are the rights of those who choose not to live  with  a friggin gun on them at all times?

            To call the President “gutless” for not admitting to some weird fantasy that Rubio holds in his head is proof that Rubio is  not fit for public office.  Now or ever. 

            I hold out no great hope for any  for any significant changes in the gun laws in USA.  The slaughters will continue no matter how many armed officers are placed in schools.  The next one will be at a playground or a carnival.  Just so that some can blow some target to smithereens for fun and call that some warped version of freedom?

            Ther will be NO confiscation of all guns. 

            How in the sane world does Rubio know that the President not believe  in the second amendment?  Just because he wants to advance some restrictions?  Along with other reasonable people who are actually in the trenches of this country? 

          • Gregg Smith

            Do you believe President Obama has awesome respect for the 2nd Amendment?

          • anamaria23

            What do you mean by “awesome”?  You mean right up there with Wayne LaPierre and you and the gun industry?  Maybe not.
             
             Maybe he stands with
             those who deal with the consequences of a gunslinging country and are demanding  and have been demanding stricter laws for decades like all civilized countries. NOT confiscation of guns.
            How many slaughtered children has Rubio had to pick up off the floor?
            Does Gabby Giffords  have an “awesome” respect for the 2nd amendment?
             
            Obama  does believe in access to  mental health care which Rubio and his Bachman are trying to repeal. 
             
            Does Marco Rubio have an awesome respect for truth when he comes out with such an
            obviously  contrived statement designed to gin up fear and loathing for this President?
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             

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

            There’s nothing Obama can do, short of letting Rubio write the President’s speeches and LaPierre deliver them, which would satisfy Greggg.

          • Gregg Smith

            Believe it or not one can have awesome respect for the 2nd Amendment and at the same time be opposed to the slaughter of innocent children. Really it’s true.

            I don’t think Obama has respect for much of the Constitution and he has said as much. I do think “Fast and Furious” was an effort to chip away at gun rights. I do think he has an agenda and it’s not to stop mass shootings.  

            I have noticed you repeatedly refer to confiscation, are you aware that Governor Cuomo said it was an option in NY? It’s not crazy talk.

          • anamaria23

            How scary for you it must be to live under such a perceived
            threat to
            your well being.  My condolances ,offered sincerely.
            Those are some pretty serious charges.

          • Gregg Smith

            Thank you. It’s a burden.

          • StilllHere

            Rubio is right on, it’s obvious.

        • 1Brett1

          Are you saying absolutely that these violent problems have nothing to do with guns and absolutely everything to do with mental health issues? Or is it it handguns (as you mention earlier)? 

          By the way, deinstituionalization in the ’70s and 80s didn’t prompt a problem of letting out violent people; most of those people are still institutionalized.

          • JONBOSTON

             I think we have two problems that are somewhat distinct from one another. The Sandy Hook situation deals  with the problem of mentally disturbed individuals drifting through society without intervention. None of the gun restrictions being discussed by Obama or anyone would have prevented that massacre absent a cop standing in front of the main entrance (which I do not support). As I’ve said elsewhere, I support reasonable common sense restrictions on guns, handguns whatever. We need to curb urban violence rather than ignore the problem and hope it’s contained in the cities. The First and Second amendments do not convey unlimited rights. As far as dealing with the mentally ill , deinstitutionalization during the 70′s and 80′s is a perfect example of the doctrine of unintended consequences. The needs of society at large should be emphasized to a greater extent than the ACLU and others would permit when dealing with the mentally ill.

          • 1Brett1

            In a general sense, I don’t necessarily disagree with your comment, and a find your comment to be fair. As I’ve said, I can’t see in detail a reasonable solution to untreated mental illness, other than, generally, more treatment programs and better availability. In both, for example, the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings (and in the one in Arizona with Gifford), there were very distinct signs of mental illness in the killers. What are the conditions under which such people should be forced into treatment before they commit such acts of violence? 

            There is some evidence that there were some attempts to seek treatment prior to some of these tragic events; obviously, they weren’t enough to stop the violence. Loughner’s behavior was very troublesome prior to the shootings…I am appalled that people in his community didn’t make more of an effort to keep closer tabs on his behaviors leading up to the day of the violence (he was clearly delusional and out of touch with reality). With the Aurora shooter, he (to a lesser extent) also displayed troubling signs; I wonder how his online purchases could have been tracked better without setting up a draconian system to monitor people’s activities?

            The very idea of forced institutionalization of potentially dangerous people before they become dangerous is fraught with problems. 

            You are correct that there were unintended consequences to the deinstitutionalization efforts of the ’70s and ’80s. However, most of those problems were that too many people were put into community settings too quickly without enough insight into whether there would be enough community-based programs equipped to handle the severity of many cases (as well as to handle the sheer numbers of people). Truly violent people were not appreciably put into the community.

            I was in the field in the early stages, and professionals were too optimistic and didn’t consider (of the people who did well under close supervision) what supports would be needed. There was too much of a sense that many mentally ill people could be moved through the system into completely unsupervised situations (to make room for more people in the system), and that was a mistake. Although, these problems have largely been rectified. 

            The resulting problems of deinstitutionalization had more to do with abject poverty, untreated medical conditions (typical problems that afflict even “normal” people), and being victims of violence/abuse. Those who have committed acts of violence through lack of supervision or refusal to be treated are very insignificant statistically. The three aforementioned killers were not in the mental health system, so they wouldn’t have been in an institution/unwisely released from institutions.

            So, the proposition becomes: institutionalize people who have mental illness (namely schizophrenia and severe bipolar) even before they show signs of harming themselves or others, and this is, as I say, problematic, and carries with it a lot of systemic abuse potential (it’s easier, therapeutically, to just lock people up rather than treat them effectively; it’s also at a lower economic cost); so many people would be wrongfully institutionalized. (I could tell you real horror stories of people wrongfully institutionalized who were in these places in the decades leading up to the ’70s.). It would also prompt people to not seek services (for fear of having their rights taken away and being locked up).

        • 1Brett1

          Can’t help but get the impression that your earlier questions weren’t really important to you, that you’ve already defined the problem and it differs from the direction Democratic political efforts seem to be going… 

          What, specifically, would you want to do with mental health services? 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        as a mental health professional you are already a mandated reporter if some one makes a credable threat, correct? it seems as if a lot of people dont uderstand we already have that system in place.

        • 1Brett1

          Not sure what you mean by “mandated”? If a person appears to be a danger to himself/herself (through threatening language/expressed desires to harm self or others) the professional who hears this, reports to a supervisor; and, after a process that requires lengthy evaluation (an assessment to determine the seriousness of a genuine threat, a court hearing in some cases, etc.), the patient is then determined to need commitment without his/her consent. 

          To rise to the level of notifying law enforcement, the threat would have to be very significant and imminent sounding, i.e., “I’m going to take my gun that I have at home and go to the local coffee shop and kill everyone there…”

          If we were to, without due process, incarcerate every person who casually said he/she felt suicidal or felt frustrated enough to kill, our society would be one big prison/mental institution. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            in massachusetts mental health professionals and teachers and such are “mandated reporters” (its a legal term) if there are cases of abuse or individuals who are a danger to themselves or others they are required to report it or they incur some sort of liability

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      What we need to admit is that the mental health laws need to be re-examined and that the greater needs of the community must be taken into account, even at the expense of the individual.
       What exactly do you propose?
      the modern trend in mental health care is to medicate people and then let them go hoping they will take their medication and not harm anyone or themselves and it seems to be motavated by cost savings more than anything

  • hennorama

    Congratulations to President Obama and Vice President Biden as they start their second term.  The first one was pretty wild.  Here’s hoping for a less eventful second 4 years.

    • Steve__T

       I want more eventful less promise broken four years.

      • Gregg Smith

        It seems Rand Paul is positioning himself for 2016 by taking shots at Chris Christie. I like him and what he is saying. Do you consider him too far from his dad or could you go for a Ron Paul lite? Just curious.

        • WRB2

          Gov. Christie seems to be a stand-up guy.  A bit over the top when he feels he is right but there are times that is needed.

          What I would love to see is Mrs. Clinton be president and Gov Christie be vice.  Not only would they keep each other in line I think they each have some great ideas to make thing better.  Other ideas are not so good, but I think together they can get congress to move.

          • 1Brett1

            I have to admit, that is the most intriguing idea I’ve yet heard! …I don’t know if I share such enthusiasm for the pairing; my questions about such a match would pertain to how productive their head butting would render their working relationship?

            I am a Democrat, but I do like Christie, albeit he is a little rough around the edges (he does appear more interested in governing than one-upmanship for the sake of partisan point scoring). 

          • WRB2

            With congress in retrograde is a hard to think they would do worse that the house and senate are doing.  One of the problems with a lot of this arms control discussion is that much of the decisions about what should be allowed needs to happen at the state level. At the federal level we should be building tools to help states implement laws that need to span states (information sharing).  Empower at the federal, point the way and motivate the states to do things the feds want them to.  Don’t take money away from states who don’t follow your path, give extra to ones that do!

          • 1Brett1

            This seems like a reasonable way to proceed. Positive reinforcement seems a better way to build support and uniformity in laws.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah the federal coffers are flush with cash lets throw it at percieved problems. where is this money supposed to come from?

          • Gregg Smith

            I love Christies in your face style and his policies have helped NJ enormously. I can’t agree with Hilary though. She is a heartless incompetent that rose to her status by being Bill’s doormat. I don’t consider her worthy.

          • WRB2

            I felt the same way about W but he used his father.  Hilary has done a world class job as Secretary of State and I think the best of both would make a leadership team that would accelerate on ongoing recovery.  Their bad points would be no worse than we have had in the last 50 years.   

          • Gregg Smith

            She hung our ambassador out to dry.

        • Mike_Card

          Ayn Rand Paul might scuffle around in mush-mouf McConnell’s shadow, but I don’t think there will be any separation of the wheat from the chaff until after 11/2014 in either of the major parties.  Christie could actually have national appeal; it will depend on whether or not the GOP can come to its senses.

          I think Hillary’s time has come and gone, even though she deserves plaudits for her work both as Senator and at State.  There are several other Dem women in the wings of the national stage.

          2016 will feature immigration.  Rubio will recede and Cruz will change his stripes.  The teabaggers will continue to whine and stamp their feet until they finally get shouted down and stomped on.

          There will always be the Libertarian hideout for those who need to complain about how correct they are, but it will continue to be a non-entity on the national scene.

          • 1Brett1

            Well said Mike! I think that is a much needed sober assessment of what the Repubs need to hear.

          • Gregg Smith

            Well, I disagree. As I recall Steve_T was a Ron Paul supporter, that’s why I asked the question. I just find the Ron Paul wing to occupy a unique niche between left and right.

          • Mike_Card

            Disagree?  Shocked!!

            I didn’t mean to butt in–apologies.

        • 1Brett1

          What could possibly, pray tell, be your objection to Christie, other than his perceived lack of loyalty to the Republican Party? …how so incredibly partisan, in a Republican loyalist kind of way, of course… 

          • Gregg Smith

            Who said I had a problem with Christie? But it’s not about me.

        • jefe68

          Rand Paul should run. He would put the nail in the coffin of the GOP’s extremist.
          I’m not a fan of Christie, but at least he seems like a man who really understands how government works. What I see in Governor Christie is an attempt to move more towards the center. Which is what the GOP will have to do to win the White House. 

          The thing I see is that now the GOP wants to make changes in state rules for the electoral college to help them win. They really are corrupt jekrs in my view.

          http://news.msn.com/politics/gop-eyes-changes-in-electoral-college-dems-are-wary

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

            Funny how when someone just has to be a senator (one of two Sens, plus a few Reps) one can be an ignoramus do-nothing and get reelected while basically trying to destroy the government from the inside.

            When the rubber hits the road, as a governor, though, that crap can’t be gotten away with so easily. (Not that the Teabaggers in FL, MI, WI and such aren’t trying their damndest.)

        • Steve__T

           I am keeping an eye on him, but over all he separated himself from his father when the going got tough. So I’ll wait to see if he really has the backbone needed to do the job.

      • StilllHere

        Good luck.  It’s all about legacy now. Expect lots of fluff, little substance from Obama.

  • OnPointComments

    “The War Against Black Men:  Chicago’s murder statistics tell a story of young black males without fathers and at risk”
    By Lee Habeeb 
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337929/war-against-black-men-lee-habeeb?pg=1 
     
    Excerpt:
    Twenty children and six adults were killed in Newtown, Conn., last month, and the media quickly, and justifiably, descended to tell the tragic story. In the first few weeks of January in Chicago, 25 people have already been murdered. Most were young black and Hispanic men, murdered by other young black and Hispanic men.  You don’t know their names because the real racism that exists in the media is this: A young black male’s life is not worth reporting when it is taken by another black male.
     
    You don’t know the names because the media don’t or can’t blame the deaths in Chicago on a weapon like the AR-15, or on the NRA.

    You don’t know their names because the media aren’t interested in getting at the real cause of much of the senseless gun violence in America: fatherlessness.

    • Steve__T

       This is, On point. Thanks for the post

    • WRB2

      When I look at governments banning things (e.g. drugs, guns in Chicago and many of the suburbs) the rush to ban assault weapons makes me sad.  The lack of care about the massive number of children that are killed, on purpose and by accident in Chicago on a monthly basis makes me sick.

      I lived in the northern suburbs of Chicago for over 20 years and the continued focus on banning all hand guns was stupid.  They went after a 70 year old man who shot an armed intruder with his 1911 he brought back from WWII.

      What happened in Sandy Hook was bad but what is going on in our cities is 10 times worse.  Sadly I think it has become part of the background chatter.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    just commenting untill you run out of space to reply does not make you right

    • hennorama

      Futo Buddy – I agree with you.  Please immediately stop posting and wasting space.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        lol when the text gets to one character the program wont allow a reply feel free to continue here

      • Gregg Smith

        I continue to read most everyone’s comments. I don’t play the silly games so if you choose not to respond that’s fine. I’ll still chime in. You are free to feel and do as you please. But don’t think anyone cares. BTW, no one cares what I think either but I don’t presume they do. You seem to be quite sure you are Queen so you present what you think is irrefutable and then declare victory from your high horse. Then you get cocky. But usually your premise is whacked so your points may be correct but they are irrelevant. That you insist you are all knowing and give lectures and assignments like a professor, defining your own rules in your own little game does not impress me. So go on thinking whatever you want to about yourself, I don’t care what you think.

        I knew you were not serious when I confronted you with Obama’s insistence that he could not stop some deportations by Executive Order. It was plain and out of his own mouth. It was in direct contradiction to what the did. I showed you the video and you gave me a song and dance and then said you were not going to comment out of respect o Sandy Hook. Then you commented all day long. Lame.

        • 1Brett1

          Wow, sounds as though hennorama is yet another one who has really upset you to the point of your letting some small thing from the past fester inside you day after day.

          If you don’t care about hennorama’s comments, why continually reply to them just to tell him you don’t care about them? I was shocked at your above rant…kinda thought you took the back and forth in stride more. …It’s just a forum, Gregg. Maybe take some time away from here if it affects  you so much.

          • Gregg Smith

            You’re funny! It was a reply to a skinny comment down low. I actually ignore most of her comments as I do yours, Jefe’s and NJ’s. You guys are unique to this blog. But I’ll chime in when I feel the need like if Hennorama get’s cocky.

            But you will not see me commenting to others saying, “Brett says you think…” or “Brett this” or “Brett that”. That would be festering obsession. I really get to you for some reason, try to get me out of your head.

          • jefe68

            You feel the need ot chime in when Hennorama gets cocky? 
            Talk about ego.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yea, I’m very full of myself.

          • jefe68

            You’re full of something but self is not what I was thinking of.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    its too bad the format of this  debate makes it so that at a certian point you can no longer reply to people

  • JGC

    One of my personal heroes, editor emeritus Gene Patterson, died this past week, and I want to share a few comments from the eulogies at his funeral today:

    “He was a mighty man who loved everything that is precious and fragile in this world, and had no use for the hard souls among us.”   (from Philip Gailey, retired editorials editor at the Tampa Baby Times)

    “Nobody taught me more than Gene. Nobody showed me more about being a man. Nobody taught me more about how to live life.  Gene knew right from wrong with a clarity few men have ever possessed.  More than that, he acted on his judgments.” (Richard Karl, chairman emeritus surgery department at University of South Florida.

    “He was a man of many parts: farm boy, soldier, journalist, bon vivant, singer of hymns, raconteur; passionate, if not particularly lucky, fisherman.  He was the most inspiring man I have ever known.”  (Howell Raines, former executive editor of the New York Times)

    From a letter Mr. Patterson wrote to an old friend 12 days before he died: “It looks like I’m going on ahead now, but I’ll be saving you a place under the prettiest shade tree on the far shore.” 

    Eugene C. Patterson will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.  Thank you, Mr. Patterson, for your service; for your love of truth and your moral clarity; for the warmth and generosity of your spirit.

    • anamaria23

      Thanks for that .  It is comforting to learn of a fine human being and what he can bring to the higher  consciousness of a nation. 

  • Mike_Card

    Just for fun, I wish NPR would track down that couple from Ohio who were following the Romney campaign last fall, and got interviewed twice.  The woman supported Romney because, “Michelle Obama didn’t look like a First Lady–not like Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan.”

    I’d like to hear what that dip has to say now.  What a maroon.

  • X-Ray

    Former President Clinton doesn’t respect the Defense of Marriage Act? Surprise, surprise.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment