90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Immigration, Guns, Hagel Hearings

Immigration.  Gabby Giffords on guns.  Chuck Hagel in the hot seat.  An Israeli air strike in Syria. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Egyptian protesters run for cover during clashes with riot police near Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt.  (AP)

Egyptian protesters run for cover during clashes with riot police near Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt. (AP)

Big noise on big issues this week.  Immigration.  Guns.  Whether big results will follow… quite unclear.  But from “path to citizenship” to Gabby Giffords, the talk was big and compelling.

Hillary Clinton, out at State.  John Kerry in.  Chuck Hagel flayed by his old Republican colleagues in confirmation hearings.

We’ve got Egypt in uproar – a “collapse of the state” warning.  Israeli jets striking inside Syria.  China allegedly hacking the New York Times.  And Ed Koch is gone.

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

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Indira Lakshmanan, senior correspondent covering foreign policy for Bloomberg News. You can read her latest article here. (@indira_l)

Nancy Cordes, congressional correspondent for CBS News. (@nancycordes)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst

From Tom’s Reading List

Bloomberg News “President Barack Obama’s inauguration speech signaled a desire to avoid foreign entanglements that could endanger his domestic agenda. George Washington wasn’t able to do that, and Obama may not be either.”

The Wall Street Journal “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio knew from the outset that championing a major immigration overhaul would expose him and the Republican Party to multiple perils, so he started doing the spadework early. Working off a tight script, the freshman lawmaker began airing his own ideas weeks before he and a bipartisan group of seven other senators unveiled their package of proposals on Monday.”

The Washington Post “She uttered just 71 words. But Gabrielle Giffords, in delivering her first extended public remarks since she was gunned down in Tucson two years ago, created perhaps the most emotional moment in the fraught debate over the nation’s gun laws.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • WRB2

    Ms. Giffords words I think touched everyone’s sole.  The challenge is greater than she said though.   The new weapons ban will not work they way we need it to.  Weapons bans do not work, look at Chicago.  We need to find a new approach.  Progressive yearly fees that increase based upon the action and ammunition power and number of assault weapons you own.  Nation-wide back ground checks that are paid for by a tax on the buyer of any and all weapons.  Let’s start simple, 30 round magazines max on rifles and 17 on pistols, everything larger must be turned in.  Let’s build a national assault weapon and large magazine tax credit trade-in program.  Let’s get creative because most of the laws we have today are not working where the majority of gun violence is happening.  We need to address both the assault weapon concerns as well as the majority of gun violence.  

    The time to do something is not now, it was three years ago before it became a burning pain.  It will be hard, it will take several passes over about ten years to do it right, but it will be worth it.

    • anamaria23

      A nation wide background check system seems a necessary place to start.  Right now, criminals from Chicago can drive a few hours,  pick up a few guns at a gun show in another state and return back to gun down each other and innocents. .
       
      Mayor Emmanual is putting 200 more police out on the street, pulling from administration.  About time. 
      ER physician on duty day of Sandy Hook gave input at gun hearing yesterday, tearfully and angrily  begging legislators to ban assault weapons.

      • Ray in VT

        It would seem that increasing background checks to as close to near universality as is possible would be an easy thing to get passed, especially given a recent poll that put support for such a measure at above 90%, but part of the problem is that even on a measure like that, you get a Senator who says something like this:

        “That’s the way reductions in liberty occur. When you start saying people all have to
        sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly
        who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the
        database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in
        the face of liberty.”

        • anamaria23

          The only people that need to be alarmed are the very ones for whom the checks are designed to single out.

          • Ray in VT

            I used to work for a gun company, and I had to pass a background check just to get hired.  It doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

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

            Did you do that Johnny Cash “One piece at a time” to get a gun for free?

          • Ray in VT

            No.  We had to walk through metal detectors on the way in and out while a superviser stood watch, plus there were cameras in the warehouse.  When I would do something really boring, like sandblasting, I would think about how one might get around security, but I never did anything to try to get around it.  I didn’t want to get fired, and some of the stuff that we had in there was not legal to possess outside of the building (we had a bonded warehouse where we destroyed some pieces).  There have been some troubling reports about the company’s recent and historic dealing of late.  I can’t say that it surprises me, but as far as I know we always followed the law there in the factory.

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

            Thanks for the answer. My original question was one of those “I don’t know if I’m kidding” bits.

            Makes sense that a gun factory is as least as locked-down as a semiconductor factory.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, I worked at one of those too.  At the time it was the biggest in the world.  It would have been possible for me to get wafers out, but I don’t think that there was much market for some half-finished microchips on a 30cm disk.

          • WRB2

            Checking needs to be discussed separately from logging and tracking.  That is what I think gets people uneasy. 

        • hennorama

          I agree that universal criminal background checks are a no-brainer.  However, I have a different idea as the to mental health issue.  Rather than the current system or the proposed idea of universal mental health background checks, instead require a pre-purchase mental health certification of potential firearms buyers via an exam by a mental health professional.

          This idea is not problem-free, but it removes the objectionable massing of searchable mental health records, and would seem to comply with HIPAA. Only the certification would be part of the purchase application, similar to a driver’s license eye exam. It also removes the issue of states not reporting mental health info to the NICS. To me, this is far superior to the present situation.

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

          While it’s certainly true that the applicant could try to conceal their pathology, having some sort of examination makes this less likely to be effective. And while the mental health professional might be biased (aka “Dr. Firegood”), this problem could be combatted by the Professional Boards of Review, as well as the potential liability aspect if someone they certify to be free of “mental defect” purchases a firearm then murders someone the next day.

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

            “having the Buyer provide positive proof of being free from “mental defect.”
            so you want them to prove a negative?
            i am sure the doctors will love more liability

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – my idea is an extension of the current requirement, and is crafted to resolve some of the current problems related to a potential buyer’s mental health. Requiring a pre-purchase mental health exam conducted by a mental health professional (MHP) could get around these problems.

            As it stands now, putting it as neutrally as possible, the record of state information reporting is spotty. Fourteen states list fewer than five people flagged for mental-health issues. This is partly due to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that held that state reporting of mental health records is optional, and partly due to differing state and regional attitudes and politics.

            Events can provoke change, however. Witmess the changes in Virginia law and reporting after the Virginia Tech shooting, where the shooter bought firearms despite being previously ruled mentally ill. Virginia did not report that info to the Federal database because of a legal loophole. The law there has been changed and Virginia now leads the US in per capita mental health reporting.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595704578244153323837058.html

            The other major issue is privacy. Rather than having millions of mental health records entered into seachable databases, only the certification would be part of the purchase application, similar to a driver’s license eye exam. The exam itself would remain private between the applicant and the MHP, and covered by HIPAA. Since applying to purchase a firearm is optional, disclosure of the exam results is voluntary and would relieve some of the burdens of HIPAA for the MHP. MHPs already have issues related to malpractice liability, and any added risks can be resolved via actuarial and claims analysis. MHPs might also request liability waivers or other indemnification from applicants, if they deem them appropriate.

            As I’ve said repeatedly, this is not a problem-free idea. But it seems to resolve the main issues related to mental health and firearms purchases.

      • Don_B1

        You are correct and I hope this backs your comment up with a little more detail.

        I believe that residents of Chicago actually do not have to go much further than some suburbs to buy guns at gun shows; certainly that is true of many cities where guns are more tightly regulated than within the state. But the Supreme Court seems to be out to make those differences disappear.
        You are definitely correct on the background check requirement which is strongly supported by the American people (over 90%) and even members of the National Rifle Association (75%), but it will take continued strong support (mail, both postal and e-mail) to ALL Congressional members for the next year to get them to move on this.

        The other item that really needs to be pushed is the item that gets the next largest support, that of banning “assault-type” weapons, but which faces even stronger opposition. The hearings this week really showed that regular guns, handguns, shotguns and normal hunting guns, are completely sufficient for self-defense, for women as well as men, and that the ludicrous, unfounded assertion that women will feel more “confident” wielding an assault-style weapon rather than a shotgun or pistol when attacked by imaginary (no cases support large numbers of house invaders) hordes.

        In fact, a gun in a house is at least FIVE times more dangerous to a woman than the danger of an invader bringing a gun into the house.

        But the campaign for sensible gun laws will require an effort similar to that by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

        An interesting history of gun use in the United States from Colonial Days to the present was presented on Backstory, a program of the Virginia Foundation For The Humanities and carried on NPR stations shows the distortions and omissions of the story as presented by the NRA:

        http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/

        This should be required listening for everyone.

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

          Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, … Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado

      • hennorama

        Here’s an informative article titled “Chicago Gets Its Guns Where It Used to Get Its Blues.”   It notes that a large percentage of firearms used in crime in Chicago come from other states, and from nearby counties.  Amazingly, according to the article, “almost 20 percent of guns recovered in crimes [that were] used within one year of purchase came from [one] store … Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.”
         
        http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/January-2013/Chicago-Gets-Its-Guns-Where-It-Used-to-Get-Its-Blues/

        There are also links in the above-referenced article to other informative articles about Chicago firearms crimes and the sources of the weapons used.

    • nj_v2

      Bans of certain classes of weapons and ammo are necessary but not sufficient.

      Yes, universal background checks.

      Universal registration and licencing. Like cars. And dogs. With competency testing (initial and periodic) as part of the process. Like for cars.

      And mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. Like for cars. 

      .

      • WRB2

        Money will not bring back the smiles on the children lost.  

        Money will not bring back the wonderful politicians we have lost.  

        Money will not allow the family and friends who want to say I love you one more time to those lost to those monsters.

        Money is not the answer.

        Liability insurance will NOT help reduce the number of innocent lives cut short by these tragic acts.  Please stop pressing the idea of liability insurance, it will not help stop what needs to stop.

        • nj_v2

          It’s not about money. Not sure why you zeroed in on that.

          The benefit of competency testing seems self evident.

          Liability insurance would induce gun owners to be more responsible with their weapons.

          I agree with you buy-back idea.

      • WRB2

        I forgot to mention, auto liability insurance is a state mandated thing.  Not sure now but when I owned a home in Wisconsin (and was thinking of moving there) I would have not needed any auto insurance.

    • hennorama

      One must examine the Chicago and Illinois firearms violence levels in greater context.  Illinois is neighbor to states that have some of the highest rates of exporting firearms used in crime (“crime guns”) – Kentucky and Indiana, and is close to the two states with the highest rates of exporting firearms used in crime – West Virginia and Mississippi.

      Illinois is a net importer of crime guns, and over 50% of the firearms used in crimes in Illinois came from other states.  Also, none of Illinois’ neighboring states (nor Illinois itself) require the reporting of lost and stolen firearms to law enforcement.

      Sources: http://www.tracetheguns.org/
      (The above is a highly interactive site which I strongly recommend)
      http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gun_Laws_Matter_Brochure.pdf

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Kim Komando has scooped the go-along-to-get-along press with this one :

    ‘ Create your own robot with a 3-D printer. ‘

    http://www.tvkim.com/watch/2664/kims-picks-create-your-own-robot

    I give “it” about 40 years, tops.
    Eight percent unemployment will look good, as any human will find it difficult to compete at any level of education and skill.

    By the way, why have we quit talking about jobs and the declining middle class and started talking about Mexicans and Hillary ? Reminder ; this is the 21st century not the 20th. But if we must reminisce ; I call upon Lord Hamlet and redefine the meaning of his words :

    “O, throw away the worser part of it,
    And live the purer with the other half …”

    In other words; let the past go and attend to our future needs.

     

  • Gregg Smith

    Irony sometimes slaps you in the face. Biden said, “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now.” 

    And on the same day in Atlanta a student opened fire in a middle school. One was injured and thankfully there  were no deaths. The shooter was stopped by an armed guard.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-says.html.csp

    • Gregg Smith

      Hmmm. Even NJ doesn’t want to touch this one.

    • 1Brett1

      “The armed resource officer who took the gun away was off-duty and at the school, but police didn’t release many details on him or whether he is regularly at Price.”

      He may be assigned to the school; he may not be. We should wait for the facts before forming any opinion. No laws have been passed yet, and nothing proposed has said schools will be forbidden from having an armed guard.

      • Gregg Smith

        I agree with all of that. I’m just pointing out that a gun worked to stop it and tragedy was averted juxtaposed with Biden admitting the proposed ban won’t.

  • Ed75

    The records of the Los Angeles Archdiocese are being released, and it will be a disaster for Cardinal Mahoney and the archdiocese. The bishops got priests treatment and moved them and hoped for the best, but it didn’t work out at all.

    The Church is the body of Christ, and it must go the way of Christ. As it says in Scripture, ‘He was counted among the criminals’.

    And our faith is tested: do we love God and his Church enough to be in a Church that is covered with shame? Yup. As Peter said, ‘To whom else shall we go, you have the words of everlasting life’. We love the Church.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

       Evil in the name of good is still evil.

    • Acnestes

      Ed, what they did is orchestrate a cover up to save their own sorry behinds.  Don’t be fooled by the superhero costumes.  These, “great men”, as you like to think of them, are not saints, are not holy and only pay lip service to morality.  They’re simply bureaucrats in fancy dress.

      • J__o__h__n

        Just because they dress in silly costumes doesn’t make them superheroes.

        • Acnestes

           Tell it to Ed!

        • Gregg Smith

          I have Underdog underoos.

      • Ed75

        No one denies that people in the hierarchy can be sinners like anyone else. But they are busy: they run the largest private provider of social services in the U.S.

        The bishops individually and as a whole do three general things: they administer the Sacraments; they proclaim the Gospel; and they govern the Church in their diocese.
        Within those tasks they provide social services, although their main task is to bring God to man, and man to God.

        They are very well educated and talented men, and most have gone far in achieving personal sanctity. To say that they are just bureaucrats is to impose a corporate model on the church (which is not a corporation but a family), and to deny what the Church teaches about itself.

        • Acnestes

          “To say that they are just bureaucrats is to impose a corporate model on
          the church” . . . .”and to deny what
          the Church teaches about itself.”

          Yup, you got it!

    • J__o__h__n

      They didn’t “hope for the best.”  The bishops didn’t get the priests treatment as the therapists would have been required to report the child rapists. 

    • Don_B1

      It is better to love God than love a man-made institution that “purports” to represent it.

      The case of the Roman Catholic Church’s “protection” of priests guilty of gross sins against everything the Church is supposed to represent demonstrates what happens with human-created institutions when they get smug with hubris and arrogantly dismiss the needs of the laity and mission the Church aspires to.

      See:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/bruni-catholicisms-curse.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

      for a quick summary and the soon to be published book by Garry Wills for a more detailed argument.

      • Ed75

        Thanks for warning me about an upcoming book by Gary Wills. I assume he is a good historian, but he’s written several books about the Church and Church history and they are all – trash. Not even close to historically accurate. He’s Dan Brown with malice. I wonder where his animus against the Church comes from, was he a failed seminarian?

  • Ed75

    N.Y. is trying to pass FOCA, the freedom of choice act. Governor Spitzer tried to pass it … but left office before he could. And we’re hurtling toward same sex marriage and other things. Six months more and something will happen.

    • Ray in VT

      I hope that they do pass the Freedom of Choice Act.  Good for them.  Same sex marriage is legal in several states, and the sky didn’t fall there or anywhere else.  The bestowment of the legal and tax benefits upon the relationship of my two lesbian friends did nothing to hurt any straight marriage or anything else.  The bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is that if some people don’t want gay marriage, then the answer is simple.  Don’t marry someone of your own sex, and just leave people alone.

    • nj_v2

      Oh, nooooo…same-sex marriage! We’re all doomed!!

      And “other things.” Damn, that’s even worse. (I think.)

      “Something will happen.” Sounds ominous. Should i stock up on canned beans and batteries?

      • Ed75

        I don’t think canned beans are going to do it.

    • J__o__h__n

      What about the Catholic hospital claiming fetuses aren’t people? 

      • Acnestes

        See yesterdays Hillary comments.  You’ll find Ed’s (he only read the headline) answer there.

      • Ed75

        The woman, sadly, had a heart attack and couldn’t be saved. She was pregnant with twins and they died also. Her husband is suing the hospital because he feels that the hospital, though it couldn’t have saved her, could have save the twins.

        The hospital is taking this position to defend itself from the legal case and huge fines. Very understandable. But at the same time the diocese is investigating the hospital to see if it’s performing within Catholic teaching, as it promised.

        A few years ago a hospital in Arizona lost its Catholic status when it was investigated.

        • Acnestes

          What’s Latin for, “money talks”?

    • jefe68

      In six months Godzilla, Mothra and Megalon will rise up and reek destruction and havoc on New York City.

      • Ray in VT

        What about the other sinful cities like San Fran or New Orleans?  What is in store for them?  Please let it be a giant sharktapus.

      • J__o__h__n

        I didn’t know they were pro-choice and/or gay rights supporters.

        • Ray in VT

          Like all liberals, they exist to spread havoc and chaos, right?  I was flipping around the AM last Sunday night, and I actually heard some caller on a conservative show talk about the “homersexual” agenda in the schools.

      • Ed75

        I’ve never heard of Megalon.

        • jefe68

          Megalon is coming for you….

    • Don_B1

      Yes, the Tea/Republicans in Congress could “see the light” and pass infrastructure building and maintenance bills which would strengthen the economy!

      They could also “see the light” and refrain from sponsoring cruel ways to keep poor women from being able to get abortions when they are medically needed.

  • Gregg Smith

    It is amazing to me there is no mention of the disastrous GDP numbers. We dropped from 3.1% last quarter to -0.1%. I have no idea what could have happened during September, October, November and December to explain it. I do hear hilarious excuse making like it’s because of spending cuts as if we actually cut spending. Maybe it’s a good sign they aren’t still blaming Bush… yet.

    So deficits are bad under Bush but deficits 4X’s as high under Obama are too small.

    Enhanced interrogation of a very few under Bush is hideous but targeted assassination of many under Obama is good. 

    Raising the debt ceiling under Bush is bad, under Obama we should do tear the roof off the mother…

    Conservatives bash Obama just because he’s black or a Democrat or something but Liberals don’t defend Obama on everything under the sun.

    Republicans are anti-science and any science that’s contrary to AGW is not worth considering. 

    I’m could go all day with my long held belief that when a Democrat makes an accusation most of the time they are guilty of it. But I am only delaying the big challenge and announcement. 

    • J__o__h__n

      Storm Sandy hit one of the biggest economic drivers of the economy that quarter.  Anticipated phony-crisis sequestration cuts had an impact. 

      Republicans are anti-science: stem cell ban, creationism, global warming . . .

      • Gregg Smith

        Republicans didn’t ban stem cell research.

    • Ray in VT

      At least you’ve come around regarding the science behind climate change, at least that is how I read your statement.  I’m sure that if there was some good, credible science running contrary to climate change, then it would get a fair hearing in the scientific literature.

    • MrNutso

      What is your proposed solution to reduce unemployment and increase economic growth?

      • Gregg Smith

        I don’t think it’s possible at this point. 4 more years will shut the door. 

        In a fantasy world, I would focus on exploiting natural gas. I would end Obamacare. I would revamp the tax code. I would undo many of the new regulations. I would repeal Dodd/Frank. I would cut spending dramatically. I would abolish the Cap gains tax or at least give it a holiday. I would reform entitlements. I would let issues come to a vote and respect the legislative process. I would close the borders. I would abandon any notion that Keynes had a clue. There’s a lot that could be done. 

    • nj_v2

      Whoaaa, “disaterous” GDP numbers… Down a whole .1% after 14 quarters of increase!

      Holy crap, it’s a friggin’ disaster. Impeach the damn socialist Obama! And the liberal media for not reporting such a disaster!!

      It’s not like a bunch of defense cuts kicked in, or we had a storm of unprecedented scope during that time period, or anything like that. 

      “I’m delaying the big challenge and announcement.”

      Add delusional and self-important to clueless on Greggg’s resume.

      • Gregg Smith

        You’re right, everything is peachy.

        • nj_v2

          And yet you get upset when people call you clueless.

          • Gregg Smith

            No I don’t. I m clueless.

        • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

          That’s a pretty Manichaean take on things. Some of us can contemplate the state of affairs as somewhere between “disastrous” and “peachy”.

          • Gregg Smith

            In your opinion which are we closest to?

          • Don_B1

            If the Tea/Republicans could be kicked out of Congress, the Congress would do the things necessary to put the country on the road to peachy.

            It will be those following your “prescriptions” that could prevent that.

          • Gregg Smith

            Who is keeping proposed solutions from coming to a vote in the Senate? Is Harry Reid a Tea Partier?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      I guess we can’t accept that the drop was from less military spending, since it came from that lefty rag the WSJ.

      BTW markets anticipate the future so pending cuts will have an impact before they actually happen. If a program is getting cut in 1 yr, suppliers will stop buying now. So there is no point in going on about whether cuts have actually happened.

      The funny thing is that the right is passionate about how mil spending stimulates the economy, but they argue that, magically, all other gvt spending is bad. krugman calls them “defense Keynesians”.

      • Gregg Smith

        And if tax hikes, new regulations and Obamacare’s implementation are assured by the reelection of Obama, ditto.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Tax hikes and spending cuts are both a drag on the economy. If you’re concerned, or obsessed, with the deficit, you have to intelligently pick which will do the least damage. With taxes on the upper brackets near all time lows, with romney types paying less than 13%, I think it’s obvious that tax increases at the top are what do the least damage. With the rich richer than ever and corporations making record profits, higher taxes won’t slow their economic activity.

          • Don_B1

            You nailed it! Just as the Bush tax cuts weighted toward the wealthiest did little in stimulating job and wage growth in the ’00s, increasing those tax rates on the wealthiest will have little effect on the economy, and certainly in the short term.

            To the extent that so much of that money not paid in taxes was spent on highly speculative endeavors, raising the top marginal tax rates can prevent at least some of that unproductive speculation.

          • Gregg Smith

            There is no logical way to say the tax cuts were weighted towards the rich. None.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Thanks Don. Thing is, to know where to go, you have to pay attention to where you are. If a segment of the economy is enjoying great wealth and very low taxes, it doesn’t hurt to raise their taxes. It’s idiotic to suggest that raising taxes on super rich romney types paying under 13% would have the slightest negative effect. OTOH,  if a segment is struggling with high taxes, it does hurt to raise their taxes. In the 50s and 60s taxes at the top WERE too high, and it made sense to cut them (The dishonest righties constantly imply that the good effects obtained from cutting top rates from 90% mean that it would be good to cut top rates from the current low levels. It’s two completely different situations).

            Similarly, it’s good to cut gvt spending when there’s plenty of private spending, and it’s bad to cut gvt spending when the private sector is sitting on its cash. Right now, gvt spending cuts are very dangerous.

            Too complicated for the righties, whose idea of tax policy is “cut”, all the time.

    • Don_B1

      A few responses to your oxymoron talking points:

      1) The deficits under Bush, created ostensibly to “return your money” when surpluses were threatening to erase the debt, were structured so that they did not provide the needed job and wage growth for those in the bottom 95% of incomes. And they set up a drop in revenue that would continue past any need for “stimulus” (which Paul Ryan sold in the most dramatic of Keynesian terms — see: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/168695-1 –!) and did not spur productive investment in the economy.
      2) The deficits under Obama are necessary to replace the lost spending by the private sector due to the lost wealth of the popping of the housing bubble and the banking/financial crisis due to the improper use of derivatives to speculate on unproductive ventures. These deficits come, not from any “new” program, but from increased safety net spending (e.g., unemployment, food stamps and Medicaid, etc.) and the reduced revenue because the economy is at less than full strength. But that is improving, though you would NEVER know that from Gregg’s continuous misinformation.

      3) It has been an unfortunate mode of a few members of both parties to decry increases of the debt ceiling, but not intended or taken seriously until the current Tea/Republican members decided to try to use it as a hostage to force their priorities into law over the desires of the majority. The vast majority of economists know that austerity of the size the Tea/Republican radicals desire would be detrimental to the economic well-being of every American.

      4) Refusing to even support research into evolution or climate science and denigration of well-documented evidence of both sciences IS DEFINITELY being ANTI-science. Just look at the statements of Senator James Inhofe. And then, while he is not currently in office, Todd Akin and defender Representative Phil Gingrey (R, GA) have biologically unscientific ideas on women’s reproductive functions.

      Why do you bother to put out such easily falsified arguments?

      • Gregg Smith

        #1 The surplus ($300 tax credits) was to help people in a time of recession, nothing more nothing less. In truth it was actually redistribution. Most of the time liberals like that. The tax cuts when passed in 2001 were set to phase in over several years. The only thing that happened in 2001 was for the bottom. The EIC enhancements, the $300 tax credits and new 10% rate (with the 15% rate indexed to it) war all that happened right away. And yes, that cost revenue but it helps the struggling. The confidence a 10 yea plan instilled also had positive effects. In 2003 everything was accelerated to happen at once. All rates were lowered and revenue INCREASED by over a half trillion dollars by 2007. The unemployment rate decreases for 52 months. The recession was shallow and 9/11 was weathered.

        #2 Obama put jobs on the back burner and did not address them. There were no shovel ready jobs and he admitted it. Keynesian theory does not work in the long run. He took money out of Medicare. He did not reform entitlement as promised. He aggressively demonized business, increased regulations and sucked confidence by not having a budget and threatening tax hikes. There is no certainty. That’s what killed jobs.

        #3 We’ve quadrupled spending since Bush and since 2006 (When Democrats took congress) the deficit has multiplied by 7. Surely we can cut a bit. We did fine with Clinton’s spending levels.

        #4 I know y’all love to cite Aiken but that’s like saying all Democrats think Guam will capsize as Hank Johnson said. What is ignored is there is nothing we can do even if we tried because of India and China. And that’s accepting the “science”. But of course scientist like Roy Spencer don’t count. The recent admission by the IPCC that temperature has been overestimated for 20 years doesn’t count. The debunking of Algore Jazzera’s movie and the 9 flat out false hoods doesn’t count. The science showing no significant warming since 1998 doesn’t count. Saying AGW causes drought when it’s dry and floods when it’s wet does not make sense. There is no science tying AGW to hurricanes yet it’s trotted out. 

        So no, I don’t think you have refuted squat.

  • nj_v2

    Weekly roundup of Rethuglicon and other right-wing jackassery, malfeasance, extremism, incompetence, and general idiocy…

    (Two-parter, the idiots have been busy)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/arizona-bills-require-con_n_2568131.html

    Arizona Bills Require Constitution Loyalty Oath, Pledge Of Allegiance By Public School Students

    [[ Two Arizona lawmakers are stirring Constitutional debate and threats of legal action after introducing bills that would require the state's students to express love of country under God.

    House Bill 2467, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Bob Thorpe, would require all public high school seniors to take an oath to "support and defend" the U.S. Constitution and proclaim, "so help me god." A second proposal, House Bill 2284sponsored by Republican state Rep. Steve Smith, would require all public 1-12 students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ]]

    (excerpt)

    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Newtown-dad-to-lawmakers-Change-gun-laws-4228992.php

    Father of Newtown victim heckled at hearing

    [[ "The Second Amendment!" was shouted a couple of times by as many as a dozen gun enthusiasts in the meeting room as Neil Heslin, holding a photo of his slain 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, asked why Bushmaster assault-style weapons are allowed to be sold in the state. ]]

    (excerpt)

    http://www.alternet.org/print/republican-advocacy-group-coaching-gop-how-not-sound-racist-aholes

    Republican Advocacy Group Coaching GOP on How Not Sound like Racist A**holes

    [[ A top Hispanic Republican advocacy group co-chaired by Jeb Bush is so worried about how the GOP will respond to immigration reform that they are distributing a set of guidelines instructing congressional Republicans on how to discuss the topic without sounding like a bunch of neanderthals. The issue, according to the group, isn't really about substance. Instead, it's about using [3] ”tonally sensitive” language:

     ”Tone and rhetoric will be key in the days and weeks ahead as both liberals and conservatives lay out their perspectives. Please consider these tonally sensitive messaging points as you discuss immigration, regardless of your position,” Hispanic Leadership Network Executive Director Jennifer Korn writes. ]]

    (excerpt)

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/29/1510041/sandy-aid-republican-hypocrites/?mobile=nc

    31 Senate Republicans Opposed Sandy Relief After Supporting Disaster Aid For Home States

    [[ When the Senate passed the long-delayed $50.5 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package Monday, 36 Republicans voted against the bill. But of the 32 no-votes from Senators who are not brand-new members, at least 31 came from Republicans who had previously supported emergency aid efforts following disasters in their own states.]]

    (excerpt)

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ron-robinson-james-b-taylor-young-americas-foundation-white-nationalists

    Top Conservatives Run PAC That Funded White Nationalists

    [[ Two prominent conservative movement officials who hold leadership positions for several right-wing groups—Ron Robinson and James B. Taylor—run a political action committee that donated thousands of dollars to a white nationalist organization, according to public records. And for several years Taylor was vice president of another white nationalist organization. ]]

    (excerpt)

    • nj_v2

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/lindsey-graham-hillary-clinton_n_2574701.html

      Lindsey Graham: Hillary Clinton ‘Got Away With Murder’ In Benghazi

      [[ Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has upped his already harsh rhetoric against outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claiming that she "got away with murder" in the Benghazi, Libya, attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. ]]

      (excerpt)

      http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/29/1509411/gop-rep-says-he-opposes-immigrations-reform-because-latinos-are-uneducated-will-never-support-republicans/

      GOP Rep Says He Opposes Immigration Reform Because Latinos Are Uneducated, Will Never Support Republicans

      [[ “I hope politics is not at the root of why we’re rushing to pass a bill. Anyone who believes that they’re going to win over the Latino vote is grossly mistaken,” Barletta said. “The majority that are here illegally are low-skilled or may not even have a high school diploma. 

      The Republican Party is not going to compete over who can give more social programs out. They will become Democrats because of the social programs they’ll depend on.” ]]

      (excerpt)

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/29/georgia-man-guns-down-immigrant-after-gps-sends-him-to-wrong-driveway/Georgia man guns down immigrant after GPS sends him to wrong driveway

      [[ A 69-year-old war veteran and former missionary was arrested over the weekend on the suspicion of killing a 22-year-old Colombian immigrant who mistakenly arrived in his driveway because of faulty GPS directions. ]]

      (excerpt)

      http://www.thenation.com/blog/172551/e-mails-show-jeb-bush-foundation-lobbied-businesses-including-one-tied-bush?rel=facebook#

      E-Mails Show Jeb Bush Foundation Lobbied For Businesses, Including One Tied To Bush

      [[ A public interest group has released the results of a multi-state Freedom of Information Act request concerning the lobbying efforts by the Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE), the nonprofit led by Jeb Bush. The e-mails confirm previous reporting showing that Bush’s policies are designed to benefit businesses seeking to privatize public education—particularly the companies that finance Bush's nonprofit.

      What's new in this release, however, is the revelation that Bush could be using his education reform crusade for personal gain. ]]

      (excerpt)

      http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/anti_abortion_activists_block_sexual_health_funding_for_at_risk_teens/?source=newsletter

      Antiabortion activists block sexual health funding for at-risk teens
      North Dakota State University froze $1.2 million in sex ed. funds because of pressure from anti-choice activists

      http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17777-republican-federal-judge-david-sentelle-how-the-gop-has-packed-the-courts-with-partisan-hacks

      Republican Federal Judge David Sentelle: How the GOP Has Packed the Courts With Partisan Hacks

      [[ The hijacking of the federal judiciary by the Republican Party – through the appointment of aggressive partisan judges combined with preventing votes on nominations by Democratic presidents – is the hidden cancer on US government.  The sudden nixing of recess appointments last week by a DC appellate court panel of three Republican-appointed judges (in this case Obama filling empty National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seats and appointing Richard Cordray to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) during a recess to circumvent endless Republican sabotage in the Senate) is symbolic of the macro-subversion of justice through manipulation of the federal bench, including, of course the Supreme Court. ]]

      (excerpt)

      .

      • Ray in VT

        Did you see this one?:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/dog-euthanized-for-being-gay?cid=rss

        Tennessee man tries to have his “gay” dog euthanized.  Who knows what the guy’s politics are, but he sure seems to be a complete and utter dolt at best.

        • nj_v2

          Man, it’s hard to keep up. As pointed out in the comments, the dog wasn’t euthanized as the erroneous headline indicated. Silver lining, but the owner still needs help.

        • Gregg Smith

          I love happy dogs.

          • JGC

            Then be sure to see Puppy Bowl IX on Animal Planet this weekend. It will pick up your spirits and put you back in that warm and fuzzy mood, just in time for On Point comments next Monday morning.

          • Gregg Smith

            Sounds good! My corgi’s name is Mya.

          • JGC

            A corgi – just like the Queen! We have two German short-haired pointers, but they will not let me release their names, due to concerns about their privacy.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yes, like the queen. And between you and me I don’t really torture kittens. We just got 5 because we’ve lost a few older barn cats in the last year. We named them Pablo, Poncho, Pedro, Paco and Picasso. But there is also Zeke, Henry, Katrina, Smudge, Murphy and Razor Face. We have no mice or rats in the barn. We also have three at the house, Newton, Pewter and Peg. Peg is three legged.

            Pointers are very cool dogsbut they are a little averse to fame. Too much information?

          • JGC

            They are a little shy – except around squirrels.

    • Ray in VT

      I thought that it was pretty funny that one of the “white nationalist” groups, which are totally not racist (just ask them), said that Brown v. Board of Education was the worst Supreme Court decision in the history of the Court.

  • Gregg Smith

    I find the general tone and overall premises of the debates here to be near delusional. I have respect for some and find others delightful but all in all this is a huge waste of time. In general I don’t think many here regard truth over ideology. And such nastiness. The majority of non-rebuttals begin with “it says a lot about you” or “You must think this or that” or If you had any understanding of…” or “You just live in a right -wing bubble so ..” or “That’s a hack site”. It gets personal when the facts cannot be refuted. So often I am told what I think and then criticized for thinking it when I don’t think that way at all. Other times my comment are taken completely out of context to say something I never even implied. So it goes. 

    I’ve been called every name in the book. I’ve tried often to stipulate that I am all those things just to get toto the nub of the argument. I guess I’ll take this opportunity to name a few names.

    The absolute nastiest commenter is the one who shoots first and thinks later. The one whose preconceived notions always assume the very worst of intentions. Hideous things that no one but insane people would think. Ah but us righties are insane. Congratulations to Brett.

    Jefe actually wrote that Bobby Jindal wanted people dying in the streets. Really, he did. That would seem to fit the above and it does but Jefe is just stupid so I give him a pass. He gets the award for the most vacuous, irrelevant gratuitous inanity while accusing other of the same. Congrats.

    NJ, wins the overall nasty award.

    Hennorama wins for most disingenuous.

    I guess that’s enough. I don’t want to hand out compliments because that may sway the challenge coming up. But I should say I like many of the liberals here and respect their views. I think you know who you are.

    I have always tried hard to keep it civil and not get personal. I think I have for the most part achieved that. But as a whole y’all are not interested in honest debate. My mainstream views stick out like a sore thump in this liberal cocoon. The election is over and y’all won. America lost and things are really bad. In fact awful. So here’s my challenge:

    If enough people “like” this comment I will ride off into the sunset and not come back. I was going to go with 20 then 15 but that’s to high a bar. 10 likes with rid you of me. I never figured out who the guest are so only 1 guest counts. We don’t want ballot stuffing. And since Hennorama gets the heebie jeebies every time she reads my comments I will consider her vote cast so we’ll make it 9. There is no time limit but I may not be aware, so keep checking. If at any time in the future the tally hits 9, let me know. the show doesn’t start for another 20 minutes so there should be plenty of traffic soon. We can get this done quick if you choose.

    Until then I’ll be around.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/YMV2HJ2TBKMCN2QRAVI3I2OOGM Jim Jim

      I think you do get personal a lot of the time. Saying something like “you’re not serious” is a personal attack and not objective at all. You should leave if you want to leave and stay if you want to stay, but you should also truly consider the message that people are trying to tell you even if you don’t regard it as intelligent or well spoken. 

      • Gregg Smith

        I think I made a very good case and was merely making an observation based on the facts. It is my opinion. But point taken. I said “for the most part”. How about getting it started.

    • 1Brett1

      Wait, how can I be “the absolute nastiest commenter” yet NJ wins the award for “nastiest overall commenter”? I’m hurt, and I feel cheated out of my rightful award! The question really is: do we win anything? …well, you did say you’d leave if given enough “likes,” so that’s something to which we can look forward. I think we need to do a recount of the award votes, though, as I’m sure the margin of error has skewed your bestowal on NJ!

      Vote for Gregg Smith leaving, everybody, by “like[ing]” his comment! Gregg Smith in 2013!! 

      • Gregg Smith

        I tried to poke my finger into a few eyes of those that might be on the fence, not that your vote was ever in question. Get that letter writing campaign going. 8 more to go!

        • 1Brett1

          …Ain’t your self-deluded grandiosity just grand. 

      • nj_v2

        Should we have a “nasty-off” to determine the real winner? We’ll need an impartial panel to determine the validity of the “likes” or maybe even set up a real poll. Do you know anyone at Gallop? I mean, this is really important stuff, ya know?

        • 1Brett1

          I, for one, plan to wear a Mexican wrestling mask and a cape from now on when I write my comments. Both’ll be black with a skull and crossbones on the mask (and space for notches every time I am “nasty” to Gregg…that is if he’s around after today).

          • Gregg Smith

            Lobby a bit harder, NJ hasn’t clicked yet. I guess the irony is that the best case that my assumptions are wrong would if the tally isn’t reached. 

          • jefe68

            El 1Brett1, the nasty one…

    • Acnestes

      Seriously Gregg, I think you need to reevaluate your position that your views are mainstream.

      • Gregg Smith

        I stand by it. I think the context of the forum makes a difference.

        • Acnestes

          All right, what right wing positions do you disagree with?

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m pro choice. I favor drug legalization. I think a path to citizenship is long overdue and that calling anything that has it “Amnesty” is not honest. I think Rush is not honest for saying Obama raised taxes by ending the payroll tax holiday. I’m not a Christian. There’s a few. But I’m certainly closer to the Republican positions than the Democrats.

          • 1Brett1

            For example, by pro-choice, do you mean women can choose not to have sex or can choose to buy their own contraception if they wish not to have a baby?

          • Gregg Smith

            Or choose an abortion in the first trimester if they can pay for it.

          • 1Brett1

            Mandatory ultrasounds? Waiting periods? 

      • 1Brett1

        Agreed…but do try and show a little support for his leaving and “like” that one post of his, if you don’t mind.

        • Gregg Smith

          Lobby, lobby, lobby.

      • J__o__h__n

        They are not mainstream as evidenced by the election.  I disagree 95% of the time with his posts but I don’t find him to be personally nasty like I do many of the conservatives here and he has a sense of humor.  If he is leaving, at least do so in response to the annoying pop-ups.  (This week at work is extremely slow so I’ve temprarily ended my boycott.)

    • Gregg Smith

      We have the first surprise! “Worried For the Country” clicked. I didn’t see that one coming. But that’s alright. 7 more to go.

      • 1Brett1

        Maybe you should repost throughout the day just so it goes to the top…you wouldn’t want anyone to miss this, would you?

        (Kind of begs the question: are your compadres “liking” you because of the content of your comments, or because of a solidarity with ideology?)

        • Gregg Smith

          Unfortunately, that would make a different set of likes and is too cumbersome but I am going to move my challenge to the top of my comment so that you don’t have to click “show more” to see it. That may be what happened to WFTC. 

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         No Gregg, I don’t want you to go into the sunset.  You don’t see your ‘challenge’ until you click ‘show more’.  Obviously I appreciate your voice here.  It is lonely.

        • Gregg Smith

          Thanks WFTC. That’s what I thought. I have remedied it. And back atcha’ but I’m loosing my purpose for being here. What was it?   

      • Gregg Smith

        I now see that WFTC’s “like” has been rescinded. The world is right again. I have to admit that one bugged me a bit.

    • JGC

      This is not the Christmas surprise I was expecting this morning!  :(  Now, excuse me while I go off and pout in the corner…

      • Gregg Smith

        Don’t be sad. It’s joyous day.

        • jefe68

          Not yet, you’re still posting.

      • nj_v2

        Don’t worry!

        After a stop for Greggg, it’s coming to you…

        • 1Brett1

          Woah, black Betty whaaamulance…

          • Gregg Smith

            Okay, that was funny. 

      • Ray in VT

        I was thinking that maybe he had finally found some evidence about that Valerie Jarrett supposed quote that some around here were harping about a couple of months back.

        • Gregg Smith

          I missed it. Which quote do you mean?

          • Ray in VT

            The whole take revenge thing.

          • Ray in VT

            The entire alleged quote was posted in it’s entirety on the page for the November 5th show.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Gregg.  This forum is an opportunity for constructive dialog.  It’s a place where those holding opposing views can influence others using the powers of persuasion consisting of well-constructed argument, adherence to fact, common courtesy and above all, brevity.

      Enter this forum as a judge, or a referee by name calling, spew diatribe, dismiss out of hand views of others no matter how inarticulately put, then expect to be ignored or dismissed.

      • Gregg Smith

        I agree 100% and that has been my practice. 

        • NrthOfTheBorder

          Unfortunately, you completely missed my point.

          • Gregg Smith

            How so? I think you were spot on.

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Gregg.  I see you’ve edited your original text-  now minus the word “liberal” – which is what tripped me off to begin with. However where you seem to set yourself up as a judge – a qualifier of the quality of other people’s posts –  remains. 

            My point is this forum is a commons of sort with few rules.  My preference is only that people refrain from name-calling, diatribe etc. It’s not that people can’t do this – but it limits their argument plus it has the effect of degrading the place as a whole. 

            So, if people use the words “Liberal” or “Right-wing Nut Job” or “delusional” as a generalization – then, everyone will think they are the ones being referred to. Result? They stop listening.  

            Unless, of course, someone wants to turn this into a game complete with winners and losers as called by someone who thinks he/she knows more, or better than everyone else.   

          • Gregg Smith

            At this point I honestly don’t remember removing the word or where it was. But I don’t see the word as an insult. Certainly not on the level of Right wing nut job or delusional. I’ve certainly been called both and much worse gratuitously. I’ve even had commenters evoke my name and insult me when commenting to others.

            I don’t like calling names and seldom do but I draw the line (or try to) at making it personal. It gets personal when the reply is all about the commenter instead of the comment. That can happen without ever calling a name. Just the accusation I am parroting the Fox/Rush Monster when giving my considered opinion is highly personal and out of line in my view.

            Your last paragraph rings especially true and that’s another problem I have with many commenters. So often points are not addressed but the condescension drips like snot from a nose held high. 

            I’ve seen your name I think but if you have not seen the way my comments are received and have been for the last couple of years then the context in not clear. My above comment was a result of it and not typical of my approach. I was being particularly provocative and I must admit I expected to goad a few likes on that alone. I’m not surprised buy Brett and I think his immediate like and subsequent lobbying justifies my playing him. 

            Anywho, I appreciate your response and apologize if I offended your sensibilities but something had to give.

        • jefe68

          Wow.

    • jefe68

      This is hilarious. Really? Do you think I give a rats ass if you post or not?  You have unmasked yourself, a self absorbed whinge who really does think highly of himself.  

      That you think you are mainstream is laughable.
      At least have the guts to own up to what your politics are.  

      By the way, Jindal was going to cut all Medicaid for end of life care in the state of LA. So that would mean people on Medicaid who were dying of a terminal illness would be left on their own. Some of these folks are very poor, and dying on the street is not far off from reality. If they are homeless then they would be dying on the street. 

      Your so easy to wind up. You’re like one of those wind robots from the 60′s.

      • Gregg Smith

        Calm down.

        • 1Brett1

          So, you say this to jefe instead of addressing his point about Jindal…such hypocrisy in your earlier grandstanding comment (and in general).

          • Gregg Smith

            Addressing it accepts how sick premise. I’m not going there.

          • jefe68

            It’s moot anyway. Jindal had to back down on that one due to a lot bad press.

            You wont go where? 

            You see this is how you roll.
            You wont address the reality of how Republican governors are cutting social programs and taxes to the point that their states will become dysfunctional and worse places to live than they already are.

          • Gregg Smith

            I don’t know the details but I flat out don’t believe Jindal is motivated by a lack of compassion. I would not accuse anyone of either party of something like that. You assume the worse, I don’t.

          • 1Brett1

            Copout?

          • Gregg Smith

            Call it what you will.

        • jefe68

          I’m quite calm. 

          Wait, you’re not gone yet?

          • Gregg Smith

            Now Brett has removed his like. Things are not going well. Maybe it was glitch.

            But I do have work to do.

    • jefe68

      By the way for a guy who goes on about not calling people names you sure do do it enough.

      In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.

      • Gregg Smith

        I thought this was my swan song but people seem to like me to much to “like” me. Who’da thunk?

    • JGC

      I am glad to see you have survived the challenge, and will continue to spar with us from time to time.  I was going to suggest that maybe you just needed to take the weekend off, stay away from the screens, go fishing, then come home and prepare a delicious fish supper for your family (maybe with a nice arugula salad on the side).  

      One thing you are right about is this forum “is a huge waste of time”. I totally agree; my kids have been eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches since 2011, the Christmas tree was only dismantled last week and I may be losing track of personal hygiene issues.  And in spite of this enormous investment of thought and time, no one here has yet managed to solve all the problems of the world! 

      Have a nice weekend, everyone.

      • Gregg Smith

        Thanks JGC. I did go fishing yesterday and had a great time. Unfortunately, no fish. It’s a tough time of year and the water is still muddy from the rains.

  • stillin

    BBC reported that the hostage crisis in Algeria a week or so ago…during that, there apparantly there is a witness who says the hostages that died , were linked by wires to a suicide bomber…this was on bbc yesterday…is there a follow up investigation on this?

    • Gregg Smith

      Al Qaeda is alive and well. The embassy in Turkey was bombed this morning. This is why it matters that the video lie was propagated.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Terrorism is alive and well; centralized Al Qaeda is in tatters. What you’re referring to is the action affiliates and far-flung franchises.

        But I get it. You thought that was going to be a lynch-pin for November. LoL.

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

          FYI   Centralized  “Al Qaeda” is not in tatters, its in Langley Virginia.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Along with the Black Helicopters, the plans for FEMA re-education camps, and the Sandy Hook crisis actors?

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

            Sorry Astra,  I’m not into crop circles and UFOs, save that and the FEMA camps for Alex Jones. 
            What is a fact is that the CIA and Mossad created Al Qaeda and are using these mercenaries and operatives to destabilize middles eastern countries one after another.

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

        Blaming it on Al CIA-da ??  

        Can’t you think of a better reason why some people in the Middle East may be just a little bit angry with the USA in that region ??

        • Gregg Smith

          I am not sure if the bombing in Turkey was Al Qaeda but see that my wording implies it. Sorry.

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

            Apologies not necessary.  Actually, it just may have been a false-flag Al-CIA-da.  qui bono

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

    Familiar dynamics at play in the Middle East.

    The neighborhood bully (Israel) calls in its big buddies (USA) into the playground with baseball bats (US patriot missiles) so it can poke its victim (Syria) in the eye (commit an unprovoked attack), while the victim is already distracted in a fight with paid thugs (Al-CIAda) hired by the bullies.  

    Interesting how Isreal and Al Qaeda (al CIA/mossada) are really allies.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    Just want to say this: freshman TX Senator Cruz is an embarrassment.

    • Gregg Smith

      I like him a lot. I thought his question to Hagel was spot on and the only answer he had was to deny he said what he said on tape. 

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Of course you like him a lot. He was playing to the cheap seats, hoping to get some guilt-by-association buzz going because he appeared on boogeyman Al Jazeera. As they say in Texas, all hat; no cattle.

        • Gregg Smith

          Do you think the Secretary of Defense should hold the via that America is the world bully? Either way the question seems relevant to me.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            When we account for almost half of world defense spending, I don’t think that notion should be discounted. The GOP, in the shadow of the neo-con era, seems too wed to this “exceptionalism” idea. It’s like a purity ring they want to see worn. I can live with cabinet members who have expressed criticism of American policy and, yet, somehow still love America.

          • Gregg Smith

            Fair enough but was asking the question out of line? Shouldn’t we know the mindset?

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Would like Senators to craft their questions in more serious ways. Cruz approached it like he was living in a right wing blog. Oh, wait, he’s in TX, where 1/3 of the citizens want to secede. So maybe that is where he lives.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Why?  Because he held Hagel to account for his past statements?

      Cruz is clearly very bright and is no hack like many others in the Senate.

      Now if you want to talk about embarrassments: if the allegations about Bob Menendez are true then we are in John Edwards territory on the repulsive scale.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Cruz wasn’t alone in this, but he exemplified the lack of seriousness on that Committee. No questions about Afghanistan, none on cyber-security. Little on Iran that wasn’t crafted as a “gotcha” question. And Cruz was playing clownish “gotcha” better than anyone, even wheeling in video-tapes of a radio show.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Often these hearings are exercises in grand standing.  However, Hagel’s performance yesterday raises serious doubts regarding his competence for this important position.  Is Hagel the best candidate Obama could find for SecDef?

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Yeah, that appears to be the talking point, but I don’t buy it. It was the expected Obama-style rope-a-dope being played against a bunch a temper tantrum throwers.

      • J__o__h__n

        Don’t forget Senator Vitter and Governor Sanford.

        • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

          Don’t take the bait. It’s lame partisan misdirection.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Politics appears to attract many flawed people.

          • J__o__h__n

            They tend to be charismatic and full of themselves which leads to behavioral excesses. 

          • Gregg Smith

            They’re like singers/front men in bands. What makes them good makes them bad.

          • J__o__h__n

            You didn’t go with the more partisan sax player?

          • Gregg Smith

            Singing sax players are the worst!

  • toc1234

    bloomberg, cbs and Jack….  another well-balanced npr panel.  great work, Tom…  zzzz

    • nlpnt

      It must be getting hard to find conservatives in the media  business who understand the goal is a reasoned discussion, not a shouting match.

  • toc1234

    btw – Tom, don’t forget to ignore today’s increase in the unemployment rate and the drop in GDP earlier in the week.

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

    The Hagel thing didn’t sound like a confirmation hearing as much as it sounded like some guys going out to the firing range for a day of target practice.

    • Gregg Smith

      What questions were out of line?

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

        No question seeking information is out of line – questions phrased and repeatedly asked in a manner intended to paint the respondent rather than to seek information aren’t really questions to begin with.

      • jefe68

        I thought you were going?

        • Gregg Smith

          There are 8 more “likes” to go. You’re not helping.

          • jefe68

            I don’t really care if you go or not.
            You seem to have inflated view of yourself.

          • 1Brett1

            I guess this will become another one of his pat responses to a comment he doesn’t like, e.g., “I kill kittens….,” “don’t tell me what I think,” “I offered to go away, but nooooo…”

          • Gregg Smith

            HEY!!! Why did your “like” go away? Now it says Kelt Crusader. Is it Disqus? Were you felling lonely?

            I don’t kill kittens, I’ve never said that. I torture them.

          • keltcrusader

            I would vote all 10 times if I could – just to not have to read your blathering prattle

          • Gregg Smith

            Thanks for your support. Brett put his back so you’re not alone.

  • Denis

    Senator McCain once again shows what a child he is… He and his ideas lost in 2008; his ideas lost in 2012 yet he and the media continue to treat him as if he is a bright light in an otherwise dark arena.
    To say Republicans “went hard” at him is really making it look honorable hard questioning. It appeared to me that McCain and his weak kneed allies on the committee are making every effort to divide America rather than working to have a united country.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/NAKCXLPLH2BGHBDK5QNU3BA4XQ Steve

    More immigrants and low skill workers in this country
    benefit the 1% and hurt the 99%. We need 11 million more additional citizens
    like we need the proverbial hole in our heads. Trying to care for yourself and
    your country should not be confused wtih racism. That’s what I think.

    • nj_v2

      What’s your proposed solution?

      • William

         Slam the border shut and go after visa over stays. Let the current illegals age out but grant citizenship to dreamers, after they pay a fine.

        • nj_v2

          “Slam the border shut…”

          Is there a switch you flip somewhere for that?

          .

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/NAKCXLPLH2BGHBDK5QNU3BA4XQ Steve

            True, holding back immigration when people are trying to get through anyway is tough. Rather than stop it at the border, make it illegal (in practice) to hire illegal immigrants. Right now it is technically illegal but sanctioned in practice. When a few chicken factory owners go to jail for six months for hiring illegal immigrants, corporations will make very rapid adjustments to their hiring practices, and the appeal of coming here illegally will diminish very quickly.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/NAKCXLPLH2BGHBDK5QNU3BA4XQ Steve

        I think a real, and very helpful solution would be to set broad national population level targets (non-authoritarian) that account for the number of living wage jobs and natural resources available. Then immigration should be a tool to augment the number of people here if or when birth rates of existing citizens fall below the target. Our immigration policy now is essentially based upon whether other countries can employ all of their own people (with the excess dumped on us) which I think is very damaging to this nation.

    • hennorama

      Steve – I understand and appreciate your views.

      Are you aware that, according the The Economist, there is “Evidence suggest[ing] that increased flows of people across borders could ignite global growth?”

      More FTA:
      “Even a modest (and more practical) easing of restrictions could be very rewarding. Lant Pritchett of Harvard University estimates that just a 3% rise in the rich-world labour force through migration would yield annual benefits bigger than those from eliminating remaining trade barriers. The incorporation of women into the rich-world workforce provides an analogy: this expanded the labour supply and the scope for specialisation without displacing the “native” male workforce.”

      “Rich-world residents nonetheless worry that migrants will gain at their expense. Yet in a survey of research on the topic Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn of Cornell University find that few studies turn up a negative impact on native wages. In a recent paper on western Europe Francesco D’Amuri of the Italian central bank and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis find that immigration encourages natives to take more complex work. Such “job upgrades” are responsible for a 0.6% increase in native wages for each doubling in immigrant labour-force share. Where immigration disadvantages subsets of the population, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego reckons that charging an entry fee to migrants or their employers could help pay for training or benefits for those who lose out.”

      http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21566629-liberalising-migration-could-deliver-huge-boost-global-output-border-follies

      Also, did you know that, according to Forbes (using OECD data), the US ranks 22nd for “Immigrant Inflow as % of Population”  with annual average inflow of less than 1/2 of one percent of population (0.4%)?

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/11/18/is-the-u-s-the-most-immigrant-friendly-country-in-the-world/

  • siskoe

    who ever is on the phone right now…right on!!! And so much of a “band of brothers” John McCain should be ashamed…it made me physically sick to listen to this…I have alway been a McCain supporter but no more…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Patrick-Dwyer-Jr/100002088204784 James Patrick Dwyer Jr.

    McCain had no problem when Hagel was his running mate when he ran for president. Maybe he needs to get larger neck sizes on his shirt, may have a blood circulation problem to his brain. What I find interesting, the press does not press McCain on anything. He raised hell when four was killed at the embassy , but I don’t recall him saying a word about the forty children slaughtered. 
    I was an enlisted man during the Vietnam war I hope Hagel gets in, we need is kind of folks in office.

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

    Time for McCain to retire.  Chuck Hagel was right to defer on McCain’s question. The surge myth persists:
    http://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/31/the-iraq-war-surge-myth-returns-2/is

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    John Mc Cain, the former presidential candidate who picked Sara Palin as his
    running mate, is still lecturing on choices for government service? He’s a
    national embarrassment

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

    Looking at Hagel’s confirmation hearing… it reminds me the time conservative groups smeared and spread disparaging remarks on another veteran senator, Max Cleveland. it was ugly and the conservatives achieved their goal to unseat a great veteran and leader.

    now… it is another qualified leader they are after. it is all politics and it is becoming a disgrace. I strongly believe Hagel is a strong candidate for secretary of defense, because he makes every one of his decisions independently, something 99.5% republicans cannot do.

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

    This week in the news – anything but the economy. GDP shrinks, unemployment claims up and it didn’t even make a splash.

    • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

      I saw it everywhere. Maybe you wanted something wrung out it that wasn’t wrung out it?

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

        Definitely, it was all over the news – so why is it missing in “This Week in the News”?

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

          Well – it got 15 seconds with no listener input, at least it got mentioned.

    • Gregg Smith

      I think it’s amazing. How can this show be called “Week In The News”?

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

        I’m still waiting – apparently even the superbowl and 30 Rock deserve more mention than the economy.

    • MrNutso

      What’s to talk about.  Republicans refuse to enact measures to reduce unemployment and increase economic growth.

  • Elizabeth_in_RI

    Sadly Senator McCain, who I once admired for his own service and environmental concern, showed that he has become a bitter, cranky “old man”. His taunting of Senator Hagel sounded like a bully who only wanted to hear the words, “you were right, I was wrong”. This “hearing” and his over the top behavior toward Susan Rice, suggests it’s time for him to retire. And Lindsey Graham seems to be following him down the rabbit hole!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Sadly, Elizabeth you are missing the big picture.

      You would be correct if McCain was harassing Hagel over the surge if Hagel was nominated for Sec of Labor.  However, Hagel’s military judgement as Sec Def and his ability to learn from past mistakes is critical in this role.  Rumsfeld cost many US lives by blocking and delaying tactics like the surge.

      Do you really want someone in SecDef who can’t admit past errors?  Also, McCain wouldn’t have ‘bullied’ Hagel if Hagel simply answered this important question.

      • nlpnt

        McCain wouldn’t have bullied Hagel if he was looking for an actual answer, not a yes-or-no sound bite.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Also, the fact that Hagel stabbed McCain, his longtime friend, in the back in 2008 could have contributed to McCain’s patience.

          You know what they say about payback…

      • jimino

        The “surge”, as defined by sending more troops to Iraq, had little to do with reducing sectarian violence, and accomplished nothing toward the goal of providing a foundation for a democratic Iraq.  Building literal walls between the Sunni and Shiite areas to make it more difficult for them to kill each other,  al-Sadr’s ordered cease fire and the “Sunni awakening” that rejected al Qaeda played much greater roles in reducing sectarian violence.  We’re still waiting for a functioning democracy.

        Do you really want to follow the lead of someone who can’t accept any but the most simple-minded analysis of our experience in Iraq and throughout the world?

  • kokkonobi

    Republicans in general, and neocons in particular, seem to forget that it called the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense. 

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

      looks like oboma does not relise that either

  • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    Ban nightclubs.

    • Gregg Smith

      Do you mean Billy clubs or Whiskey a go-go?

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

      yup no one needs them and they kill many americans

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.kollars Chuck Kollars

    The “2nd amendment” reasoning I keep hearing is let citizens have guns so if necessary they can resist our government  …like they resisted the British. But the world has changed since our constitution was written. Does anybody really think handguns can stand up against a tank or a black helecopter?

    • hennorama

      Chuck Kollars – No.  But they somehow think military-style semi-automatic weapons will, along with the legally owned machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, artillery pieces, etc.  Logic is irrelevant to these beliefs and attitudes.

      FYI, according to the ATF, there are nearly a half million machine guns (488,065) registered under the National Firearms Act.  There are also over 2 million (2,064,091) registered “Destructive Devices.”  These are defined by the ATF as follows:

      [For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Destructive Device” means:

      A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.

      Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.

      A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.]

      In other words, as pictured in the source below, grenades, grenade launchers, and artillery.

      http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-destructive-device.html

    • Don_B1

      That people actually think that they, in relatively small groups, could “take on” the full power of the modern Armed Forces of the United States shows just how far into some fantasy world these people are.

      Do they really think that people who think like those who took to “armed resistance” at Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Oklahoma City could actually prevail against even “just” the police or F.B.I.?

      But then you listen to statements of ELECTED legislators from some states, mostly “red states,” and you realize the general thinking of many who hopefully for the future of the country would not really support such activity but find it tactically possible to ignore or even give some weird kind of support for it.

      The fact that some 90% of Americans support background checks before a gun purchase can be completed and 60% support banning new sales of assault-type weapons gives me hope that a large majority of Americans have not left this world for some fantasy world, but some things give me pause from time to time.

      But it does give a measure of support for thinking that there are a lot of “gun-nuts” who really have not thought through their ideas. it makes one wonder how this country will actually get down to thinking and dealing with the really severe problems that are coming down the road, or actually are already on the doorstep.

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

        seems to work fine for the taliban or did we defeat them?

  • Melanie Wilson

    More than any other issue, the gun debate makes me realize that about half this country lives on another planet, in another reality. We simply cannot understand each other. I vote for an amicable divorce. Why must we stay together as a single country, when some of us actually believe that the deaths of thousands of innocent people a year are the price of the ‘liberty’ of individuals to own military-style weapons?

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

      oh, how many people are shot with “military style weapons”? hint: its not thousands

  • Elizabeth_in_RI

    Ms Trotter’s vision of “young women” needing the courage of an assault weapon to defend their children is simplistic, insulting and incredibly stupid. How many people are killed each year because of the easy access guns legally and illegally?? How many children are accidentally shot each year by a gun kept in the house for defense?? How many arguments that would have ended with cross words or fist fights are now fatal because someone has a gun in their pocket, drawer or closet? Who believes that George Zimmerman would ever have gotten out of his car if he didn’t have the false courage of a pistol in his pocket?? It’s time for us to realize that just because we have a right to something doesn’t mean it makes sense to do it. It’s time for us to have grown up conservations about this is stop with the “storm troopers breaking down our doors and taking our rights away” insanity.

  • Gregg Smith

    Well I already griped about the omission of the tragic GDP. Why no mention of Menendez and his underage Dominican prostitutes?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Did you check his party affiliation?

      D — so move along folks.  Nothing to see.
       

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        There’ll be plenty to see if any of it pans out. But until it’s more than Daily Caller muckraking, it doesn’t rise to anything above, well, The Daily Caller.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          True.  Innocent until proved guilty.  But remember, John Edwards was initially outed by the Nation Inquirer.  

      • Gregg Smith

        Really? He’s a Democrat? Well A hre=”http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/politics/senator-menendez/index.html”>CNN and NPR just called him a Senator from NJ. I guess they tangential implied he was a Democrat way down in the articles though.

        “Republican” was NPR’s 2nd word with Larry Craig

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14114915

        (R-FL) was prominent with Mark Foley.

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6200954

        Go figure.

  • nj_v2

    Jack made a passing reference Gail Trotter…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/gayle-trotter-gun-control_n_2583098.html
    (
    Gayle Trotter Testimony Captivates Senate Gun Control Hearing)Counterpoint here:http://paulbibeau.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-message-from-woman-defending-her.html

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Unemployment (U-6) is 14.4% according the BLS report released this morning at 8:35am.  Glad things are so rosy!!.

    • hennorama

      WorriedfortheCountry – U-6 (seasonally adjusted) has fallen over the last year, from 15.1% in Jan 2012 to 14.4% in Jan 2013, even faster than the decline in U-3 (the “official” unemployment rate).  U-3 dropped from 8.3% in Jan 2012 to 7.9% in Jan 2013.

      While certainly not anything to crow about, the drops in both rates are GOOD news.

      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

  • MrNutso

    So caller, which tyranical government is threatening the United States?

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

      oh the “it can’t happen here” line. sure, the germans said that too about 75 years ago

  • distractedriver

    Uncaring, heartless bastard.  ”Death happens every day.”  Yeah, but it shouldn’t have to happen to an unsuspecting kid who’s just going to school.  His gun-toting attitude sure would be different if it was his kid that got popped. You should have called him out Tom.

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

      it should not but it does. no matter what laws you pass on legal gun owners. i wonder how many kids get killed in other ways

  • nlpnt

    ““Background checks will never be ‘universal,’ because criminals will never submit to them.”–Wayne Lapierre

    Let me get this straight. We shouldn’t have laws, because criminals may break them??

    • MrNutso

      It’s not about criminals worrying about background checks.  It’s about a check for every gun purchased, and prosecution of straw buyers.  Straw buyers should be guilty of any crime committed by the person they gave or sold the gun to.

      • nlpnt

        Exactly my point. Lapierre sounded like he was lobbying for a pro-crime constituency with that line. 

        He’s also (on a previous occasion) been disingenuous about gun-free zones around schools. They weren’t put in place with the expectation a potential shooter (mass or otherwise) would obey them, but to give authorities probable cause to stop anyone who’s carrying within them.

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

          that does not seem to be working too well. it has the unintended consequence of creating a safe zone for killers

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

        so how will you get the criminals to submit to the background check?

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

      maybe we just should not fool ourselves by thinking we can pass a law and change the behavior of criminals. how is that war on drugs working out?

  • AlanThinks

    The caller Scott who says his “right” to a firearm is more important than a society’s right to safety from uncontrolled access to firearms – as perpetuated by the NRA – is an example of the “stupid” thinking permeating the right wing and Republican party.

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

      what did Franklin say about trading liberty for the illusion of security? was he wrong?

  • DrewInGeorgia
    • Gregg Smith

      Not to downplay the others but the Alabama case is breaking my heart. I keep hearing updates about him crying for his mother. Hopefully it has a happy ending.

  • MrNutso

    You can kill 20 people at once with hub caps if you lift them from a tractor trailer.

    • MrNutso

      18 actually.

    • Gregg Smith

      Hub caps don’t kill people. People with hub caps kill people.

      • Steve__T

         No that’s people with cars that have hub caps kill people

    • Mike_Card

      Or, you can run over hundreds if you leave them on the wheels and head for a high school football game on a Friday night.

  • sheryltr

    The second amendment was created to support slavery and kill Native Americans, not to prevent tyrannical governments. The right of those small children to grow up and have a future supersedes the “right” to own a gun. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Far more children are killed in auto accidents every year than by guns.  Therefore by logical extension:
      ‘The right of those small children to grow up and have a future supersedes the “right” to own a car’.

      • nj_v2

        Do you have to exert much effort to sound this silly, or does it just kind of come naturally?

      • Ray in VT

        It’s amazing how automobile safety requirements, such as seat belts and air bags, have driven down the numbers and rates of automobile deaths over the decades.  If regulation and required training for legal operation worked there, then why could it not help with firearms?

        • 1Brett1

          I remember people saying similar things then as they do now regarding gun laws when those automobile safety laws were enacted. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The devil is always in the details.  Banning guns based on cosmetic features that make the gun look ‘scary’ is a joke (eg, the Feinstein bill).

          • Fredlinskip

            You’re right- banning the ones that fire lots of rounds should be the focus. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Why not focus on hand guns which are responsible for far far far more murder?

        • Gregg Smith

          But we do have required training and regulations. I’m not dug in on this. I think if we can help matters without infringing on law abiding gun owners we should. I’m not convinced of either.

          I do think its good that cars are required to have seat belts and air bags but I am also glad air bags are required to be able to be disabled. I oppose seat belt laws but would not drive without using one.

        • Steve__T

           Yeah pass a law on bullets, that they can only be made of nerf foam rubber. Then we start on Bow and Arrows.

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

            then pointy and any hard objects. c’mon mani ts for the kids!

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

          actually we already do that wthi firearms in mass they are required to be drop safe for example. this prevents incidental discharge. i support that sort of thing. have we required speedl imiting devices that limit you to the speed limit or do almost all cars made now have the capibility to go much faster? hell there is a model of volvo that hasne ver had a fatality. we could require all cars to be that model and reduce traffic deaths to zero. why don’t we? it could save many mnay more than one child

      • J__o__h__n

        And if we ban cars it will also cut down on the mass murders who use hubcaps.

        • Gregg Smith

          If we lowered the speed limit to (not by) 10MPH we would save lives but we are willing to tolerate traffic fatalities so we can drive fast.

        • hennorama

          The only instance of “murder by hubcap” I can recall was from one of the Final Destination movies, where one character’s demise was due to decapitation  by flying hubcap.

          The caller Laura and her “If someone is crazy, they can kill you with a hubcap” argument was silly and nonsensical.

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

            its a valid point that aything can be used as aweapon and any attempt to reduce harm by banning objects is foolish

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – given the number of posts directed to me (10 so far) I at first thought you were stalking me. Then I saw that you’ve made 80 or so posts in the past four hours. You certainly are prolific, and one might characterize your abundant comments as a sort of “spray and pray” technique.

            Your aim is off, as evidenced by your words “any attempt to reduce harm by banning objects is foolish,” at least relative to me. I have made no comment about “banning” anything related to firearms. If you can find the use of the word “ban” relating to firearms that is not a quote of the words of others or attributed to the ideas of others in ANY of my posts, please do so.

            Otherwise, you might want to practice to improve your aim.

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

        you don’t needa  car. won’t you please think of thec hildren?

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

    Tom A. poses the “right to life” (of little kids) over protection of the guns in the constitution??  

    And the USA evidently killed hundred of thousands of kids in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring them corrupt “democracy”.

    • hennorama

      In the US, the right “… to keep and bear arms …” is the only individual constitutional right that can pose a direct threat of physical harm or death to an individual.  It is NOT an unlimited right.

      Firearms are inherently dangerous and pose a danger to the right to life.  This is the essential conflict we deal with every day when it comes to firearms.

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

        not really

  • Timothy Peters

    The mental health only argument is bogus. Every country has a portion of the population that is mentally ill. There is no way to get around that fact. What other countries do not have is easy access to high powered weapons.

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

      really? seems like a AK can be bought for about $50 in any 3rd world country. maybe i misunderstood what did you mean by “easy access to high powered weapons.”

  • JGC

    Just an observation on the Alabama hostage situation:  I hate it when (like I heard on NPR yesterday) the perpetrator’s background includes the words “Vietnam vet”, as misguided shorthand for explaining how a person could be crazed and murderous.

    • hennorama

      JGC – excellent point.

      At some point, the term “Iraq/Afghanistan vet” may overtake “Vietnam vet”, as misguided shorthand for explaining how a person could be crazed and murderous.” 

      Unfortunately, deployment- and combat-related PTSD is an all too common denominator among military veterans, regardless of which war they served in.  There is also an unfortunate anti-veteran bias due to highly publicized cases of PTSD-related violence.

      The problem is, the vast majority of veterans who adjust well to post-military life aren’t as well-publicized.  But there are now 16 members of the US Congress who served in Iraq or Afghanistan whose continued service to their country will help a great deal in demostrating that military service is not incompatible with mental health and general well-being.
      They join another 90 members of Congress who are also veterans from prior eras.

      • JGC

        I know. I admit the same thing was in the back of my mind. There are so many brain concussive injuries and suicides from the Iraq/Afghanistan soldiers, I worry for them all. I worry that these injuries will only surface 20 or 30 years later, like is being seen with the hockey and football players.  Well, at least we are starting an awareness…I am glad to have veterans serving as political representatives, post military service.  It is the ultimate check and balance on our government.

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

        just wait till we have large numbers of female combat vets. that will make things interesting

  • Jafar Hosseinzadeh

    Please take a minute and read the actual text of the 2nd amendment:

    As passed by the Congress:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

    People in this context are part of a ” A well regulated Militia” and NOT EVERYONE.  Often people just remember the last part.     

    • hennorama

      Jafar Hosseinzadeh – the problem with your view is that in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has unanimously concluded and held that the Second Amendment confers an INDIVIDUAL right, whether or not is in the context of the militia.  Even Justice Stevens’ dissent agreed with the majority that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (although Stevens concluded that it does not extend outside of the context of the militia.)

      Here is part of the very first holding in Heller:

      “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

      The Heller decision also affirms that the Second Amendment is not unlimited:

      “2.  Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

      See:
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

      A Harvard Law Review commentary on Heller:
      http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/case_comment_intro122.pdf

  • glenninboston

    If we are honest with ourselves, the 2nd Amendment is already obsolete as it is written. We obviously no longer have the right to ‘bear arms’ as understood by the writers of the constitution. Can we bear nuclear arms? Chemical or biological arms? Clearly not. So the argument is NOT whether or not we can bear arms, but where we draw the line on what arms we can bear. For my part, anything with large clips and automatic fire should be off the table. But let’s be clear, this is a sociological debate, NOT a constitutional debate, and hasn’t been since Oppenheimer.

    • nj_v2

      The Second Amendment is an anachronism. It was put in place because there was no standing, national army at the founding, and state militias were designed to be the defensive mechanisms of the nascent country.

      The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Time for the 28th.

      • glenninboston

        No argument from me.

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

        why do you think there was not a standing army when we were founded? do you think that was an accident?

        “Before a standing army can rule, the
        people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the
        supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
        whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands
        of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
        States.”

        Noah Webster

    • hennorama

      In the US, the right “… to keep and bear arms …” is the only individual constitutional right that can pose a direct threat of physical harm or death to an individual.  It is NOT an unlimited right.

      Firearms are inherently dangerous and pose a danger to the right to life.  This is the essential conflict we deal with every day when it comes to firearms.

      As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

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

        really i have heard a lot of talk about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Modern firearms are inherantly safe and designed with safety in mind. Are you a big time right to lifer?
        Holmes is right so why don’t you mind your business? how does my gun infringe on any right of yours? 

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – TY for your response. I understand your views.

          The entire history of firearms involves their use as means of warfare and to injure and kill those on “the business end” of them. That is the basic conflict between the right “… to keep and bear arms …” and the basic right to life.

          The point of firearms is to discharge projectiles at high rates of speed. Projectiles traveling at high rates of speed are inherently dangerous, in the same way that vehicles traveling at high rates of speed are inherently dangerous. Safety features can reduce these dangers but cannot eliminate them entirely.

          Words, regardless of their speed, volume, time, place or intent, present no such inherent danger. Your argument about yelling in a crowded theater is therefore specious.

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

            specious? thats funny the supream ct used it before as an example.
            good point about cars, lots of things are dangerous that we live with.
            “The entire history of firearms involves their use as means of warfare and to injure and kill those on “the business end” of them.”
            really hunting and marksmanship and self defense do not exist?
            What is this “right to life” you speak of?
            keeping a bearing does not give any right to shoot anyone so I don’t see any conflict

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for your response.

            Yes, specious. If you’d prefer fallacious, deceitful, inane or absurd, please feel free to substitute the adjective you prefer.

            As to your reference to the US Supreme Court – while there was a “clear and present danger” standard related to free speech for over half a century, derived from the Schenck decision, that decision is long outmoded and no longer in effect. Also please note that in the Schenck decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Note the distinction covered by the use of the word “falsely,” which is nearly always omitted, as in your case.

            At present, and since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own. Note the words “specific” and “criminal.”

            So your argument where you typed “really i have heard a lot of talk about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater,” presumably as a counter to my post (which stated “In the US, the right “… to keep and bear arms …” is the only individual constitutional right that can pose a direct threat of physical harm or death to an individual.) not only refers to an outmoded legal standard, but is a completely false argument. If you were attempting to show that the First Amendment right to the freedom of speech “can pose a direct threat of physical harm or death to an individual,” you failed utterly.

            Care to try again?

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY again for your response. I’ll address your other points.

            1. I never claimed that firearms have no other uses. Hunting, target shooting and self-defense are all legitimate uses of firearms, and I don’t dispute this in any way. But firearms, as stated previously, are designed to discharge projectiles at high rates of speed, and to injure and kill other humans as a result. Throughout their long history, firearms have always been used for military purposes. These other uses evolved from this original use. Firearms are not mere noisemakers or footballs thrown through an old tire hanging from a tree. Denying that firearms are designed to kill people weakens your argument, since it is undeniable.

            2. The right to life is superior to all others in that all other rights are meaningless to those who are not alive. It seems silly to say, but this is undeniable. Life first, then all other rights one cares to name. I understand your argument that mere possession of a firearm does not confer a right to shoot anyone. My point is that since firearms have always been used as a means to kill others, the right to bear arms is in conflict with the much more essential right to life.

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

      where do you think nuclear arms come from? all those things are regulated by international treaties anyways so thats a silly argument. in theory the us military is not allowed chemical or biological weapons.  Glenn automatic weapons have been “banned” more or less since 1934. so thats either silly or misleading. whats a “Large clip”?

      • glenninboston

        Hi Futo. You seem to have a lot of energy for this topic! Personally, i think engaged is good, regardless of the point of view. 

        You’ve also exposed me as someone who knows next to zero about guns, having never even picked one up. So let me put into lay language what I mean (if there is even such a thing!). I mean – guns that are both i) allow many bullets without having to re-load, and ii) have rapid fire (don’t have to be re-cocked so to speak, like an old style rifle). Basically – any gun that can cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I’m not a policy wonk, I’ll leave it to those who know this stuff to decide what gets banned, and what does not.

        As for your response to the crux of my argument, you’ve stated a logical fallacy. Just because something is regulated by an international treaty, DOESN’T mean that isn’t also unconstitutional. The drafters of the constitution didn’t say, ‘the right to bear guns’, having been so precise in all of their wording, I expect they chose arms for a reason – a deliberate broad catchall. If your point were valid, then if the US signed an international treaty banning all guns…you get the idea.

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

          thank you for the discussion i like to find out different viewpoints so i can understand the debate better.
          Thank you for you honesty. there is nothing wrong with knowing nothing about guns and applaud you for having the courage and honesty to admit it.  I am far from being an expert myself because there is so much to know but I have owned and shot guns for most of my life.
          You illustrate the problem perfectly of trying to regulate things without understanding them.  Its like someone who never watched a football game trying to make rules up for the NFL. The ”Assault Weapon” you described is a red ryder BB gun. They hold 100 rounds and can be shot very rapidly damaging many cans or targets or can even put an eye out if misused.  I’m not sure how many you consider “many” but most revolvers would also fit that description.  Homicidal shooters are not limited to one gun so they could carry 6 revolvers and have more firepower than an AR15 without reloading. here is a guy with a single shot 20 gauge shot gun with half the fire power of Oboma’s over/under: 
          http://youtube/V1q2AujDsic 
           Currently to decide which guns are ”assault weapons” diane feinstien looks at picture books of guns and decides based on their appearance.  Wood stocked guns are fine the same gun with a synthetic stock is an assault weapon. they are literally discriminating against guns just because they are black.  Its all a moot point anyways since people who have bad intentions will not limit themselves to what is legally available. last time ther was an AWB the gun makers made the cosmetic changes to fit the law and sold 2x as many as they had ever before so it is not even a way to reduce the amount of guns available.
          I think you are right about the international treaties being viod if unconstitutional. It also occurs to me that currently you can get a permit for nuclear weapons or almost any other weapon under the right circumstances. the govt does not make the warheads or other weapons they are made by private industry under contract. therefor they must actually have a liscense to posess nuclear weapons. should there be such a liscensing process? personally  i think not because anyone who could actually afford a nuclear weapon could afford to buy a nuclear weapon company or buy one on the black market in russia so the same argument applies as applies to any other gun law. thank you for pointing out an apparent inconsistancy.

  • Lesann

    The NRA has been brilliant in convincing people that gun issue is about their rights. It is about money. They are a lobbying group dedicated to making money flow their way. This is not about rights, the second amendment? Ridiculous! People don’t care about privacy rights, wire tapping, women’s rights. The people spouting out the 2nd amendment are not constitutional scholars! They are in general the same ignorant bunch that are buying their guns at their Super Wal-Mart.
    Give the militia all of the muskets and cannons they want. The right of the people to be safe is paramount to any militia bearing arms.

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

      “The right of the people to be safe ” where is that enshrined in the constitution? what does that mean? I care about womens rights, privacy, and gun rights. unfortuanly wal marts in mass do not sell guns or i would have probably gotten a deal. is getting a good deal ignorant?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YDN73INIYPW5BOXOWJU6YX76X4 Brion

    People seem to forget that their supposedly inviolable right to bear arms are already regulated. 
    Try sawing of your shotgun barrel to 13 inches and waving it in front of a policeman while talking about your second amendment rights. Or try buying a Class 3 weapon without a FFL.
    Nobody needs a fifty round magazine unless they think they need to defend themselves against the 82nd Airborne.

    Buy the way. I own fireams and accept the above regulationa as neccessary and proper to protect the public good.
    B. McFarlin

    • nj_v2

      Thank you!

    • DrewInGeorgia

      The “legal” length of a knife blade is even regulated…

      • Ray in VT

        Hey Drew, I heard that there were some bad storms down your way yesterday.  Are things okay where you are?

        • Gregg Smith

          Excuse me for butting in. It was unbelievable. I’ve never seen so much water come down so fast for so long. 

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Sideways rain always blows my mind, the scope of the system was impressive.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s okay, Gregg.  The story that I read mentioned Tennessee and Georgia but not North Carolina, or else I would have asked you as well.  Did everything make it through alright?  No loss of life or property I hope.

          • Gregg Smith

            Not around here but my friends up in Boone had cars being washed out of parking lots. We actually came out pretty well. The runoff was tremendous but it didn’t soak in so aside from the fishing everything is back to normal today. A couple of weeks ago we had slow soaking rains for 5 days straight that actually caused more problems for us.

          • Ray in VT

            It is pretty amazing what power wind, water and sand have to cause such havoc for civilization.

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

            Good to hear you’re ok.

          • Gregg Smith

            Thanks.

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

            Take care of your horses. Can they swim?

            Hey, I’m a city slicker, I really don’t know.

          • Gregg Smith

            We have about 65 horses and only 34 stalls but they fared alright. We blanketed them up and it wasn’t that cold. Cold and wet gets to them. 

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

            Yep. Even I know that “Ridden hard and put away wet” is not good for horses.

          • Ray in VT

            I’ve heard that too, although we never had more than one or two horses.  I’ve also always heard that you have to be care regarding how you feed them.  Cows have pretty much iron stomachs, and they will scoop up whatever you put in front of them and generally be okay.  I’m sure that Gregg could speak better about the needs of horses.  My brother does have to keep their pony away from the mix that he feeds to the cows (hay, haylage, corn and cornmeal).  She’ll eat it, but it could do her some real harm.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I’m good, it wasn’t that bad where I’ve been the past couple of days. I won’t know how hard the property and animals I take care of most of the time were hit till I go back down this weekend. Thanks for checking Ray, I appreciate it.

          http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16766531-tornado-rips-through-georgia-city-as-storms-wreak-havoc-in-the-south?lite

          • Ray in VT

            You’re welcome.

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

      yup 20,000 laws. none has worked so far but lets make some more we “need to do something” nobody needs a porshe either or baseball. has the law prevented criminals from sawing off shotguns?

  • nj_v2

    Caller Scott: The Second Amendment was designed to protect people from a tyrannical government.

    Why is this idiocy not challenged by anyone on the show? 

    At the founding, gun ownership was tied to membership in state militias, since there was no national, standing army.

    The gun nuts enthusiasts cannot be allowed to continue to abuse the Second Amendment for their delusional, bogus notions.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

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

      do you really think gun ethusiasts are commiting a lot of crimes or is it felons who own their guns illegally?

  • http://www.georgebygeorge.com/ George V. Nostrand

    Here’s a link to an article I wrote about mental illness published yesterday: http://www.rutlandreader.com/sate-of-mind-reframing-mental-illness/. As someone who has worked with people with mental illness for 15 years, I am amazed at how many people suddenly claim to be experts on “the mentally ill”. Please read this article and comment at: george.breakingthecycle.com

  • Joshua Kramer

    Press on with the assault weapons ban, ban on high capacity magazines, etc…but why not go further?  Does anyone else not think it would also be wise to remove guns already out there from circulation?  Perhaps more federal money for gun buy backs?  Other mechanism?  Maybe require those carrying guns to belong to a state militia so they could be drafted into military or other service should the need arise?  Then perhaps people would get rid of their guns. 

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

      after that we can outlaw all pointy or sharp objects!

  • 1Brett1

    “If murder is outlawed, only outlaws would commit murder.”    -Wayne LaPiere

    “Women should protect themselves with an AK-47, even if they can protect themselves with a 410 shotgun, because AK-47s do wonders in accessorizing a floral-print housedress.”                   -Gayle Trotter

    • hennorama

      NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and Gayle Trotter have zero credibility. 

      LaPierre flip-flopped on universal background checks – he was for them during Congressional testimony in 1999 and now opposes background checks because he says “criminals will never submit to them.”

      Trotter’s testimony was equally absurd.  She said “Guns make women safer,” completely contrary to available evidence.  Lawrence O’Donnell exposed Trotter as a fool and a fraud on his show The Last Word, as Trotter couldn’t cite a single a case when an “assault weapon” saved one woman’s life during a home invasion. “You don’t go to the Senate to imagine things!” O’Donnell said.

      Read and view more here:
      http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-gun-control-nra-wayne-lapierre-2013-2#ixzz2Jg5j0puR
      http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/30/guns-make-women-safer-says-gayle-trotter-at-senate-hearing/

      • 1Brett1

        I know; I couldn’t believe Totter’s “testimony” (or is that “testimonial”?)…it was as if suddenly I were watching a bad, made-for-tv movie on the Lifetime channel and she was just a bad actor.

        • hennorama

          1Brett1 – Indeed. Her words were remarkable, just not in the way she intended. And O’Donnell’s televised vivisection of Trotter likely had her “Trotting off with her Gayle between her legs”. (Apologies in advance for my lame punnery).

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

        so was she lying when she said states with concealed carry laws have fewer crimes against women?

  • Elizabeth_in_RI

     Was it really a mistake not supporting the surge?? How much better off is Iraq now – was that really the right thing for Iraq or for us? These are not simple questions and I agree that we won’t have a good answer to that question for decades to come. Were there other options that might have worked better – I believe there were. We mishandled Iraq right from the start because we refuse to understand that other countries have different priorities and different cultures. Until we stop believing the our might makes right and start examining our military actions in the context of the bigger world picture we are doomed to keep making the same mistakes generation after generation. At least Hagel seems to be willing to look at the bigger issues.

    • JGC

      Support, yes or no, for the surge in Iraq is a red herring because we never should have been there in the first place. 

      • Gregg Smith

        I disagree, I think it was a war that had to be fought but leave that aside. If we were there then we should be there to win. The surge made that happen.

        • jimino

          I missed the surrender ceremony memorializing our “win”.  Can you provide a link for me?

          Or maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “winning.”

          • Ray in VT

            I think that it usually involves tiger blood and living with a brood of “adult film actresses”.  Source:  Charliesheenopedia.

        • northeaster17

          Why was Iraq was a war that had to be fought. We know that Congress and the public were repeatedly lied to by the administration about the danger posed by Sadam etc. We also know that the real winner of our misadventure is Iran. A posssible next stop in the neocon hit list.

          Don’t think they lied. Ask Dick Armey. Then the Whip or Majority leader in Congress
          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/cheney_misled_gop_leaders_new.html

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Iraq was the counterweight to Iran. As an Iranian secret agent, W’s mission was to take out Saddam and create a new Iraq with a Shiite leadership friendly, and subservient,  to Iran, so Iran could dominate the region. Mission accomplished.

          • northeaster17

            Whatever “W” had in mind for the region with his invasion, that is what he got. Ready, fire, aim seems to have been the motto of the day. Once we were in Bush let Paul Bremer loose in the country and never looked back. That speaks volumes.

          • Ray in VT

            Was W a religious fundamentalist plant?  That would certainly explain why his mother flew to Tehran when she was nine months pregnant so that she could give birth to George there.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Has anyone seen his birth certificate?

          • Ray in VT

            I found one, but I’m sure that they faked it.

          • Gregg Smith

            He gassed the Kurds with WMD, He invaded Kuwait. He violated 17 UN resolutions. He had yellow cake and nuclear ambitions. He was shooting at our jets daily. He swindled the world with “Oil for Food”. He said he had WMD and had used them. He harbored terrorist and was on the State sponsor of terrorist list. He committed crimes against humanity by gouging out eyes, ripping out tongues and cutting off limbs. He had rape rooms and torture chambers. He kicked out inspectors in ’98. Bill Clinton made regime change US policy so the law was on the books and it was a post 9/11 world… for starters.

          • northeaster17

            What you have said about Sadaam is true. I won’t defend him. However inorder to get Americans and the rest of the “coalition of the willing” to go along with the invasion, the American Administration lied in ways great and small. Only to be proven wrong. At great cost of life, credibility and resources. Your trying to implicate Clinton is a stretch. Though our embargo in the 90′s has been said to have led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. I shutter to think how things would have worked out with either President if we were not such a Christain nation.

          • Gregg Smith
          • nj_v2

            Most of this is bogus disinformation. 

            Chemical weapons components and other significant aid provided by the U.S. when he was our thug.

            He didn’t “kick out” inspectors.

            BushCo repeatedly lied and gave false information about the rationale to invade.

            Greggg seems to think that’s okay.

            Greggg is utterly clueless, again.

          • Gregg Smith

            At one time Stalin was our thug, what’s your point? 

            He refused to let the inspectors in so they left. It’s distinction without a difference. 

            No one lied but my experience slaying liberal dragons informs me you most likely mean they tied Iraq to 9/11. And you probably mean Cheney. If that’s what you mean BS. Where’s the lie? Bring it.

          • nj_v2

            Total disingenuous smarminess. 

            Greggg gets caught posting horsecrap, then says it doesn’t matter.

            “That’s right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out — let’s remember Saddam Hussein didn’t kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox — military action that didn’t have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.”

            http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

            You’re so badly informed you’re not worth bothering with.

          • Gregg Smith

            From UN resolution 1205 in 1998:

            “Noting with alarm the decision of Iraq on 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission, and its continued restrictions on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)”

            http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Keyresolutions/sres98-1205.htm

          • JGC

            The litany of His Evil Ways makes me realize: if only we had waited another 7 or 8 years, President Obama could have ordered Saddam Hussein to be taken out by drone missile attack. 

      • Elizabeth_in_RI

         Agreed. I suspect that Iraq will ultimately be GW’s most lasting legacy – and the basis of his presidency being portrayed negatively. That and the idea that the best way to respond to 9/11 was for us to go shopping…

        • William

           I would toss it to Clinton and his Iraq Liberation Act.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Most analysts believe the surge shortened the war and saved lives.  That is why Hagel’s refusal to admit his error stood out.

        Analysis of the entire Iraq war (which Hagel voted for) is a completely different matter.

      SecDef is one of the most important positions because we will clearly have to spend much less on defense over the coming years yet the world is no safer.  We need a bright mind to lead the structure of our military to address these threats within our budgetary constraints.  Hagel’s performance yesterday did not inspire confidence that he is up to the task.  For me, this has nothing to do with politics.

      • Elizabeth_in_RI

        I agree that Hagel didn’t present himself as particularly bright during the hearing – and that is worrisome. We need some out of the box thinking to reinvent the military to live within realistic and rational budgets while achieving effective national security. But that means that we need local economies to not be so dependent on the military industrial complex for economic support. Apparently after skewering Hagel, each senator made a pitch for supporting his own state’s defense contractors. Until we stop using the defense industry as our national stimulus plan we are in big trouble.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Yeah, feeding at the pork trough is the only thing left in DC that is bipartisan.

        • hennorama

          Elizabeth_in_RI – I have a different take on Hagel’s performance and demeanor.  This is part of an earlier reply to another poster, above:

          “One also has to view Hagel’s performance as somewhat against his nature.  He is a prickly and pugnacious person.  Hagel instead seemed to be doing the usual “be polite to Congress in public” routine one is advised to perform in such hearings.  One could fairly see the smoke coming out of his ears as he listened to the grandstanding questioners.  He simply told himself to hold his tongue and moderate his responses.  One would assume that his responses would have been far different in a private meeting.  Sen. McCain’s hair may have been set ablaze.”

  • distractedriver

    Infuriating to hear these gun + hubcap toting 2nd amendment fanatics!  Hubcaps do not need to be regulated because they’re designed for covering steel rims on cars.  Assault rifles are made for spraying/killing.  Hunters don’t need 30 rounds to take down a deer.  If they do, they should probably go back to a shooting range and practice a little more.  People who need assault rifles for “protecting their families” at home are kidding themselves. Unless you have a loaded rifle next to your bed (wait till your kid start playing with it), you’ll have a heck of a time responding to a break in.  If you’re keeping you gun locked up and separate from your ammunition, it won’t be as easy to get to or as portable as a small pistol.  I support individual rights to have a pistol (for protection) or hunting rifle (for hunting) in your house..but there is no justification for assault weapons.  PERIOD.

    • hennorama

      distractedriver – One can also argue in favor of a short barrelled pump action shotgun as a home defense weapon, in part due to the nature of the spread of projectiles, which reduces the need for perfect aiming.  In a circumstance involving fear, adrenaline takes over, which is contrary to the ability to aim well.  Also, shotgun pellets are far less likely to penetrate walls and harming others unintentionally.

      Finally, the distinct sound of a pump action shotgun racking a round is both highly recognizable and fear-inducing to an intruder.

      http://whichgun.com/articles/choosing-firearms/view/choosing-your-first-home-defense-firearm

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

        the sound thing is overblown. chamber a round as soon as you are able to do so.

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

      when was the last time you hunted wild boar? or coyotes for that matter. What is an “assault rifle”?  i can get my shotgun unlocked and loaded in less than 15 seconds from getting out of bed. if a pistol is locked up and the ammo seperate it would take just as long, why would it be quicker? 15 seconds is a long time but the police response time is about a half hour around here. Its personal preferance what a person decides they are most comfortable with as a tool to defend themselves with. as soon as you tell me what an assault weapon is I will let you know if they are justified

  • 65noname

    I can’t help wondering if those who say that their “liberty interest” to have a 30 bullet magazine trumps the lives of the kids who being shot aren’t the same people who say that their right to safety trumps the “liberty interest” of afro-americans to drive down the street without beng stopped absent reasonable cause (i.e., being stopped for “driving while being black”) or the right to walk down a street without being arbitrarily stopped by cops.
    One more thing, the announcer could have (and should have) pointed out that what is being proposed is NOT an end the right to bear arms; what is being proposed is a restriction on magazines that carry more than a certain amount of bullets and/or guns capable of shooting faster than a certain rate of bullets per minute. ALL rights have some restrictions, from the right to free speech to rights concerning freedom from search and seizure.

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

      yes we all agree to restrictions on who  and what may be legally shot just like we accept restrictions on speech. we do not however cut out peoples tongues to preventt hem from yelling fire, even to save the lives of children

      • 65noname

        huh?

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

          all of our rights include risk inherent to them

  • nj_v2

    And in science news…

    http://gizmodo.com/5980166/surprised-scientists-find-lifeforms-six-miles-above-earths-surface

    Surprised Scientists Find Lifeforms Six Miles Above Earth’s Surface

    [[ For the first time, scientists have found lifeforms where nobody thought it was possible: floating in the troposphere, the slice of the atmosphere approximately four to six miles (eight to 15 kilometers) above Earth's surface. And not just a tiny few, but lot: 20% of every particle in that atmospheric layer are living organisms. ]]

    (excerpt)

    • Ray in VT

      I tried to watch the special on the giant squid this week, but my DVR cut the end of it off.  There are some amazing things that occur in our natural world, like the bioluminescent jellyfish that flashes red when attacked.

      • nj_v2

        Just about everything in the natural world is amazing.

        It’s amazing that the plant is just the right distance from the sun.

        It’s amazing that rock dust absorbed by plants become part of our bodies when we eat them.

        It’s amazing that it all works together.

        • Ray in VT

          Agreed.  My wife and I just watched a 2 hour show on the National Geographic channel about the human family tree, and they did genetic testing on a bunch of people and showed how various groups of people moved about over the millennia, and one realizes how much had to happen over so long for us to be here.  If one of my ancestors in the Massachusetts Bay Colony had caught a bad cold instead of staying healthy, then my mother’s whole line would not have existed.  The same goes for all of us.

          • nj_v2

            We all came from West Africa. “Race,” as it is commonly invoked, is meaningless.  Merely a difference in a set of adaptive characteristics developed over tens of thousands of years.

            (Didn’t mean to imply that your glowing jellyfish weren’t extra cool. Just pointing out that even what is thought of as commonplace is, in a way, miraculous. There are no ordinary moments.)

            .

          • Ray in VT

            I totally get where you’re coming from.  Do you recall a year or two ago when On Point did a show with Cornell West (maybe), and they talked about everyone’s African origins, and one caller flat out denied that his ancestors had come from Africa.  He claimed that his “Celtic” ancestors had originated elsewhere.

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

            lol except that asians and caucasians are part neanderthal

        • hennorama

          More “amazing” stuff:
          “We are star dust” – Joni Mitchell
          http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52

          “All we are is dust in the wind” – Kansas
          http://phys.org/news111164580.html

          “We are breathing the the same molecules that Julius Caesar breathed.”

          http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/5-earth-facts-for-kids4.htm

  • Gregg Smith

    Homeland Security released a video showing us how to be a victim in a mass shooting.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/02/01/dhs-releases-video-on-how-to-survive-a-mass-shooting-run-hide-use-scissors-17847

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I’m heading to Staples now to stock up on scissors.

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

      was that before or after they declared the AR15 to be a good firearm for personal defense?
      ROFL i just watched that. hide under your desk! thats what they said was the best plan in a nuclear attack too. the more things change…

  • jimino

    GDP shrinks in 4th quarter as the biggest plunge in defense spending in 40 years swamped gains for consumers and businesses.

    And all I keep hearing from the right is that reducing such government spending is EXACTLY what the economy needs to prosper and grow.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Krugman calls the righties “Defense Keynesians”. When it comes to the mil-indu complex, they are the strongest Keynesians on the planet. Then, magically, all that good, job creating, gvt spending becomes deficit-increasing waste when it’s not directed to weapons systems :)

      I think they’d rather provide health care in Afghanistan than in America.

    • Gregg Smith

      Do you believe that? Has spending actually gone down overall? Defense spending went up 13% last quarter, did you factor that? 

      • JONBOSTON

        Greg, 

        I saw your post from earlier today. Don’t give up the ship. I realize it can be enormously frustrating dealing with those on this board that assert opinions absent facts, reason and common sense. But who knows? Maybe some day they’ll engage the real world. I laugh when they think of themselves as the mainstream.

        • Gregg Smith

          Thanks Jon but I do spend too much time here and now that the election is over I’m wondering why. 

  • burroak

    With the onslaught of gun violence, it makes me pause and reflect: How has our country become so violent?
    The bullet causes bodily harm, the gun fires the bullet, but it is the person who has intent to committ violence that pulls the trigger.
    Why so much intent for harming mass numbers of Americans recently?

    • hennorama

      burroak – Mass public firearms shooting incidents are not a new phenomenon by any means.  Here’s a recent LA Times article discussing the topic, titled “2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say,” from December 18, 2012 by Matt Pearce.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18/nation/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218

      What has changed is that the nation seems to be at an emotional breaking point after the Newtown Massacre involving such young children.

      Since Newtown, there have been at least 1475  firearms deaths in the US, including 23 children.  That’s an average of more than 30/day and is now nearly half of the number of people killed on 9/11/2001.
      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

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

        i seem to remember a mass shooting on march 5,1770.  hen how many americans died in other ways like car crashes and prescription drug side effects. how many from medical malpractice? maybe you could put this in perspective. it would alos be worthwhile if we could find out how many children have been saved from harm with firearms but those numbers are difficult to calculate. also how many were killedi n places like chicago or DC where guns are banned?

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – if you were trying to make a point, it is unclear to me. If you want information on other topics, please feel free to do your own research. If you want to know the answer to your rhetorical question about Chicago and Washington, DC, the Slate website in my post is interactive. One can search it by Age Group, Gender, Location and Date.

          Given your history, I doubt that you will bother. As I’ve stated previously, “You can lead a Futo Buddy to answers but you can’t make him read them.”

          Also, as you seem interested in semantics, your words about two US cities “… places like chicago or DC where guns are banned” are inaccurate. “Guns” are NOT banned in either of these cities. You are likely instead referring to “handguns.”

          Nice try though. Better luck next time.

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

            and its those handguns that are doing most of the killing, all currently illegal. i should have been more clear. It was a rhetorical question i already know the answer. not sure what i need “luck” for or what i am trying but thanks

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for your response. Again, and unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You may wish to do some research before you post. The Heller and McDonald decisions effectively overturned so-called “handgun bans.”

            In Chicago, handgun ownership is not “currently illegal.” In Washington, DC, handgun ownership is not “currently illegal.”

            See the NRA’s own website if you don’t believe me:

            http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx

            http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/district-of-columbia.aspx

            Or the Chicago PD’s website:

            https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/Firearm%20Registration

            https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/Firearm%20Registration/Firearm%20rules%20and%20regs%20update%202012.pdf

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – semantics semantic semantics again. Do you know the meaning of “irony?” Let’s compare two of your recent posts:

            A) “about 60% of US homicides result from firearms. wow really? guns are commiting 60% of homicides? i bet if we ban em then there will be 60% less murders right? yup a ban will get rid of the guns and then the guns wont run around killing people by themselves. its all so simple!

            see:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/01/week-in-the-news-230#comment-788246949

            B) “and its those handguns that are doing most of the killing, all currently illegal. i should have been more clear. It was a rhetorical question i already know the answer. not sure what i need “luck” for or what i am trying but thanks

            See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/01/week-in-the-news-230#comment-788634399

            In one post you say derisively “… then the guns wont run around killing people by themselves.”

            Then a few hours later, you yourself use the phrase “and its those handguns that are doing most of the killing”

            HILARIOUS. Which way do you want to have it? You need to keep better track of your talking points.

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

            you are right i should have said its criminals with handguns that are doing most of the killing, all with guns that are obtained illegally. thank you for pointing out my error i should have been more clear. i don’t have any “talking points”

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – I hate (sort of) to be a stickler, but anyone committing murder is a criminal, regardless of the method they use to commit murder. I have to admit that I laughed aloud when I read your post containing the phrase “and its those handguns that are doing most of the killing,” but I’ve already made that point.

            I believe what you may be trying to say, if I may be so bold as to suggest an alternative, is:

            “I think most of the murders in Chicago, or DC, or wherever, are committed by persons who have a history of commiting crimes, and who have also broken existing firearms laws when they obtained the firearms used in the murders they commit. I don’t have any actual facts to back this up, but that’s what I think.”

            Please correct or confirm my impression. Also, feel free to consider the second sentence to be superfluous.

    • Gregg Smith

      Thankfully another school shooting was stopped today with only one injury, although I’m not sure how serious it was. the middle schooler was shot in the neck. It was stopped by a good guy with a gun.

      http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-says.html.csp

      • 1Brett1

        Well, it doesn’t really count as, “another school shooting was stopped today…by a good guy with a gun,” if you’re just going to post about the same Atlanta school incident over and over (also, by the way, it happened yesterday, not today). And, again, as I said earlier today, when you posted about this same story and characterized THAT as “another” example of an armed officer with a gun stopping a crime, there isn’t much known about the armed officer who stopped the incident (e.g., did he use his gun? Was he assigned to the school? Was he even on duty (the article suggests he wasn’t on duty)? Did he even have a gun with him?

        You seem to want so desperately for this story to work for your narrative of “arm more people at schools” you’ll make it into whatever story you want….why don’t you wait for the facts before commenting (something for which you earlier agreed; I guess you got impatient?).

        Also, all sorts of people have guns, not just well-trained, responsible good guys who heroically jump in (or ride in on a white horse) and save the day. Some gun owners are irresponsible in  securing their weapons, then family members use those weapons against them and then take those weapons out into the world and kill lots of innocent people. Other gun owners become despondent in some way, or begin to suffer from a previously undetermined problem and then use their guns in acts of violence in some sort of manifestation of lashing out. Other gun owners become disgruntled employees and use those weapons against fellow employees. Still other gun owners slip through cracks in background checks and go on to commit some type of crime using those guns. There have been examples of gun owners trying to stop a crime who’ve killed innocent people, or themselves. There’ve even been police officers who’ve killed people unwittingly. Given all of these examples/variations, what point does your example make beyond a single incident being in line with your narrative on this issue?

        -Wait, I forgot, you weren’t making a point, just stating a fact for no reason. Amm-eye right?

        • Gregg Smith

          Another comment all about me. Why?

          Here is my comment from earlier:

          “And on the same day in Atlanta a student opened fire in a middle school. One was injured and thankfully there  were no deaths. The shooter was stopped by an armed guard.”

          I posted this as a reply and my earlier thread went unanswered. I see you have now replied. It’s less cumbersome than linking to my own post. What’s the problem?

          I didn’t even use the word “another”. I did not characterize “THAT” as another. Notice there is no edit. I did here, but it’s true. It was another school shooting added to Columbine, Newtown and VA tech to name a few. I didn’t mean that it was another one stopped with a gun but that is true too. Guns stop killing often.

          I have repeatedly come out against armed guards at schools. I support teachers and principal not being prohibited to pack. I can say it over and over but you insist on telling me what my position is.
          Here is the headline of the link I posted:Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief

          It was not my word and I posted the story. I take the word armed to mean he had a gun but maybe it meant he was not an amputee.

          Where do you get this stuff?

          and I was making a point. the good guy with a gun worked. The gun-free zone in Newtown didn’t. This will not make big news so I posted because it is important to the current debate. I hesitate to say an assault rifle ban wouldn’t have helped because I don’t know what kind of gun it was. We’ll see.

          • 1Brett1

            Both comments of yours today from two different times were about the same incident, not two separate ones, and it’s not even clear that we know the off duty officer used a gun, just that he disarmed the person with the gun.

            Your “Thankfully another school shooting was stopped today…stopped by a good guy with a gun” association with “Columbine, Newtown and VA tech” is ridiculous as some sort of counter to gun free zones. Your example of “a good guy with a gun” from the Atlanta incident neither proves or disproves anything, in my opinion. Sorry, but your debate of all things to their most absurd is not impressive to me, maybe it might be to someone else, but… 

            While you harp on your ideas about their being against “armed guards,” you use examples of armed guards, examples that aren’t very clear that “armed guards” even worked well. AND, your ideas of arming school teachers/principals don’t have any examples, so each point you make (or say you don’t make) is flimsy. 

            The person in Atlanta may or may not have been armed at the time (you don’t know); one thing NOT reported is that he used his weapon or that the display of a gun stopped anything (again, you don’t know). 

            While you may think it is about you, it is only about how flimsy your arguments are in your attempt to assert that what works in these cases is “a good guy with a gun,” and that is what I challenge (and that is what I find absurd). 

            Can you do me a favor and stop repeating the “it’s not about me” meme”? It’s tiresome. It’s okay if you don’t like that I find your reasoning absurd; your repeated pat phrases don’t lessen my sense of the ridiculousness of your arguments, however, so they are ineffective. 

          • Gregg Smith

            I didn’t say they were separate incidents! Nor did I imply it. It’s the same link. I have no idea what your point is.

            I’m not trying to prove squat. What are you talking about?

            BTW, I didn’t even say the armed guard used the gun now did I? 

            If you stop making your comments about me I’ll stop pointing out the obvious. For instance, I said nothing about any reasoning. I just passed along some news that I doubt your left wing media inform you of. You are the one that told me my reasoning. This is crazy.
             
            One more chance, what is your point? Can you articulate it without telling me what my point, reasoning or motive is? Really, what’s your beef based on what I wrote?

            Mr. Chapman seems correct to me. Why should this story be ignored? Why isn’t it important? What evidence or even anecdotal correlation do you have that says the Assault weapons ban (we had one for 10 years) or gun-free zones work?

          • 1Brett1

            All of my remarks regarding this story have been replies to your comments about it. I can’t reply to your comment without addressing what you say in your comments; that’s what a reply is. Perhaps you just wanted to make your statements without any replies? Or perhaps you would only find value in a reply to this story/your comment if it said, ” yes, I agree, we need more good guys with guns”? (Would agreeing with your reasoning be the valid reply?) I didn’t feel compelled to say anything on the story itself in a stand-alone comment because the story doesn’t further the issue of gun safety/violence in that it neither proves nor disproves anything that would further the debate. 

            I’ve never said the story should be ignored, just that it isn’t something that tips the debate in either direction. And, to ask me, “why should this story be ignored?” implies I think it should be: don’t tell me what I think. To ask me “why isn’t it important?” ignores my answer and asks me for an opinion that you reject, as I’ve told you why it isn’t important to the debate.

            I’ve also said nothing about an assault weapons ban in my replies to this story,  nor have I said anything about gun-free zones in my replies to this story, just that your example of a “good guy with a gun” doesn’t really have any relevance to the issue of gun violence. By the way, is your “good guy with a gun” not reasoning? The article links said nothing about this, so one can reasonably assume this comes from your thoughts/reasoning, not the AP story; that’s not “crazy” to make such an assumption on my part, Gregg. 

            As far as my “left-wing media”? What media do I listen to or read? Since you know nothing about what I read or listen to…And what makes the news story to which you link make it right-wing media? Is it? It just looks like a story reported in a small non-national news media to me. The story was also reported on mainstream cable media, which is one of the places  I heard it. Do you think I have only heard about it through your link? I heard about it on Yahoo News, NPR and CNN (if you must know).  Many outlets give reports of AP stories, which is where this newspaper (link) gets the story. 

            (I do, by the way, look at other media, some of which wouldn’t be considered “left-wing.”  I don’t think the WSJ is “left-wing.” Although, I don’t want to presume anything; you may consider it “left-wing”?)  

          • 1Brett1

            “I said nothing about any reasoning. I just passed along some news that I doubt your left wing media inform you of. You are the one that told me my reasoning.” -Gregg

            “I was making a point, the good guy with a gun worked.” -Gregg

            The news that you passed along in your link said nothing about “a good guy with a gun” “working.” This is your point not the article’s. Is making a point not reasoning to you? 

            …Considering the circular [il]logic and self-contradiction in which you regularly engage, maybe you have a point, er, are just passing along [mis]information (if that’s what you call it). Does one not have to reason to make a point? (In your case, I guess not).

          • Gregg Smith

            So the good guy with the gun failed miserably. Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            Would the goodguy havefailed if hehadn’t had a gun?

          • Gregg Smith

            Hypothetical.

          • Gregg Smith

            “I can’t reply to your comment without addressing what you say in your comments”

            You can’t re[ply to my comments without saying what you think I mean but didn’t say. That’s the problem. 

            Whatever. Try to get me out of your head.

          • 1Brett1

            You said, “a good guy with a gun.” I didn’t make that up.

          • Gregg Smith

            And you took it from there.

        • http://www.facebook.com/thejohnchapman John W. Chapman

          Someone is angry that something good was done with a gun.

          • 1Brett1

            Angry? No…and about someone doing something good with a gun? The story I am referring doesn’t say anything about anyone doing anything good with a gun but disarming someone with a gun. 

            I know these are subtle distinctions; something that seems to be lost on you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/thejohnchapman John W. Chapman

      It has become the best way to get one’s “15 minutes”.  Hmm, now who gives them the 15 minutes?

  • gandolfo2

    I have a suggestion for an ideal depiction for a film marriage “UP”!

    • Ray in VT

      Except that they make it super sad right off the bat by implying that they can’t have kids right after a scene where they’re obviously talking about having kids.  Darn you Pixar!!

      • Guest

        .

  • Ray in VT

    I just remembered a story from last week that I forgot to mention.  So, KBR says that it has an agreement that it made with the government that protects it from any liability for it’s having exposed U.S. soldiers in Iraq to some really nasty carcinogens.  And the guy in the government who granted that to them back in 2003, the Secretary of the Army I think, also landed in hot water for shady dealings that he conducted at Enron.

  • jefe68

    Some local news: Scott Brown has decided not to run for the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. I kind of thought if he ran he would have won.

    I guess he had enough of running for office. I don’t blame him it takes a lot out of you and your family. 

    • J__o__h__n

      not to mention his truck

    • hennorama

      It can’t be much fun trying to be a moderate Republican in a national context, let alone in an overwhelmingly Democratic-voting state like Massachusetts.  Brown only attended the RNC Convention on the day his daughter Ayla sang the national anthem, citing “scheduling” issues.  Yeah, right.

      Brown seems to be saying “It sucks to even try to be a Republican and “governing” in Washinton, DC.  Maybe I’ll try running for governor here in 2014, so I don’t have to kowtow to those fools at the RNC.”  Or something like that.

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80495.html

  • Potter

    Evidence of the influence of the Jewish/”pro-Israel” lobby (neither representative of all Jews or really pro-Israel in my opinion) is all this ganging up on Chuck Hagel about his statement. In other words the reaction to Chuck Hagel’s nomination itself proves the influence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1351662441 CJ Serendipitus Handy

    Re: the phone caller that believes the father of the child killed is wrong in saying that the child’s right to life trumps the rights the gun lobby espouses.

    Can a person yell fire in a movie theater? No, said the Supreme Court. Neither may a person claim religious exemption from murder prosecution for stoning a person to death because it happens to be prescribed in Leviticus*. There ARE to be logical limits on rights granted in the Constitution and Amendments. There is a hierarchy of rights, and as stated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (which I would consider the seminal statement on the revolutionaries’ frame of mind regarding this paranoical tyranny), to “LIFE”, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    *Footnote regarding the Trevan murder: I don’t see how the Florida law preventing charges being lodged against his murder can be constitutional. He infringed on Trevan’s rights to due process, innocence until proven guilty, and right to life, and now his family’s and the State’s rights and responsibilities to properly adjudicate. I suspect there are several other legal and moral problems with the Florida law as well. Yet another note within a note (lol): didn’t an earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence include “Property” with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; then they removed it before the final draft for reasons well justified?

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

      correct you do not have a right to open fire in a theater. thats already illegal. we don’t cut out everyones tongue to prevent the fire yelling why would we take away everyones guns to prevent them shooting them illegally?
      footnote on your footnote. if that was how it worked self defese would be illegal.   “rights to due process, innocence until proven guilty, and right to life,” only applies to the govt. so when oboma orders a drone strike on a citizen he breaks those because he is acting as an agent of the govt

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Gub’mint spending in Bush recession (blue) vs Bush crash (red) with Rockefeller Republican Obama management of the aftermath:

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/01/31/opinion/013113krugman7/013113krugman7-blog480.png

    Picture’s worth 1000, eh? A deeper crash followed by less gvt activity is a sure recipe for a much weaker recovery. Nothing happening now is a surprise to Econ 101: we need more gvt spending. 

    • hennorama

      TomK_in_Boston – batten the hatches in anticipation of attacks from the anti-Keynesians, pro-Friedmans, pro-Austrian economistians, and pro-TEA Party types.  Have fun, and good luck!

      • TomK_in_Boston

        But don’t forget, the anti-Keynesians, pro-Friedmans, pro-Austrian economistians are  ”Defense Keynesians”. They think Keynes was right about spending on weapons systems, and an idiot about spending on infrastructure, R&D, etc. I’m surprised their brains don’t explode with all the contradictions :)

        • hennorama

          Indeed. I saw your earlier cogent comment. Well done.

    • Gregg Smith

      I’d do what Henna suggested but I’m not smart enough to know what ”real government consumption and investment” is or what 20 quarters it refers to or what happened before and after or where the link came from. Heck, I don’t even know what the numbers on the left are. Billions? It’s a cool picture though.

      But even if as you say we need more spending we have no money. Do you suggest more borrowing or more printing. Do deficits matter?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Please, not the “we’re broke” talking point. We’re the world’s biggest economy, we control the world’s reserve currency, and the whole world wants our bonds so badly that we can borrow at near-record low interest rates.

        Yes, I suggest more borrowing. Deficits don’t matter, when you’re struggling to recover from a major economic crash. Spending will actually decrease the deficit compared to cutting that further depress the economy.

        • Gregg Smith

          Whose money are you talking about? I still don’t understand the graph. I wish I knew where it came from. But I do understand that you seem to believe it alone is proof positive we need more spending.

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

          You really have no sense of what you are talking about.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            That’s deep, RWB. Thanks for sharing such wisdom.

            Turning from the righty echo chamber to the real world, here’s another nice graph comparing unemployment (blue) and deficits (red). Surprise, recessions and unemployment cause deficits. Cutting spending is a really dumb idea.

            http://i.huffpost.com/gen/970626/original.jpg

            BTW, you “deficit hystericals” might note that the deficit/GDP is falling sharply right now.

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

            Since words are lost on you perhaps this short video might help you:

            http://youtu.be/EBCJuWNK_lY

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Empty, content-free words are definitely lost on me.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Is Krugman still calling for an alien invasion to solve our woes? [And he means from outer space -- not South America].

      Ever hear the saying ‘lies, damn lies, and statistics’.  Krugman’s graph should be included as well.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    News Flash: No return of “Senator Nasty Ken Doll” (R-MA)
    Yea!!! He was gonna be hard to beat with no Eliz Warren available.

    “Scott Brown, who surprised the political world with his upset victory in the 2010 special election, announced Friday afternoon that he will not enter the special election to replace John F. Kerry.

    “I was not at all certain that a third Senate campaign in less than four years, and the prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan than the one I left, was really the best way for me to continue in public service at this time,” Brown said in a statement. “And I know it’s not the only way for me to advance the ideals and causes that matter most to me.””

    • Gregg Smith

      Romney?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Good question, but I doubt it. I think he’s still licking his wounds. 

        I think “Ken” will run for governor and win.

        • JGC

          Agreed.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Romney? Not a prayer.  Whoever it is — they will need 10,000 signatures very soon to get on the primary ballot.

        The Dem elites are pushing Markey.  Markey is a laughing stock like Waxman.  A real believer in the warmist religion.  At least Markey has private sector experience.  His only private sector experience was being a ‘Good Humor Man’ before entering the hackorama.

        • nj_v2

          Signpost that no further attention needs to be paid: “warmist religion.”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Actually, I can’t tell if he is an ideologue or just a political power broker.  What I am certain of is his ideas on US energy policy are a disaster.  So maybe he is just playing a warmist on TV.

            Also, he was recently on the House floor blaming Sandy on climate change. Shhh. Don’t let him know that the hurricane experts disagree with that position.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            The alt universe definitely has an amusing language and viewpoint. Notice also the reference to “elites” opposing the son of a governor and CEO who was “entitled” to elite schools and a cushy job where he got fabulously rich with financial con games and never doing a real day’s work in his life. Apparently the reality distortion field makes it hard to keep track of who the real “elites” are.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            LOL!!  Tom “kendoll” K, don’t you recognize the language and techniques of the left?  It is simply being thrown back at you with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.  I guess it is tough for you guys to take your own stuff.

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

        Mike Stopa.

    • JGC

      I think it would have been a bad political move by Brown to run again for the senate seat – third time is definitely not a charm. His exploration on running for governor, on the other hand, just might have some wheels.

  • Potter

    We need to re-visit the 2nd amendment if that is the basis of the problem. There is no reason why people need to have guns. And it’s insane to say that we need guns to protect ourselves from people who have guns. It’s nuts to say that we need assault rifles. It follows that it’s beyond nuts to say we need high capacity assault rifles.

    Yes we need to be more aware of mental health problems but there is NO way that we are going to be able to predict  mental illness surfacing that is looming in a person, and NO way to know if that illness would result in violence. There is NO way to do this without making all mentally ill persons suspect- a violation of civil rights, sure to drive the mentally ill into hiding rolling back any progress that we have made in awareness.

    Why this is an uphill battle says a lot about us.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/OFNHSDL7JEM3J6WYNFBFFGFZZQ juan

      I guess that my own reason is faulty. but it tells me that a civilian owner of an operable high capacity assault rifle should be suspect for displaying a dangerous mental disorder.

      • Potter

        well maybe- or a distorted viewpoint- or contributing to a world that is not a very appealing place to live

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

        yeah, which one?

    • Dreggie

      Feel free to give up your rights, but I’m keeping mine.

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

      so you think we should treat everyone like mental patients? in order to protect the rights of metal patients we should all give ours up?
       rosa parks did not need to sit in the front of the bus. you dont need cars or baseball either. women don’t need to vote.
      “And it’s insane to say that we need guns to protect ourselves from people who have guns.” what do you suggest? marshmallows, strongly worded letters? oh i know, maybe indignent internet postings will protect you from an armed attacker! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/thejohnchapman John W. Chapman

    I kept hearing the “experts” talking about Honduras and England as somehow comparable to the USA for the gun debate.  There is exactly one largely Caucasian, northern European federated country with ethnic subgroups, superpower status, a democratically elected government, Security Council status in the UN, and a large industrial base.  They have GIGANTIC ‘gun control’ to a degree that would make Chuck Shumer drool.  Their homicide rate is four times ours. 

    • dkaplanpa

       The homicide rate in Europe is nowhere near four times what it is in the US. It’s about 5/100,000 in the US and about 1 or 2/100,000 in Europe. Stop making up stuff.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         If you carefully read his post, it is clear he is referring to Russia.  The data is supported by your link.

        • dkaplanpa

           Huh – he refers to a Northern European country. That’s Russia? If that’s what he meant why didn’t he say so. Russia is pretty wild west, disorderly. Europe is, however, an example of gun control working in an orderly society.

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

            tell that to the kids at the youth camp. not to mention that 2 of the worst 4 school shootings took place in germany where gun control is very very strict. yup thats working great

        • dkaplanpa

          And furthermore, any gun control legislation being proposed (“assault” weapons sales ban, magazine size ban, background check) isn’t going to slow down the murder rate. But, it may thwart those who would, and have, commit(ed) mass murders with large magazine weapons. That’s what the legislative push is about.

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

            how will it “twart” anyone? are things that are banned unavailable in america? or would you just like to steer more would- be mass murderes into bombmaking? tell us which murderers would have been thwarted by the AWB or other proposed measures? how did the AWB prevent columbine?

        • hennorama

          WorriedfortheCountry – the data in the wikipedia entry does NOT support the original poster.  It has Russia’s rate at 10.2  per 100,000 population, and the US at 4.8.  My calculator show this as Russia’s rate being 2.13 times the US rate, a far cry from “Their homicide rate is four times ours.”

          • Gregg Smith

            I have not looked at the data nor the links but you have just admitted Russia has over two to nearly three times the problems of America despite far stricter gun laws. Nice work.

    • hennorama

      John W. Chapman – technically, Russia is in Eastern Europe.  Data that I’ve found shows the intentional homicide rate there to be between 11.2 and 15.1 per 100,000 population in 2009, depending on source.  The corresponding US rate in 2009 was 5.5 and was 5.1 in 2011.  This makes Russia’s rate at most 2.96 times the US rate, and perhaps as low as 2.03 times the US rate.

      Please cite any contradictory data and its source(s).

      Source:
      http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/russia

      http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/6274

      http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

      • Fredlinskip

        Intentional murder rate and gun murder rate are 2 different things. 
        I believe you’ll find GMR a more revealing pursuit.

        • hennorama

          Fredlinskip – yep.  In my haste to disprove John W. Chapman’s claim, I failed to read the data label on the gunpolicy.org site, assuming it to be Homicides by Firearms.  I’d defend this error based on the very name of their site, but I should have known better.  A rate of 5+ for the US is way too high, since off the top of my head, FBI data has firearms homicides at somewhere in the 9K to 11K range.  Given US population of over 300 M, the US rate should be somewhere around 3.0/100K population.  In retrospect, this makes sense, as about 60% of US homicides result from firearms.

          BTW, this immediately calls the wikipedia data into question as well.

          So … my apologies on citing inappropriate data.  I will change my post to John W. Chapman, and simply request him to provide data and sources.

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

            about 60% of US homicides result from firearms. wow really? guns are commiting 60% of homicides? i bet if we ban em then there will be 60% less murders right? yup a ban will get rid of the guns and then the guns wont run around killing people by themselves. its all so simple! 

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for your response, but if semantics are your best argument, one wonders why you bothered to type it.

            My recollection of FBI crime data was off the top of my head and was too low. Here are the facts:

            In 2011 – the latest year for which detailed statistics are available – the FBI stats showed that firearms were the weapon used in 67.7% of the crimes in their “Expanded Homicide Data Table 7 Murder, Types of Weapons Used”

            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-7

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

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

            so what % of those crimes would have been prevented by gun control? if all guns were disappeared then knives would be the most scary weapon and you would expect that percentage to rise right? does the FBI have a breakdown between legally owned and illegally owned?( actually followed your link)

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY again for your response. Your post seems to make no distinction between “gun control” and “if all guns were disappeared,” so I will make two separate points:

            First, I personally have never made any proposal nor expressed an opinion that all firearms should be banned or removed from legal owners. I have put forth ideas on firearms that would, IMO, improve the ability for law enforcement to enforce existing laws designed to keep firearms from criminals and others prohibited from owning them, prevent criminals and those with mental health issues from obtaining firearms in the first place, improve public safety, and assist victims of firearms crimes and accidents in obtaining financial relief.

            Second, there is no way to definitively answer the question “what % of those crimes would have been prevented by gun control?” And of course, one would need to know your definition of “gun control” to reasonably speculate.

            However, I will simply repeat a prior statement about my view of 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.”

            Murder is the most conpicuous instance of firearms misuse, and reducing murder involving firearms is a goal we can all agree on.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY again for your response. I’ll address your other points.

            Yes, if all firearms were somehow “disappeared,” then other types of murder weapons would comprise a greater percentage of all murder weapons. But this fails to address the fact that more than 2 of every 3 murders involve the use of firearms as the murder weapon.

            The FBI no doubt has some information regarding firearms used in crimes, and whether they were acquired and owned legally (or not) by those who used said firearms to commit crimes. However, the Tiahrt Amendment (TA) significantly restricts/prohibits publicly disclosure of both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes. For instance, due to TA, it is nearly impossible to know how many Bushmaster .223s are used in crimes.

            This is like prohibiting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from disclosing the makes and models of vehicles with safety defects.

            Not only that, as stated earlier, two states (Alabama and Florida) don’t report to the FBI. This means that the recent Alabama incident involving the kidnapping and holding of a child in an underground bunker, and the murder of the bus driver who tried to prevent these crimes will likely not show up in FBI statistics.

            For more on the Tiahrt Amendment, see:

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

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

          ohhh because it matters how you die and its so much worse to be murdered with a gun than with any other object?

      • Gregg Smith

        How does one “Anonymize” their comments Hennorama?

      • hennorama

        For some reason, this post is still here.  Late last evening, I saw Fredlinskip’s post (below) pointing out that the data I cited was not data on Homicides by Firearms, so I deleted the post,(or so I thought).  Why it’s still up under a “Guest” moniker is a mystery to me.  DISQUSting. 
        More on my error below, in reply to Fredlinskip.

        • Gregg Smith

          Thank you for your reply.

    • hennorama

      John W. Chapman – Please cite your data and its source(s).  Given that you misidentified Russia as being “northern European,” the rest of your claim is called into question.

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

      don’t forget germany where 2 of the 4 worst school shootings occurred and they have extremely strict gun control

  • http://www.facebook.com/greaburns Gordon Burns

    I really can’t believe how biased this was. The minute someone comes with something that supports gun ownership it is suddenly time for a commercial. Really? Why are we concentrating on guns? I thought the problem was violence! Certainly, so called assault rifles aren’t a big problem. Even if you do think that guns are the problem you’d have to have your head in a dark place if you were to claim so called assault weapons were to blame. They aren’t. They are seldom used to commit crimes. So why are they drawing so much attention? Because they look scary and a crazy person used one to commit a horrendous act. That makes them an easy target. Anyone who doesn’t agree with gun ownership and thinks the second amendment is not needed can jump on the bandwagon. They should consider that their lack of attention to the facts related to so called assault weapons and magazines only detracts from their credibility. How many people would support a new law that said all cars had to weigh within plus or minus 500 lbs of a standard weight, get 50 mpg, have bumpers at exactly the same height, have a carbon monoxide shutoff sensor and be incapable of going over 55 mph. What is the phrase going around now? If it will save just one life then it is worth it. How about media that practically turns these homicidal maniacs into celebrities overnight? Maybe some limits on what they can say would save a few lives. I’m pretty certain that those committing acts like those in Newtown broke numerous laws and that many of the proposed solutions would have done nothing to stop them. There is substantial evidence that places where concealed carry by licensed people is legal have lower crime rates. If you want support of peaceful, law abiding gun owners then please quit treating us like a bunch of criminals (or trying to make us into one). I’m sure there are some actions that can be taken. Actions that have their greatest impact on those who are law abiding like the assault rifle ban and magazine ban are not among them.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/OFNHSDL7JEM3J6WYNFBFFGFZZQ juan

      Please explain what the attraction of an operable AR15 is  . If it’s used for target shooting, is the shooter fantasizing he/she is in combat? If so, is the shooter having some kind of mental health issue? I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I wonder what the attraction is. I’m told the gun is not practical for hunting. 

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

        “I’m not trying to be sarcastic.”Taking you at your word, the AR15 has become the most popular gun in America because it is easy to use, affordable to shoot, practical for home defense and infinitely customizable.   You have been lied to about it’s hunting utility.  The .223 is smallish but effective.  

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

        there are a number of competition events that use 30 rnd magazines and AR15. juan who told you they were not practical for hunting? they are preferred for hunting deadly feral hogs which are a huge problem in much of the coutry. also a great choice for coyotes and other varmints. go over to the local gun range and do some shooting. you will find that a larger magazine is much more fun. most veterans also like ar15 type firearms because they are trained and comfotable with them. your suggestion that owning a AR15 is a sign of mental illness is scary. It is lightweight and easy to use safely.

    • Fredlinskip

      Perhaps anyone who buys a an “AW” or specific multiple round magazines should be classified as “mentally ill” immediately on attempt of purchase. That would certainly clear up the question and we can march ‘em straight to get “help” on the spot.
      You need not shoot someone 50 times in self-defense.
      Guns may not kill folks- easy access to them contributes to problem.
      US has 20 times the gun murder rate of other developed countries. 

      Just in case you didn’t hear:
      U.S. has 20 times the gun murder rate of the other developed countries.

      Time to do something.

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

        thanks for beig honest about your plan. how does our murder rate compare to mexico?

    • JGC

      A problem with gun ownership and it is suddenly time for a commercial?  I occasionally listen to right wing radio and it is ALWAYS time for a commercial! 

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      I think you may be listening with a bias – the caller just before the 30 minute break (Margarete) was pro gun *control* and the caller right after that break (Scott) was pro gun.

      Neil

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

      The breaks are scheduled, predetermined. It will be the same way for Car Talk this morning.

      Sometimes a host doesn’t know how long a caller will be on, if they are calling with just a 10 second comment or intend a “long” two-minute discussion.

  • Gregg Smith
  • DougCoskey

    Tom – I cannot listen to your great show live because WUOM broadcasts Diane Rehm in the mornings, but I listen almost every night when I walk my dog. Please, please push back hard against any person who says that the “founders” adopted the 2nd amendment to protect against a tyrannical government. While as a law-abiding society we must (reluctantly) accept that a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court decided for this time that there is an individual right to bear arms, there is no doubt that the amendment is related to the “well regulated Militia”. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says in part that “The Congress shall have the Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…” So one purpose of the Second Amendment is clearly to allow the federal government to repel insurrection, not to facilitate insurrection. Callers who suggest that the Second Amendment gives them the right to engage in insurrection against “tyrannical” government are dangerously wrong no matter what Thomas Jefferson may have surmised in his “tree of liberty” letter to one William Smith written on Nov. 13, 1787, in Paris, France. Why do so many gun-loving Americans give such constitutional standing to an off-hand statement made in a letter?

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

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

      • DougCoskey

        Are you suggesting that the Constitution gives people the right of armed insurrection? Please cite one case that so interprets the 10th amendment.

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

          it does not enumerate such a right, however the 9th and tenth amendments explain that the prior amendments are not to be construed to limit the rights or powers of the people and serve as a check on the power of the federal govt

  • Fredlinskip

    Just to shed a little light on 2nd amendment term “well-regulated  militia”:

    Militia in colonial times meant “organization of folks with limited training available for emergency service, usually for local defense“. In colonial America it was only defense against hostile Indians when Brits weren’t around.
    In Revolution, the militia (Minutemen) initially provided the bulk of the American forces until formation of standing (Continental) army, after which the militia mostly kept order locally.
    Shortly before Convention there was uprising- Shay’s Rebellion. These folks were P.O.‘ed about fiscally harsh government policies, taxes etc.
    A militia was raised to put down rebellion which offered scattered resistance for almost a year.
    U.S. Constitution: “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia of for three specific missions, “To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”

    ***The militia was there for the use of Federal Government in time of need-
    Not to act as a source of terrorism against our own Government should whim arise.

    • Gregg Smith

      The Constitution does not say you must be in a militia to own a gun.

      • Fredlinskip

        see above

      • Mike_Card

        But it says:  if you are, you may; implied is “only if you are.”

        • Gregg Smith

          That’s your inference. The Constitution is not a document that implies.

          • Fredlinskip

            Okay Justice Smith.
            2nd amendment is ambiguous.
            Subject to interpretation. Unfortunately Scalia, who’s competency is questionable, has had last word-
             For Now.

          • Mike_Card

            Yes, it’s mine–and most others’.

            And the Constitution ONLY implies–that’s how they wrote it, because they knew that’s the only way it would endure.

    • Steve__T

      The Declaration Of Independence is something to take a look at, written before the Constitution.

      Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      As this Government is just a step away from being Great Brittan, I’ll keep my Gun and my rights thank you.

      • Fredlinskip

        No one is coming for your gun- don’t be paranoid.
        Banning “AW’s” and multi-round clips has nothing to do with anything anyone owns.
           The Declaration of Independence isn’t legal document and can’t be cited as precedent or as being binding in court. Purpose of Declaration was to  provide moral grounds for dissolving legal ties between us and England.
          Constitution has nothing in it about abolishing our own government.
         Even if it did, our gov is still way way into the “light and transient causes” end of spectrum.
          So before you ‘go out’ guns a blazin’, or decide to pull off a McVeigh type act because of some distorted view you picked up from right wing “news”, maybe you ought to take a 2nd look around.

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

          good point about mcveigh, he used a homemade bomb and killed more people than all mass shooters combined. and he was not even killed during it. now what does that have to do with the AWB?

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

        yup they even detailed their complaints many of which are in effect in america now. here are a few
        He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
        He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

      • Mike_Card

        But why would any bunch establishing a new government work to enable the governed’s rights to keep arms, if the newly-formed government intended to confiscate those arms?

        Wouldn’t the founders just have neglected to include such a right, in the first place?

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

      that clause limits when congress can use the militia.
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

  • JGC

    Some people are totally against the Panetta directive on women  soldiers being permitted into combat duty.  And yet some people (often the same people) are very much in favor of female teachers and administrators being armed to protect  schoolchildren.  Both combat duty, in my view.  

    • Gregg Smith

      I guess I fall into that category. I see a huge difference between sending women off to fight and allowing them to have the means to protect themselves in an emergency. 

      • 1Brett1

        Arming school teachers is expecting them to do more than protect themselves. They aren’t in their private/personal lives; they are working and would be packing a weapon to protect others in their charge, which is a professional situation. While at work, they represent the school’s policies and protocol. 

        • Gregg Smith

          “Arming” is a verb. No one is suggesting passing out guns.

          • 1Brett1

            Okay, “armed” school teachers are expected to do more than protect themselves at school…so much for your stupid hair splitting.

          • Gregg Smith

            No they are just not forced to be sitting ducks and hide under their desks as children are slaughtered.

            However, I understand you know what peoples expectations are by your mind reading abilities.

      • JGC

        Maybe in the end it will all hinge on the volunteer aspect of both jobs. Women that are in the volunteer forces will decide if they want to gravitate toward areas that involve combat duty, upon meeting the standards required; and women instructors will decide if they are comfortable keeping firearms in schools and then volunteer to do that in districts that allow them to do so. I personally don’t think it is a good idea that schools permit teachers to carry weapons, but it is not unrealistic to think there will be some school districts that decide to go down that path.

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    I am so sick of the right to bear arms and form a well-armed militia to defeat our tyrannical government nonsense. Why don’t they the demand the right to walk into a store and buy (without a background check) grenades, drones, tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons? That and only that would form a well-armed militia. Do they really think that they can overtake the United States of America, the country that defeats its enemies in WWI, WWII, and on and on, with their shinny little guns? Grow up. Become an adult. This is a civilized nation that votes in new leaders and has a peaceful transition of power. There will never be a gun-nut uprising that overthrows the mighty U.S. government. Morons!

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

      yup we “won” in ww2(with the russians help). not really since then just quagmires where our forces are unable to defeat armed gorillas. asymetric warfare techiques are quite sophistacated at this point mostly due to our efforts to “civilize” other nations. We cannot even ”defeat” the small population of afgaistan(with their shiny guns). you can already buy drones, tanks, and jets. Nuclear weapons are regulated by international treaty but it is not impossible to get a permit to own them. anyways this debate is not about shiny guns, those are fine. its the scary looking black guns that they want to take away.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    All the critics of Senator Hagel are off-base.  He is going to be the Secretary of Defense; not Secretary of State.

    How do those sour grapes taste, Senator McCain?  Inhofe is a reality denier i.e. and idiot.  Cruz is a poser.  When will the Republicans decide to acknowledge the fact-based world.

    Sheesh.

    Neil

  • Gregg Smith

    I got this email from Newt this morning regarding Chicago and gangs.

    http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2013/02/target-gangs-not-guns/

    • anamaria23

      How interesting.  As a fairly close follower of the news, I have never once heard Newt Gingrich address the gun issue.  Certainly, not in his most recent campaign.

      Now, he is an expert and right there to  work against the efforts of the President and others who have been trying to address the issue for years.  Backgound checks and Assualt weapons ban.  Gun lovers have little to fear beyond that.

      Same with Jake Tapper who in a press conference so smugly asked the POTUS “where have you been? re: gun issue.  The proper answer would be “Where have you been?” as a prominent journalist never uttered a peep in years past.

      Issues that have been neglected for generations have reached crises and now need to be dealt with.  Mock this President all you want, but he is trying to come to grips with a national epidemic and tragedy.

      See the remarks of the ER physician who was there when the bodies of  children of Sandy Hook were presented, then say that an assault weapon ban is not appropriate.
      Once, is too many.

      Why didn’t Newt speak out before this if he has such privy to Chicago politics? 

      Emmanual is putting 200 added police on the streets.
      About time .

      Are we to listen to Newt Gingrich, et al over the pleas of those who are actually out in the bloody  trenches of this nation-the mayors, the cops, the EMT’s, the ER docs, the nurses,  the victims and families who grieve for a lifetime?

      • 1Brett1

        Yes…so many coincidences to Gregg’s post.

        • Gregg Smith

          Coincidence?

      • Gregg Smith

        There were no policy proposals, just some relevant data to add to the hopper. I have not heard a peep about addressing gang violence (maybe I missed it) and I think it’s a factor worth considering. Especially in Chicago. Did you read it?

        • anamaria23

          How is the prevalance of gangs in Chicago, admittedly a huge, huge  problem,  related to the ongoing mass murders  with assault weapons?  That is the issue before the country, not getting rid of all guns.
           
          Everything Newt says is true, but to deny that NATION wide  background  checks would not help put  a crimp in criminals access seems silly.  It cannot be state by state.
          Other countries have criminals and mentally ill people but not the level of  gun  violence especially mass murder.  Their gun restriction help.
          My issue with Newt and those public figures  who resist any a measures to curtail what is a national epidemic is their failure to offer any solutions except more guns, to get beyond their own self interest, to ask how they could help, with their access to power and fortune.  Instead they just point fingers at others. 
          There seems only one legitimate question in the face of massive social problems—that is- how can I help?  Not disparage those who are attempting to come to grips with  such as mass murder.
           

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

            its a munufactured crisis. look at “mass shooting” deaths compared to anything, asparin or bicycle deaths. If you really want a crisis look at prescription drug deaths and automobile deaths. its insane to ignore the killing of 900 in chicago to focus on the killing of 26 in CT

        • anamaria23

          How about Newt travel to Chicago and meet with the large number of community orgs. and churches who have for years been trying to deal with gang violence.  How about Newt sit with them and ask  if with  his power and influence he might help in some positive way.   How about he meet with Emmanual or Bloomberg in good faith.
          How about he be a force for good that could help turn things around.

          • Gregg Smith

            I thought he had but I may be wrong. He has suggested they have the hearings on the Executive orders in Chicago. I consider this mass email to be an act for the good.

            Look Amamaria, very strict gun laws are not the answer. Certainly not in Chicago. We are focusing on the wrong problems.

          • anamaria23

            They work in other countries.  US responsible of 80% of gun deaths and 87% of gun deaths for under fifteen  y.o. in civilized nations.  (ABC news : Gun Deaths: A Familiar Experience.)  There are 88 guns for every 100 people in US.
            Gun deaths in USA 20  times the rate of third highest Switzerland.
            You think that background checks and banning assault weapons are “VERy Strict”

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

            how is it working in mexico? or chicago?

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

        Emmanual is putting 200 added police on the streets.About time
        That ought to do it. i wonder if the ER doc is columbine was impressed with the results of the AWB?

  • JONBOSTON

    By any reasonable measure, Chuck Hagel is unqualified to be Secretary of Defense. Even Hagel unwittingly admitted as much with his comments after the hearing that “if confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do”.  His testimony was described by various observers across the political spectrum as “Shaky”, “Struggling”, “Not Impressed”, “Unresponsive and bumbling”, and a “Disaster”.  Franky , my one word comment would be “Incompetent”. With the Arab Spring becoming winter, Iran about to get the bomb, Pakistan with the bomb, Egypt run by the Islamic Brotherhood and about to implode, Syria in flames, Afghanistan and North Africa home to terrorists, Russia and China seeing weakness in the US, and North Korea selling missile technology, is he the best we have?  Don’t our men and women in the armed services deserve someone better? Like a Bob Gates or even a Leon Panetta? His performance before the Senate was pathetic. Does anyone on this board seriously believe that if Hagel were nominated by a Republican president that he’s get a single Democrat vote in the Senate in support of his nomination? The man is a buffoon. I guess in this era of third-rate leadership, he’s perfectly suited for the current administration.

    • hennorama

      JONBOSTON – Certainly Former Senator Hagel’s performance in Thursday’s testimony was less than stellar.  If you relied solely on that performance as evidence, you might conclude that Hagel was at best a poor responder to aggressive questioning, or at worst a poor choice for SecDef.

      However, it is difficult to argue that “By any reasonable measure, Chuck Hagel is unqualified to be Secretary of Defense.”  His record of military and public service speaks for itself as qualification.

      One also has to view Hagel’s performance as somewhat against his nature.  He is a prickly and pugnacious person.  Hagel instead seemed to be doing the usual “be polite to Congress in public” routine one is advised to perform in such hearings.  One could fairly see the smoke coming out of his ears as he listened to the grandstanding questioners.  He simply told himself to hold his tongue and moderate his responses.  One would assume that his responses would have been far different in a private meeting.  Sen. McCain’s hair may have been set ablaze.

      Hagel expressed his general agreement with administration policy, promised support for Israel, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and to update the US nuclear arsenal to make it ready, safe and effective.  He also expressed his determination to use military force only as a last resort and to take the potential sacrifices and casualties into account.  He’s the right person for the job, if for no other reason than we can use the perspective of someone who was a non-com grunt as SecDef.

      And to put your question on its head – “[Do you] seriously believe that if Hagel were nominated by a Republican president that he’d get [such harsh questioning of his qualifications] in the Senate?”

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

        Why, Yes! I do believe that a Republican nominee of a Republican president that had made so many troubling statements would have been questioned even harder.

        • hennorama

          RWB – Fair enough. TY for your response. Do you have any basis for your belief? Any examples of Republican nominees of Republican Presidents being harshly questioned by Republicans, for example?

      • JONBOSTON

        What in his record of military and public service supports his qualification to be secretary of defense? He served in Vietnam with distinction. But so did thousands of other vets, the great majority of whom do not merit consideration as secretary of defense. And for his record in the Senate, please identify one accomplishment. 

        • hennorama

          JONBOSTON – A much more complete bio of former Senator Hagel is available here:

          http://www.acus.org/users/chuck-hagel

          You claimed “By any reasonable measure, Chuck Hagel is unqualified to be Secretary of Defense.” You may disagree with him, or simply oppose whomever Pres. Obama might nominate, but I challenge you to support your claim and to show how he is “unqualified.”

          FYI – other than a restriction that “A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force,” there are no defined “qualifications” for SecDef, other than selection by the President.

          Good luck in your quest.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113

          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap2-sec113.htm

          • Gregg Smith

            With all due respect it is not RWB’s quest, it is yours. By setting your own rules in your own imaginary class you can convince yourself your logic is correct wit nothing but a non-reply.

      • JONBOSTON

        To your last question, I can’t imagine any Republican president ever considering such an incompetent for sec of defense. Maybe Veteran’s affairs, but not sec of defense.

      • JGC

        Maybe Hagel had a bad hair day. It happens.  Similar to Obama’s muted first debate with Romney.

        • hennorama

          JGC – indeed a BHD is a possibility. Regardless, Hagel’s likely to be confirmed. I’ve always viewed him as prickly, pugnacious and principled, which seem like good attributes for a SecDef. Just my $0.02.

        • Gregg Smith

          Here is what Rush said about HAgel a decade ago in 2002:

          Upchuck Hagel from Nebraska, who (sigh) I swear I don’t know what he thinks. He just asks questions but everyone answers them. He gets all this credit for asking a bunch of questions.
          “Shall we go it alone or shall we do it with others?”
          “Oh, what a brilliant mind is Chuck Hagel!”
          “We have choices to make in the twenty-first century. We can be a nation of peace or we can be a nation at war.”
          “He’s brilliant! Would you listen to this?”It’s almost like Peter Sellers in that movie. Oh, what was the name of that movie? He played… (interruption) Who? Being There. Right. He says nothing, and everybody thinks he’s the most brilliant guy in the world. “Well, in the spring, the plants grow,” and he’s a guest on all the talk shows for having a brilliant mind when it comes to politics.

          • Fredlinskip

            You have Bugs Bunny’s opinion on the subject?
            Could be relevant.

          • Gregg Smith

            I would take Bugs Bunny over Daffy Duck any day. Who do you like?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJXhXGE2CR0

          • Fredlinskip

            GOOD CLIP.
            Too bad after 200+ years; W, Scalia & friends got hold of constitution and twisted a bit.
            later.

          • jefe68

            I’ll take both of them over any day.

            What a maroon.

  • Gregg Smith

    RIP Barney.

  • twobolt

    I am very disappointed that Congress and the media both are  shirking away from a ban on Assault weapons.   The primary reason seems to be that ‘it’s a tough road’, meaning that the 2nd amendment prevents us from removing these awful death dealing machines from public ownership.

    I am surprised that no-one had read the 2008 SCOTUS “Heller” decision which reversed the ban on handguns in Washington, DC and is generally considered a win for the gun owners.

    The majority opinion of the Court, for the first time ever, defined the terms in “Keep and Bear Arms”.  “Arms” is defined at the top of pages 7 and 8 of the decision as follows:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter­pret their object: “Arms.”  …
    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
    were not specifically designed for military use and were
    not employed in a military capacity.
    I don’t think that this could be any clearer. The only problem here is a lack will and courage on the media of putting this out in public view to remove skepticism and on the Congress to act.

    • Gregg Smith

      Is there any evidence the assault weapons ban we had in place from 1994 to 2004 had any positive affect?

      • twobolt

         The 10 year “Ban” only banned the manufacturing of new ones.  It didn’t remove military grade weapons from public ownership as the Heller decision indicates is possible.  However, the 10 year “Ban” did provide a useful mechanism for determining what was or wasn’t an ‘assault weapon’.
        I like the Heller case clear statement on military use and design.  For example, the classic Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol, was specifically developed and tested for military use.

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

          so what is an “assault” weapon?

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

        The FBI and Justice department say no.

      • Duras

        Why won’t you just engage the logic: if assault weapons were illegal, the gunman of those flurry of mass shootings would have only had option of lower-powered weapons.  The likelihood of more survivors would have been better. 

        But apparently, it is more important that people keep assault weapons at home than at a gun club (like they do in England) than it is to mitigate the damage of the next mass shooting.  

        • Gregg Smith

          They will never be unavailable no matter how many laws we pass. Is crack unavailable?

          • Duras

            You can’t say that they wouldn’t be harder to get?  Pure and simple, Adam Lanza wouldn’t have been able to use an assault weapon if they had been illegal.  If you think that, then you are alleging that his mother would have bought them on a black market.  

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

            crack is not hard to get. if they are illegal all sorts of otherwise law abiding people will be forced into the black market.  if he could not think of another way to kill who he whated to kill he could always buy the gun in the streets himself. do you think someone so intent of murder would be stopped by the AWB?

          • Duras

            But illegality stigmatizes crack.  Just like a crack down on drunk driving during the 1970s stigmatized it, and reduced the rates of fatalities.

            Again, you are not following the actual argument.  You are projecting a mis-reality.  No one says that laws are a panacea, but they certainly modify behavior.  Which leads me back to why you think laws should exist at all if criminals are going to murder anyway? 

            I know your little social control rant, but these “social control” measures mitigate the damage to the public at large.  They are laws for the public safety that are taking away the unnecessary freedom of owning an assault weapon. 

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

            so the crack ban has produced social good?
            the crack ban made it more expensive and has funded the gang epidemic in this country and in many others.(60,000 dead in mexico) the high prices also lead people to seek cheaper alternatives and thus created the methamphetimine epidemic. banning anything is basically giving up on regualtion and causes market failures and unintended consequences much worse than the original problem. if you really wanted to save a child you would legalise drugs and all the cartels and gangs and violence would disappear. the last time we ended prohibition in this country the murder rate dropped 99%
             yes laws do modify the bahavior of those who abide by them. those who abide by the law don’t murder people so they should be allowed to have whatever kind of guns they like.

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

            so you see the war on drugs as a success? the illegality of cocaine made it expensive and funds the gangs and cartels that cause mass carnage on our streets and aborad. banning crack made it expensive causing people to seek other alternatives. this is what created the methamphetimine epidemic we see today. if you cared at all about kids you would be stumping for the repeal of drug prohibition. after we ended prohibition of alcohol the murder rate in the US dropped 99%.
            “unnecessary freedom” you know only one guy died for
            my sins, thousands died for my freedom. if you don’t like your freedom no one is forcing you to use it. if you don’t like my freedom you are free to go

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

            yes laws modify behavior. making crack illegal made it expensive so that people looked for alternatives thus creating the meth epidemic. is creating the meth epidemic and all of our gang violence thats funded by illegal drugs worth a “stigma”? you don’t think being a crackhead would be stigmatized anyways? is being a drunk or a ciggerette smoker not stigmatized? we ended alcohol prohibition because we relised it did more harm than the alcohol. we have not yet accepted that fact about illegal drugs as some people do not want to admit the war on drugs has been a epic failure creating far more harm than the drugs themselves. now you want to get rid of “unnecessary freedom” (that thousands must have unnecessarily died to defend) so that we can create more black markets criminals and crimes while not affecting the supply or demand for these items?

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

          1. .223 is not a high power round
          2. some drugs are illegal, does that make them inaccesable to people who want them? i would argue that it makes them more accesable. children can easily buy drugs because drug dealers don’t check id because alcohol is sold legally it is much more difficult for kids to get because the legal “dealers” have an interest in maintaining their liscenses. so if “assault weapons”(whatever that means) are banned it seems like that makes it certian that the “gunmen” will have guns and the law abiding citizens will be defenseless. 
          3. whats an “assault weapon”?
          4. it occurs to me that if you actually succeeded in doing the impossible,getting rid of guns, homicidal lunatics would be more apt to use bombs. 2 truck bombings in america have killed more americans than all mass shootings combined. so that will result in much more carnage

          • Duras

             (1) .223 is high powered in relation to low powered hand guns with bullet limits which are more than adequate for self-defense.

            (2)  Murder is illegal.  Does that stop criminals from murdering people?  Just because you make it a law, doesn’t mean criminals are going to follow it.  Do you see your false-logic yet?   Because your logic begs the question of why we have laws at all. 

            As to the “defenseless[ness]” of the “law abiding citizens,” is not a hand gun adequate or not?  Is the American neighborhood in such a cold war environment that grandma needs an assault rifle to protect her home?

            (3) Assault weapons are the weapons proposed in the ban.  Quit being evasive; you know exactly what an assault weapon is.

            (4) I am convince that I won an argument about assault weapons ever time someone replies to me: “f you actually succeeded in doing the impossible,getting rid of guns.”  Tell me, where did I propose getting rid of guns?  I love how you take a precise argument of banning assault weapons (which you tried unsuccessfully to make ambiguous) and ignore that argument in order to project an argument that I am for banning “guns.” You have no argument against banning assault weapons so you need to pretend that I’m arguing for something I’m not.  I’m not for banning “guns.”  I’m for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

            As to your final point: if it were legal to buy bombs and if bombs were just as accessible as assault weapons, you would see the frequency of car bombs go up.  

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

            1. relative to other rifles its not and you can get pistols in .223
            2. Why we have laws at all is a great question.  We have two types of prohibitions in law. things that are mala in se (bad of themselves) and things that are mala prohibita( bad because they have been prohibited. things that are mala in se are easy to understand murder rape arson theft are the main ones. laws allow us to codify our response to these crimes we all agree are bad in order to stop indiviuals from responding to these things with violence on their own
             things that are mala prohibita drugs, prostitution, firearms bans, have been declared bad for the purpose of social control and these laws actually create more crime.  Their attempts to limit supply when there is a demand by banning instead of thoughtful regulation essentially create market failure. these laws create black markets and crime. i dont think we really need the latter. why do you think we have laws at all?

            it depends where you granny lives. mine has a .45 but she does not live in chicago or DC either. who is to say whats adequate? i would say whats adequate is what ever is a step above whatever the criminal breaking down your door has.
            3. the people proposing the ban dont know either. feisteine just looks at picture books of guns and  decides which are “assault weapons”. really. Its cosmetic, thats silly. does a barrel lug or an adjustable stock make a gun more “dangerous”? does being black?
            4. to address the current proposed AWB its silly for several reasons. it did not work last time
             it will not affect criminals or crime
             so called assault weapons are useful for competition and hunting and self defense. The DHS just had a memo declaring the “AR15 a suitable gun for personal defense”, last time there was an AWB what resulted was the guns were altered to comply then they sold 2x as many as they had in all the time before the ban  that doesnt bother me much but gun control people want less guns right? whats a high capacity magazine? 30 rnds? that seems like an average size magazine you might take boar hunting.
            So in “reality” whats the reason for an arbitrary magizine capacity
            Thats an interesting theory about car bombs whats it based on? explosives are are widely available legally.

          • Duras

            We make automatic weapons illegal even though they can be bought on the black market….

            Again, you are ignoring the liberal argument.  You are looking at gun violence at large.  I am talking about curtailing the damage of mass shootings where the guns were purchased legally, where less people would have died at the Giffords shooting had there been magazine limits, where less kids would have died if Adam Lanza could only pick up less powerful weapons with less amo.  Yes, less bullets in the air means less loss of life. 

            Look at the original argument that you refuse to argue against! 

            I don’t see why it is necessary for a hand full of gun enthusiest to keep assault weapons in their homes (when they can keep them at gun clubs) if we can save at least one child’s life during the next mass shooting.

            You know, in China, someone ran into a elementary school and stabbed over 20 children.  Do you know how many died?  Zero.

            I’m not saying we should get rid of guns, but we should curtail the available power. 

            A hand gun is all anyone needs for self-defense–you are a lunatic if you think you need an assault rifle.  They are unnecessary, except for pleasure, which you would still be able to have at a gun club. 

            My mother’s side of my family lives in a suburb of Pittsburgh called Wilkensburgh, and any one from Pittsburgh would know that it is not a nice section of town, yet a double-barrow shoot gun has deterred criminality every now and then for the last 50 something years.

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

            Again, you are ignoring the liberal argument. You are looking at gun violence at large. I am talking about curtailing the damage of mass shootings where the guns were purchased legally, where less people would have died at the Giffords shooting had there been magazine limits, where less kids would have died if Adam Lanza could only pick up less powerful weapons with less amo. Yes, less bullets in the air means less loss of life. 
            So you would feel like it would be an accomplishment and the restriction on liberty was worthwile if he had bought those weapons (and they are weapons now that they have been used to harm) on the black market instead? These laws do nothing to restrict people whose intent is to break the law. do you really think someone whose goal is to murder children will have a moral objection to violating a firearms law? will a firearms law constrain their desire to kill? Also dont you think its a little disingenious to try to prevent the tiny tiny minority of homicides commited by people with firearms while completly ignoring the vast majority of them?
            where less people would have died at the Giffords shooting had there been magazine limits.
            I just don’t think thats true because it does not jive with human nature if you want something like a extended magizine then you are going to get one one way or another despite any law that could be passed. its not impossible to make these things at home but it will always be easy to get them illegally and moreso if there is a total ban. and if he was too stupid or lazy or crazy to buy one or make one he could just carry more than one gun or as many guns as he needs to hold the # of rounds he wishes to fire.  like my firearms instructor said the best place to keep a second magazine is a second gun.

            I don’t see why it is necessary for a hand full of gun enthusiest to keep assault weapons in their homes (when they can keep them at gun clubs) if we can save at least one child’s life during the next mass shooting.
            A handful? they have sold over 3 million in the last few months alone. 22% of all new gun purchases are AR15 type firearms.  Again is “the liberal argument” the “if it can save one child” argument? that’s an absurd argument.  If that were the case we should ban cars, bicycles, matches, baseball, basketball, football, soccer, ladders, knives and especially parents since they are the leading cause of death for children. i mean if we can save one child shouldent we take them all away from their parents since there have been parents that murder their kids?
            A hand gun is all anyone needs for self-defense–you are a lunatic if you think you need an assault rifle. They are unnecessary, except for pleasure, which you would still be able to have at a gun club. 
            I will just assume by “assault rifle” you mean an AR15 even though i disagree with that label. If thats all anyone needs for self defense why do the police choose them to defend themsleves? Why has DHS written a memo that declares the AR15 a suitable choice for personal defense?
            And if we want to do away with anything people don’t “need” that can be dangerous then see the list of things like baseball and cars above. 
            And you seem not to be a good person to consult about guns at all as evidenced by your final statement
            “My mother’s side of my family lives in a suburb of Pittsburgh called Wilkensburgh, and any one from Pittsburgh would know that it is not a nice section of town, yet a double-barrow shoot gun has deterred criminality every now and then for the last 50 something years.”
            You sound like you really have no business discussing this issue as long as you refer to “double-barrow shoot gun” this is why people who know about what they are talking about get so annoyed. its like a person who has never seen a football game trying to tell the NFL what the rules should be. ”there should be more goals in your footyball game” thats what you sound like 

      • Mike_Card

        Prove a negative?  OK.  There are 70 million killings that DIDN’T occur during that time period.

        • Gregg Smith

          Did gun violence go down?

      • JGC

        One of the problems in tracking laws forbidding usage of certain arms is that there has been an overriding provision that hobbles the CDC from gathering information, state by state.  There is only a federal provision to report violent deaths in 18 states; not 50 states.  Obama’s executive order will expand the reporting through the entire country and then maybe there will be the data to show all effects of weapon restrictions. But right now, evidence on the effect of the assault weapons ban (like that seen in 1994 to 2004)  has been strangled in LaPierre’s NRA cradle.

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

          the governments own studies found it to have no effect

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

      Even an earthworm is smart enough to try to avoid pain.

  • Fredlinskip

    U.S. Constitution reads: “Congress is granted the power to use  militia for three specific missions: 
    **“.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”
    This sheds light on 2nd Amendment:

    “(Because) of need for a (disciplined, trained) militia (in order to protect our country in time of need), the right to bear arms should not be infringed”. 

    They were granting the privilege of bearing arms SPECIFICALLY so “well-disciplined” folks would be prepared to aid our nation in time of need – **at DISCRETION OF CONGRESS.

    To put another way- “if you are not ready and willing to defend the needs of your own gov, then you need not own a gun.”

    This flies in face of the strange argument made by many gun touting folks that founders intent was to allow people the privilege of gun ownership so as to fortify themselves AGAINST possible excesses of our own gov.

    Why is this relevant today? Because many folks seem to hide behind false interpretation of constitution, to be hostile TOWARDS OUR OWN GOVERNMENT in order to justify need of weapons capable of dozens of bullets in short period of time; “AW’s”, multiple round clips. 

    • Fredlinskip

      Even for all that, what is interpreted as the thoughts of those in the time of arrows, muskets, horses, and lots of farm land; shouldn’t stop us from acting to curtail trend of senseless murder in society today. 
      There’s plenty of room under our constitution to do so.

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

        like in chicago? or mexico? how are those laws working out?

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

      You lost the argument when you substituted privilege for right.

      • Duras

        Isn’t that evasive of you…? 

        It is pretty obvious if you consider the actual words and grammar of the second amendment that “well regulated militia” and “the people” is the same subject.  And, in that reading of the actual words as they were written, your constitutional right is to form a militia that is to be well-regulated by the government.

        Now, Scalia, the great originalist interpreter of the Constitution, has broken up the sentence into two, only considers the latter, and allots you the constitutional right to bear at least a hand gun because, as he says, the Framers didn’t have assault weapons in mind.

        Sorry, but that guy is a joke.

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

          at the time a musket was an assault weapon. how do you define that term today?

          • Duras

            First off, I’m not an originalist.  I think that mode of interpretation is deeply flawed.  But I do read the Constitution and the meaning of the words as they are on the page.

            I couldn’t care less what an assault weapon was back then?  Was the term “assault weapon” even a term in the 18th century? 

            The word in the amendment is “arms” which is purposely ambiguous–which in my opinion, means that we should honor the spirit of the law but are free to use discretion according to public will.  

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

            i don’t even think assault weapon is a term now. its disingenious and manipulative like when the republicans renamed the inheretence tax the “death tax”. more over its vague. the word arms is vague but that is being used in order to not limit the scope of arms that may be kept or borne.

            There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and
            which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the
            interest of the majority is the political standard of right and
            wrong”

            James Madison

          • Duras

            The interest of the majority is kept democratic by a secular constitution ensuring equal rights.  But popular opinion can certainly form new laws so long as they are applied equally without discrimination of race, religion, and non-belief.

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

            and the interests of the minority?

          • Duras

            The interests of the minority is always subject to the dialectic of freedom of the individual vs. the safety of the society.  

      • Fredlinskip

        You lost the argument when you closed your mind.
        If it didn’t happened at birth, there MAY be still time.
        Seek help- 
        don’t want to see you on TV after a bloody exploit while attempting to exercise your misconceived notion of 2nd Amendment.

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

          Out side of NPR, it is the side of freedom that is winning the argument. 
          FTA:
          Democrats, who normally count on the youth vote, may be surprised to find that 70 percent of 18-24 year-olds and 58 percent of 25-34 year-olds say “assault weapons should be allowed.” Similarly, Republicans, who usually rely upon the senior vote, will find that 57 percent of 55-64 year-olds and 61 percent of people over the age of 65 say assault weapons should be prohibited.

          http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/52-percent-of-americans-say-sandy-hook-i

          • Fredlinskip

              I sure haven’t heard any compelling evidence as to why reasonable gun legislation shouldn’t be enacted.
               You should know what it’s like being in minority- 
            You’re GOP aren’t you?

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

            I haven’t heard any reasonable gun legislation. 

            I am  in the Tea Party.

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

            what like an AWB? every study done shows that was an utter failure. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results

          • Fredlinskip

            Glad you are all about freedoms. All ‘freedoms” do not benefit the greater good.
            I am for restricting the freedom of the ability to instigate mass murder.No one requires capability of putting 50 bullets in someone “in self- defense“.
            You don’t like laws and value freedoms so much, why not move to Somalia or like countries- those folks have lots of “Freedom”

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

             America Love it or leave it?  Really is that the argument you wish to make?

          • Fredlinskip

            No, I am saying. Your “freedom” may “infringe” upon the “freedoms” of others. 
            Freedom to own slaves restricts other’s freedom.
            Your freedom to own “AW’s” may make it easier for “wrong” folks to get their hands on them. When this happens, it could effect my freedom to remain living and breathing.
            Patriotic to talk of freedoms, but it ain’t quite that simple. 
            Those that love freedom might ought to try living in a lawless nation for a while. 
            Reasonable laws are a good thing. 

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

            Your right to privacy makes it easier for “wrong” folks to evade punishment for their crimes.  When this happens, it could effect my freedom to remain living and breathing.

            But I understand that by abridging your freedom I can not secure mine.  Nor am I willing to make emotion driven arguments about policy just to make my self feel better.  The evidence of the last thirty years is more guns in the hands of law abiding people the less crime. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Logic has no place in this debate.

          • Fredlinskip

            see above under your “privilege” response.

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

            affect.  its very simple you are free to do what you want untill it affects or harms someone else. we do not do this preemptivly. we do not cut out everyone’s tongue to prevent the yelling of fire in a theater. 

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

            lol if you are so terrified of guns and convinced about the effectiveness of gun control why dont you move to the UK? or mexico it must be very safe they have very strong gun control there i bet almost no one gets shot in mexico.

      • Fredlinskip

        “AW’s” likely had nothing to do with trend. Right or wrong, often it is an emotional event or crisis that brings about legislative change. 
        Our country’s decision to go to War was in large part an emotional response to what happened Pearl Harbor.
        Recent shootings allow the “people” to focus attention on this issue- hopefully long enough to bring about change. 

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Absolutely. I am SO sick of listening to rants about the second clause in the 2′nd amendment:

      “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      …that ignore the first clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ”

      Hello righties, if the FF just wanted to enshrine your holy gun rights, do you think they would have put in that first clause? Can you read English? Can you see that the “free state” is the United States of America – the GOVERNMENT? You have a right insofar as it supports the requirement of the USA for not just a militia, but a WELL REGULATED militia. The FF didn’t say just militia, they said well-regulated militia. Do you think that indicates there should be no regulation of guns?

      The distortion of the 2′nd amendment we’re getting is a freaking joke. Read the dam sentence!

      • OnPointComments

        We can either take your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, or we can take the interpretation of the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.  Justice Scalia wrote that the prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” does not limit the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The prefatory clause does not control or limit the next clause but rather grants an individual right to bear arms.
         

        Until you’re sitting on the Supreme Court, I think I’ll go with Justice Scalia’s interpretation.

        • Fredlinskip

          You suggest correctly that our opinions don’t bear the same consequence of those such as Scalia and Thomas.
            My point was not to contest the “right to bear arms”, but to contest opinion that constitution grants that right BECAUSE folks need to arm themselves so as to protect themselves from possible malfeasance of our own government. This misguided belief seems to encourage many to “stock up” on weapons that are not useful other than killing lots of folks fast.
          The greater # of these weapons out there, the greater the probability that some are going to be used for the purpose they were designed.

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

            The greater # of these weapons out there, the greater the probability that some are going to be used for the purpose they were designed.
            Defense of self and others right?

        • TomK_in_Boston

          As I said the last time, I’m a native English speaker, I understand sentence structure, and I don’t need an unelected beltway insider to tell me how to read a sentence.

          • Gregg Smith

            Evidently you do.

      • Fredlinskip

        As much as I might wish it otherwise, I think that the consensus of historians is that well-regulated meant well-disciplined, well-trained; as when referring to troops as “regulars”.

      • hennorama

        Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Heller decision, it is to be respected.  The Supreme Court has unanimously concluded and held that the Second Amendment confers an INDIVIDUAL right, whether or not it is in the context of the militia.  Even Justice Stevens’ dissent agreed with the majority that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (although Stevens concluded that it does not extend outside of the context of the militia.)  Justice Breyer, in his separate dissent, agreed with Justice Stevens that the individual right to bear arms was limited to militia service.  But the majority ruled otherwise, and we should respect the decision.

        The Heller decision held three things (quoted in part below):

        “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

        The Heller decision also affirms that the Second Amendment is not unlimited:

        “2.  Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

        Finally, it held both the DC handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement as unconstitutional:

        “3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

        See:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

        To read a Harvard Law Review commentary on Heller, see:

        http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/case_comment_intro122.pdf

        • Fredlinskip

          “Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Heller decision, it is to be respected.”  
          Heck no! If we disagree, we get to grab all the “AW’s” we‘ve been stocking up for the occasion, storm the Bastille, and tar & feather all them high-falutin’ Gov folks. Says so right in that there constitution don’t ya know- 

          The 5-4 Heller decision, lead by Scalia, is now law of the land. 
          These are the same boneheads, that among other things, brought us the 5-4 Citizen’s United ruling. 
          And in their infinite wisdom thwarted the will of the electorate so as to usher in that great leader of the free world (drum roll and trumpets please)- W!!!

          A bit frightening it is that these folks, continue to have such profound influence on the course of history. Under their influence we seem to be marching confidently backward. Perhaps they’ll reinstate slavery again, since the founders failed to strictly end that practice. 

          • hennorama

            Fredlinskip – TY for your reply. I respect and appreciate your views. My point is simple – we need to respect the “law of the land.”

            Respecting the Heller decision, regardless of one’s agreement or disagreement with it, is simply part of acknowledging the rule of law. Respect does not preclude working to craft changes that could conform to Heller, or toward political circumstances that might lead to overturning Heller. The decision, as you point out was narrowly decided in a 5-4 vote. However, in Heller, SCOTUS also affirmed the lower court ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This rarely gets mentioned for some reason. Four current SCOTUS Justices were elevated from the DC CIrcuit – Ginsburg, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.

            Heller gives something to both sides of the firearms issue. For those desirous of some added strictures on firearms, it affirms that the Second Amendment is not unlimited and that SOME laws, regulations and restrictions are permissible. Heller also gives those desiring no limitations on the Second Amendment a holding the the SA confers an individual right unrelated to service in a militia, and overturning of the DC law relating to handguns and trigger locks.

            I’ll let pass without comment your characterization of the Court’s members and prior decisions, and merely repeat that I respect and appreciate your views. Thanks again for your reply.

          • Fredlinskip

            Thanks.
            Appreciate your input.

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

            too bad you guys don’t have any guns.

        • nj_v2

          We need to “respect” bad SC decisions from a bunch of hacks?

          Corporate personhood (more a clerk error than a decision, but still…)?

          Bush v. Gore?

          Acknowledge, maybe; respect, no; work to amend/overturn, hell, yeah!

          • hennorama

            nj_v2 – TY for your response. I respect and understand your views.

            Yes, we need to respect SCOTUS decisions. As I replied earlier to Fredlinskip:

            “my point is simple – we need to respect the “law of the land.”

            “Respecting the Heller decision, regardless of one’s agreement or disagreement with it, is simply part of acknowledging the rule of law. Respect does not preclude working to craft changes that could conform to Heller, or toward political circumstances that might lead to overturning Heller. ”

            Or any other SCOTUS decision you care to name. We are a nation of laws. That’s my main point.

          • nj_v2

            I would still argue that laws which are fundamentally wrong, disrespect basic right, give prejudiced favor to selected groups, etc. deserve no respect.

            There is a long, powerful, and effective history of civil disobedience of unjust law not only in the U.S. but around the world.

            Thoreau is especially articulate on this.

          • hennorama

            nj_v2 – fair enough. I respect your views and do not dispute them. I suspect this is merely a matter of one’s interpretation of the word “respect.” In this context, I mean “obey until/unless changed.” This is not meant to imply unquestioning obedience, merely a recognition of fact, and acknowledgement of the rule of law.

            Thoreau is indeed eloquent on the topic. There is also a satirical view expressed here, that has a bit more currency:

            http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24642840.jpg

            (No editorial comment is expressed or implied in the selection of this image).

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

            feel free to try to amend the 2nd amendment. when you do then we can discuss your gun ban ideas

          • Fredlinskip

            If we can get one less bonehead, I mean, honorable GOP appointed justice, perhaps we can get a more reality-based interpretation of 2nd Amend.

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

            does that approach respect the individual right to own firearms?

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

        tom seems like you have chosen to ignore the 10th amendment
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
        Its pretty important

        • Duras

          Article 6, the supremacy clause.  Look it up.  

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

            and?

          • Duras

            The Federal Government has the last say on laws like weapon bans, especially since the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government can ban anything down to hand guns.

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

            the court is part of the federal govt so yes they do have the last say. they also say that an “arm” includes handguns and you do have a right to own one and keep it in your home

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

      they would not have considered a tyranny to be an acceptable form of govt and took the right to defend oneself with ones arms as self evident. the costitution does not limit the rights of people to the enumerated rights. it is designed to limit the power of the govt.   

      • Fredlinskip

        That’s interesting.
        Incorrect , but interesting.

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

          care to say how? self defense was already enshrined in common law

  • Duras

    Did Rush change his position on immigration over night?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwVU3a6iZvw&list=LLe23KQy4yMdph6WkwyYvF0w

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

    Why do so many commenters to this show have such a visceral fear of their fellow Americans owning modern fire arms?  Are you afraid of the weapons or the people?  Or is it based in a desire to be protected by some sort of all powerful other?   

    • Fredlinskip

      Can’t speak for others, but it’s not fear of firearms- it’s disgust at the carnage when multiple-round magazine  weapons fall in wrong hands. 
         Are you going to speak for all your gun owner brethren when you say that all these “AW’s” are going to be kept securely away forever from where someone other than intended owner might someday get hands on them?
        Are you going to tell me that no one who purchases a legal “AW” will ever have a potential “bad hair day” and snap? Why all the “temporary insanity” pleas in courtrooms of America?
        Why not limit the potential future damage? What purpose do these weapons serve? How many shots do you need?
      I’m sorry- the potential of a herd of assassins after your family does not hold water for me.

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

        So you can assure me that this new gun law will save the lives of all the children that died because they lived in Chicago?  What about all the thousands of gun laws like Bartley-Fox that were promised to solve this problem?  Are you telling me that criminals will obey this new law even though they have broken all the previous one?  

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Oooh, the talking point that rejects a law if it won’t fix a problem 100% – “save the lives of ALL the children”, ROTFL. 

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

            Are you unaware that there is a frequent argument that made that if it saves just one child then we must – fill in the blank.  Rhetorically I am inverting that argument to to show how unreasonable a standard it is.   It please me to bring laughter to others and thank you for agreeing with me that such arguments are ridiculous.   

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Also, a proposed tax increase is attacked because it won’t fix the entire deficit, while the right proposes endless silly spending cuts and never worries about that standard.

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

            they are both wrong. thats whats wrong with politics. 

        • Fredlinskip

          I am saying the more of these weapons are put in potential “circulation” the greater potential of their eventually misuse- so lets not put anymore in.

            There will likely be weapons in future to kill even more folks even quicker. Let’s ban them from day 1.
            Let’s deescalate- not escalate. 
           Unfortunately society will probably have to live with the consequences of the weapons already out there.

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

            If we could actually ban such things I would happily do so.  But as that is an impossibility I will accept the risks of life as a responsible adult and act accordingly.

          • Fredlinskip

            Fair enough, but still hope your wrong about the ban-
            I know it’s an uphill climb.

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

            banning things has never worked, ever. i am pretty sure murder has been banned for a while now.

          • Fredlinskip

            We probably don’t need any laws whatsoever. What fun that would be.

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

            we dont need any of these failed attempts to ban things that create more problems than they potentially  solve

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

            if that were true we should have seen a huge rash of legal ar15s being used improperly in the last several months because several million more are now “in circulation”. Fred you should work to ban truck bombs because those have killed more americans than all mass shootings combined in just WTC and the Oklahoma City bombing. Anything can be a weapon should we ban everything? Banning things has never worked before why would it work now? illegal drugs have been banned for a while does that make them any less available or does it create dangerous black markets and violent cartels causing far more harm than the drugs themselves?

          • Fredlinskip

            These guns aren’t very biodegradable, so they’ll be around a long time. 
            Give it some time- some will likely do some damage sooner or later.

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

            thats nonsense most guns are never used to shoot anyone. how is a gun going to do damage by itself? most legal guns sit quietly in safes.

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

        well lets imagine a single woman who lives alone is as proficient as a trained police officer. about 22% of rounds fired by police hit their target in real world situations. So she has her home invaded by 3 thugs that means each will only get shot 2 times which is how many times people are trained to shoot an assailant.  My example also assumes the 3 thugs are unarmed, imagine if they were shootig back. You think three thugs busting down a door is unthinkable? I know people who have been victims of home invasion. In one case it was 3 people in another it was 5 and another 6 who busted in.  Your idea of a single home invader seems pretty unlikely. Did you hear about the students in NY who were just victums of a home invasion but their attackers(hey there was more than one in this case too!) fled when the roomate brandished an unloaded AR15? And if someone does “have a bad hair day” and decide to commit mass murder would you rather be unarmed or have a fighting chance?  Gangbagers with illegally obtained handguns are a much much bigger problem and none of your restrictions on legal gun owership will affect them at all

    • William

       I don’t fear guns, but the gun culture or “quick to shoot” people living in the USA are something to worry about and I’m not just talking about private citizens.

  • Dee

    Mc Cain’s and Graham are still try to delude themselves the 
    Iraqi surge was “a success” and “history” has already deter-
    mine this…What neocon garbage!!!!!!   I am so glad chuck Hagel refused to succumb to their delusional thinking. 

    With over a 1,000 American GIs in their grave as a result 
    I don’t see how this evil could be considered “a success”

    I think they both should be in chains today for the deaths 
    of those soldiers and countless Iraqi deaths…..See URL 

    http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/01/the-lesson-in-hagels-inquisition/

    • William

       The surge wiped out thousands of terrorists in Iraq and gives the honest citizens in Iraq a chance to rebuild their nation.

  • Dee

    Once again, the time has come to throw the war mongers 
    in Israel under the bus and shut down their state as no 
    longer representing a moral good or lawful good in the 
    Middle East and in the world today….

    The Former Israeli Attorney General , Michael Ben Yair 
    wrote and warned about this in his 2003 Op-ed…
    http://www.seruv.org.il/english/article.asp?msgid=77&type=article

    And now Israeli leaders want to up the ante by attacking 
    Soviet weapons to Iran and beyond–when the real evil is American weapons to Israel in violation of the American peoples’ will and Federal Laws prohibiting military to land 
    thieves and human rights abusers in Israel..

    See an Israeli activist who refused to serve in the Israeli 
    Army as a result of this….Maya Wind 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTAvst5mxW4

    This is the injustice in US Middle East Foreign Policy that 
    must end today—and Chuck Hagel is in good company 
    refusing to genuflect to Israeli policy on Capital Hill…

    Many Americans (on the Left) are already boycotting and 
    divesting from Israel today. This is the lawlessness that 
    will not succeed today…Dee 

    • JONBOSTON

      Can you give us your latest update on what the savages and barbarians are up to? Any recent beheadings? Have they filed in the MidEast for design patent protection for suicide belts? 

    • JONBOSTON

      Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch passed away yesterday . On his cemetery stone is inscribed the last words of American and Israeli journalist Daniel Pearl before he was beheaded on Feb 1, 2002.   ”  My mother was a Jew. My father was a Jew. I am a Jew”.

      What do you have to say to the savages that murdered Daniel Pearl?

    • William

       Israel is the only hope for the non-violent Arabs in the Middle East. They are the only honest broker that is willing to take out terrorists living in the Arab community. I applaud their courage and determination to rid the Middle East of the terrorists.

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

    FTA:In making one’s name as a prosecutor, what tends to matter is winning convictions, and lots of them. The most efficient way to do that is to strike plea bargains and avoid trials, by threatening defendants with potentially devastating prison terms and convincing them to plead guilty to lesser crimes. To critics, this means that the charging process essentially rigs the game against defendants from the outset.

    http://bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/02/03/can-juries-tame-prosecutors-gone-wild-can-juries-tame-prosecutors-gone-wild/yAvVOZPmpm408lskfiMe3M/story.html

  • davecm

    What can be said about a great and mighty nation that is powerless to secure its borders?????
    Who allows the foreign invaders to flood across it’s borders and loot and pillage the wealth of this great nation.
    Who allows the law breakers to minimize the earning power of it’s citizenry.
    Who allows these invaders to replace those natural citizens in importance.
    Who allows these invaders to affect our economic and social system.
    Who allows these invaders to loot our resources and to carry our prosperity back to enrich their country.
    What great nation would allow these invaders to arrogantly dictate and demand we change our soveignty to allow them to continue this invasion!!!!!
    What can be said???????????????

    • Fredlinskip

      Lots of illegals are here already- what to do with them is pertinent question.
      Might be accused of heartless racism, but I agree with your sentiments.Lots of these people are good honest hardworking and  contributing to our society. However, as a whole, they are adding strains and filling jobs often that might be held by legal citizens.
      There are good people all over world who might wish to live here. Why not, in interest of fairness, allow proportional # of people from all countries in? Let’s add a billion folks. That’s why there is immigration policy so as enter front door.

  • OnPointComments

    For all those who express the opinion that the government is doing fine with the Social Security system, will you extend your trust to allowing the government to manage your private retirement funds?  From Bloomberg:
     
    “The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is weighing whether it should take on a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings, a move that would be the agency’s first foray into consumer investments.
      
    “That’s one of the things we’ve been exploring and are interested in in terms of whether and what authority we have,” bureau director Richard Cordray said in an interview. He didn’t provide additional details. 
     
    The bureau’s core concern is that many Americans, notably those from the retiring Baby Boom generation, may fall prey to financial scams, according to three people briefed on the CFPB’s deliberations who asked not to be named because the matter is still under discussion.”
     
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/retirement-savings-accounts-draw-u-s-consumer-bureau-attention.html 
     
    The courts have called into question the legitimacy of CFPB Director Cordray’s recess appointment, so it may be a while before the government gets its hands on the $19.4 trillion of private retirement funds.  Let’s hope they never do.

    • hennorama

      OPC – your question is misleading.  There’s absolutely nothing in the linked article indicating any desire or proposal on the part of the CFPB “to [allow] the government to manage your private retirement funds” or for “the government [to get] its hands on the $19.4 trillion of private retirement funds.”

      Rather as you quoted “The bureau’s core concern is that many Americans, notably those from the retiring Baby Boom generation, may fall prey to financial scams…”

      Also FTA “The bureau could claim jurisdiction through its Office for Older Americans, which was established by Dodd-Frank with a mandate to improve financial literacy.”

      That’s what they’re talking about – trying to ensure/improve financial literacy, in order to help people avoid scams.

      This is the mission of the CFPB, quoting from their website:

      “The central mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans — whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.”

      “Above all, this means ensuring that consumers get the information they need to make the financial decisions they believe are best for themselves and their families—that prices are clear up front, that risks are visible, and that nothing is buried in fine print. In a market that works, consumers should be able to make direct comparisons among products and no provider should be able to build, or feel pressure to build, a business model around unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.”

      In other words, to help people get sufficient information so they can avoid scams.
      http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/

      • OnPointComments

        The article states that the CFPB is “weighing whether it should take a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings,” and then quotes Cordray as saying “That’s one of the things we’ve been exploring and are interested in in terms of whether and what authority we have.”  You appear to assume that the CFPB wants to print another brochure or add another form to the loan package; I wonder why the CFPB has to explore “whether and what authority we have” if its concern is financial literacy.  I’m pretty sure that you trust the government’s motives more than I do.
         

        From IBD in 2012:
        “Does Government Want To Drain Americans’ 401(k) Plan?”
        http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112812-634984-401k-on-the-table-for-fiscal-cliff.htm#ixzz2Js9ALtDJ

        • hennorama

          OPC – TY for your response. I respect your views and understand your concerns. One could fairly conclude that the crux of the matter is one’s interpretaion of the phrase “take a role in helping.” Since this phrase is not part of any direct quote, it is left to the reader to interpret the author’s intent and meaning.

          I simply view this as more benign than insidious. As a new agency, the CFPB is exploring its purview. I see these comments in that light as well.

          The IBD article, while interesting, is simply speculative. However, you are to be commended for paying attention and for bringing this issue forward. Well done.

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

            “i’m from the government and I am here to help you”

          • OnPointComments

            I read an article a while ago where the author stated that US citizens can be broken down into two basic groups:  (1) those who say “I want the government to leave me alone,” and (2) those who say “I want the government to take care of me.”  I’m definitely in group 1.

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

            “Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government
            take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian”

            Henry Ford

  • Gregg Smith

    Does this bother anyone?

    A week after women were cleared to serve in combat, Defense Intelligence Agency employees got a different message. “Makeup makes you more attractive.” “Don’t be a plain Jane.” “A sweater with a skirt is better than a sweater with slacks.” “No flats.” “Paint your nails.” “Don’t be afraid of color.” And, “brunettes have more leeway with vibrant colors than blondes or redheads.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/02/01/fashion-advice-at-the-dia-makeup-makes-you-more-attractive

    • Steve__T

       Nit pick much? This was sent out to women in the office workplace, not to the solders serving in combat or support positions. Take something  and blow it out of proportion and start crap, don’t we have enough of this already? 

      • Gregg Smith

        I really did not say the DIA suggested women in combat wear pumps. Really, I didn’t. 

    • 1Brett1

      This was also in the article: “Susan Strednansky, public affairs officer at DIA, offered the agency’s regrets about the briefing, which raised eyebrows among some employees, saying, “I’m not going to deny that it exists, and it was bad. It was inappropriate for sure.” She added, “Neither the agency nor the leadership has condoned anything that was in that briefing.”

      Why would you attempt to create contradictions and controversy where there are none?

      • Gregg Smith

        Dang! You figured out was I was up to. I knew I shouldn’t have posted the link.

        There is no sexism any more, certainly not in the Obama Administration. There is no party atmosphere at the Secret Service and they pay their hookers top dollar without argument. Ditto Senators from NJ. There’s no lesbian sexual harassment at DHS or somebody would have resigned. There’s no need to look at the way Obama pays women. Equal pay doesn’t matter as long as people believe Lilly Ledbetter is relevant to it. 

        You must forgive me, I am just trying to form a tactic in my head so I can trump something up. You know how I am.

        • 1Brett1

          Golly…not too passive-aggressive…and here I thought your initial post was just about putting down one governmental agency and defending your opinion that women shouldn’t be fighting in combat situations alongside men?! Gosh, sorry, I didn’t realize…

          I guess your initial comment was really just using DIA as only one of many examples of ALL governmental agencies being bad…well, that and some oblique (or, in some respects, not-so-oblique) suggestions of how insidious the Obama Administration is (not to mention hypocritical) and how it negatively infiltrates all areas of government. (Is this how Obama is systematically destroying the country so that he can rebuild it as a modern socialist state? …Oops, stupid question, right? His diabolical plans go so much farther, right?) 

          Thanks for the clarity! Of course; I wouldn’t have known, otherwise. Your latest comment seems to have a whole laundry list of things that bug you. I hope you’re writing these down for your own purposes; they are a lot to keep track of…

          • Gregg Smith

            Not even close. I would never say all government agencies are bad. I gave serious props to the Post Office just the other day. The Secret Service is awesome. That’s nuts. I certainly wouldn’t capitalize “ALL” unless I was trying to tell someone what they thought and then criticize it. That’s not the way I roll.

            My “initial comment” was simply to pass along some news those here aren’t likely to hear. I had a feeling someone would disregard what they normally would condemn. That’s just gravy. You always play. You even outed your lonely nastiness trying to get rid of me. And you keep coming back. Cool.

            I also wouldn’t say Obama negatively infiltrates all areas of government… er… okay ever mind, you got me on that one.

            No, my point (not the initial one, the one you egged on) is about women and it’s not complicated but I’ll spell it out for you since you missed it:

            The Republican war on women and the notion President Obama walks the talk he talks are BOTH complete BS.

          • 1Brett1

            Ah, the Post Office and the Secret Service…well, why would anyone pigeonhole you?

            I guess an AP story carried by Yahoo News, CNN, NPR, ABC, etc., wouldn’t likely be heard by people? …That’s too funny. Well, then, thanks for your thoughtfulness, and whose only desire was to relay a news story for the sake of keeping people informed.

          • Gregg Smith

            You didn’t know about it until I told you, deny it. Post what you will  but you know in your heart I’m right.

          • 1Brett1

            My home page is yahoo…I go there before I go here every morning. 

            But, whatever way you wish to delude yourself is fine..

          • Gregg Smith

            So, no denial as requested. Cool.

    • 1Brett1

      Translation: “try to bite on some kind of stupid crap I throw out, because I want to continue taking potshots at liberals on this forum…Monday is too far away to wait for it, after all.”

      • Gregg Smith

        Sorry the institutionalization of treating women as objects doesn’t elicit an iota of condemnation from you. It’s too late now BTW. It’s not a tough call here. At least just keep quiet like everybody else. That’s a bit less egregious, Ideology is a force to be reckoned with for some.

        • 1Brett1

          The briefing was problematic (I’ve already addressed that); your attempt to spin it as systemic hypocrisy regarding women in combat (your absurdity) is the “stupid crap throw[n] out” part. Is there no end to your denseness?  

          • Gregg Smith

            “…your attempt to spin it as systemic hypocrisy regarding women in combat…” 

            That one wins the prize for failed mind reading. I assure you my comment had zero, zip nada to do with women in combat. I have no idea where you got that. Steve_T interjected combat too. Why do you do this? It’s the most bizarre thing I’ve ever witnessed. 

            It is what I said it is:

            The Republican war on women and the notion President Obama walks the talk he talks are BOTH complete BS.

          • 1Brett1

            “A week after women were cleared to serve in combat, Defense Intelligence Agency employees got a different message…” -Gregg

            “I assure you my comment had zero, zip nada to do with women in combat. I have no idea where you got that. Steve_T interjected combat too” -Gregg

            As if the DIA briefing and women in combat were together as an example of contrasted governmental policy: governmental hypocrisy. The top quote started off your comment, and in the same sentence you contrast that with the DIA briefing. Again, you said this I didn’t. Also, Steve_T didn’t even comment/reply to you on this. Maybe cut back on your drinking just a little, Gregg. 

          • Gregg Smith

            That was a quote from the article, not my words. Take my name off of it. I guess that’s what confused Steve_T too when he wrote, “This was sent out to women in the office workplace, not to the solders serving in combat or support positions.” To which I replied, “I really did not say the DIA suggested women in combat wear pumps. Really, I didn’t. ” I obviously thought he missed my point, it had zip, zero, nada to do with combat.

            Why do you insist on telling me what I think? Why does your zeal to stalk me blind you to reality? I mean, you’re so nasty that you accuse me of being drunk and imagining comments. Here’s a clue champ, Steve_T did in fact respond. And you, yes you clicked “like” on the very comment you now say doesn’t exist. You are making a fool of yourself. Move on.

          • 1Brett1

            You didn’t put the first part in quotation marks as you did the DIA briefing stuff; that is where we get the impression we do about your making a point involving the two. Besides the lack of proper quotation, you do represent the opinions of what you post, even if the words are not yours, if you are going to use those words to make a point.

          • Gregg Smith

            It had too many quotes to put it in quotes. I should have used italics, sue me. It was the first paragraph in the link, smarty pants.

            I accused you of shooting first and thinking later just the other day. You’re logic is clouded with hate. Now are you going to apologize about the drunk thing?

          • 1Brett1

            When you sober upand start thinking clearly. I see you’re at it again…andsoearlyin the morning, too.

          • Gregg Smith

            Stiil haven’t found Steve’s comment?

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

      maybe it was a memo from madmen that got misdirected

  • Gregg Smith

    The other day when someone posted that Scott Brown would not run for the Senate, I suggested Romney. I just had the wrong Romney.

    http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/02/brown_out_gop_mulls_romney_energy

  • Gregg Smith

    One of my best friends and I went fishing yesterday. He is struggling with the family business (a flea market) as his parents are now 85 and 87. The business is no longer profitable since they moved the highway 10 years ago. It was a hobby (if not passion) for his mother that turned into a thriving business for decades. Even when things turned bad they kept going because of the passion. Now she no longer participates and his father is incapacitated. A change must be made, he is concerned for employees who depend on it but doing nothing will make the demise inevitable.

    The main building is 200′ X 50′. We brainstormed out on the lake all day. One idea made a ton of sense, turning it into an indoor firing range. There are none in the area and the closest ones are going gangbusters. There is a huge demand. Huge. It could also serve as a place to teach gun safety and certify for concealed carry. 

    Natural Gas and guns are two industries that are actually thriving. Obama hates them both. I heard an ad on the radio for  a consulting company focusing on helping businesses survive Obamacare. They are doing well. My point being, Americans alway find a way to turn chicken $hit into chicken salad. My friend would do well to exploit the market bolstered by Obama’s horrible policies.

    • Fredlinskip

      Drinking heavily, were you?

      • Gregg Smith

        Moderately.

    • jefe68

      Great, lets have the gun industry be the beacon of a thriving industrial base.

      • Gregg Smith

        It already is.

        • 1Brett1

          Hey, “how ya gonna act?!” Why not capitalize? Why not grab some of that exploitation the pro-gun movement/lobby is ginning up and make it work for you. There can’t be an open-ended window of opportunity to make all of this lucrative; that window will shut at some point, right? 

          • Gregg Smith

            Exactly, and save lives to boot!

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

            oboma is the best gun salesman in history

      • nj_v2

        Land of the armed, home of the violent.

        Under God, of course.

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

        it got us out of the last depression

        • jefe68

          You left out one small little fact, we were engaged in a world war on two fronts, the Pacific and Europe. 

          The US is still one of the largest weapons manufactures in the world. Which is separate from guns sold in this country. 
          Somehow you don’t seem to be able to parse this.

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

            jefe did people not already know that? somehow you seem to want to be insulting

    • nj_v2

      Suitably ironic:

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/02/03/chris-kyle-navy-seal-dead/1887327/

      Ex-SEAL Chris Kyle remembered after shooting death

      [[ American Sniper author Chris Kyle, who was killed Saturday along with another man at a Texas gun range, was "an incredible guy who was always about family, about country and about God," his co-author said Sunday.

      "During his life, he struggled to get those into the proper order," said Jim DeFelice, 56, of Warwick, N.Y., one of the co-authors of Kyle's best-selling book, American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History, which details Kyle's kills of 150-plus insurgents from 1999 to 2009.

      "It was always God first, but he struggled sometimes with how to balance his responsibility to his country with his responsibility to his family," DeFelice said.

      Kyle, 38, and Chad Littlefield, 35, were shot and killed at the Rough Creek Lodge, west of Glen Rose, Texas, about 50 miles southwest of Fort Worth, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. ]]

      (excerpt)

      • Gregg Smith

        I read that earlier today, very sad.

      • JGC

        When I saw this tonight, I got a sick feeling; maybe even more visceral than Sandy Hook, and I can’t quite characterize it all yet. 

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

        really bitter irony not the sweet kind.  he was trying to help the man who killed him, its terrible

    • JGC

      The highway was moved 10 years ago, and decline in flea market business has nothing to do with Obama’s policies (horrible or otherwise) 

      • Gregg Smith

        No it was the highway. Actually Obama’s anemic economy helped the flea market. My friend also has storage units on the property. That business did well with a bad economy too as people downsized. Now they’ve given up and many are liquidating or defaulting.

        • JGC

          I was thinking about the storage unit thing, and that maybe as occasional renters defaulted on payment, there could be a “Storage Wars” component to the flea market.  Maybe there could be more special events there, like Antiques Roadshow-type weekends where certain experts are there to estimate the value of folks’ “junk”,  a music fest (SouthxSoutheast?) on another weekend, a  craft festival, a benefit auction (I don’t know for what organization, but something appropriate to the area), a comedy/storytellers festival, a TED conference, a farmer’s market specializing in organic/holistic foods and health (arugula!), etc. 

          What about an indoor/outdoor paintball range?  A hydroponic hemp farm? Or to turn it into an arena for ice hockey/speed skating/figure skating? If your friend is still keen to go the route of a gun range, maybe your friend could invite special guest Dick Cheney to the Grand Opening, and to fire the first ceremonial round. Hopefully not at the new customers. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Thanks JGC, I’ll pass that along. He does have auctions all the time like on storage wars but what usually happens is he is the only one who shows up and he gets stuck with a bunch of worthless crap. 

            His mother used to be an expert in glassware, dolls and all kinds of things. There were other vendors that had the same kind of expertise in a variety of goods. It was a gathering place. Ol’ Denver (RIP) used to sell Victrolas and old stringed instruments. He was a childhood friend of Doc Watson who came by often. They would sit around and play. Doc’s voice was unmistakable when you walked in the front door. 

            They touted “The hanging museum” for many years because there are some really old and rare items in the rafters. He is actually thinking of contacting “American Pickers” about it. He has the homemade mandolin that is on the cover of Doc’s first (or one of the first) album, “The Watson Family”.

          • JGC

            Thanks for that story. And good luck to your friend.

  • Coastghost

    As American women celebrate, they may care to consult the brief histories of the “women’s battalions of death” that helped defend Kerensky’s Provisional Government in 1917. A century on, perhaps the US can lead a worldwide conversion to make the world’s militaries exclusively female for the next millennium or three. Since enlightened women are intent on freeing themselves from maternal bondage, we can all watch as native feminine aggressiveness is stoked and fed into the disciplines of the martial arts. Because women naturally outnumber men, certainly (it’s long overdue) let them and their valiant armies fight to the death for the next several thousand years, let women kill each other in combat much more assiduously than they ever have historically, these are modern times, after all. (It is no difficult feat to read Dalton Trumbo’s novel throughout as “When Jane Got Her Gun”: to translate the losses from conflicts like WWI into stark feminine terms.) To compensate for past inequities: we can even propose that women exclusively sign up for Selective Service, altogether exempting men from compulsory service, men always can volunteer if they choose, although new patterns of what constitutes “status” will probably keep most men at home quilting and baking cookies.   

    • 1Brett1

      “women are intent on freeing themselves from maternal bondage…”

      “we can all watch as native feminine aggressiveness is stoked and fed…”

      “To compensate for past inequities: we can even propose that women exclusively sign up for Selective Service, altogether exempting men from compulsory service, men always can volunteer if they choose, although new patterns of what constitutes “status” will probably keep most men at home quilting and baking cookies.”

      Women should, in my view, sign up for selective service. (Although, that would seem to skip a step, in terms of the stages that change their roles, as it were, in that they have in the past fought in combat situations; at present, certain candidates will fight on the front lines; then, in future, they should be required to sign up for selective service, just as currently do young men.) They, of course, should not be “exclusively” required to sign up for selective service, “exempting men from compulsory service,” (however much one does recognize your use of satire in forming your comment). The selective service component, in my opinion, should be determined by military leaders who are in the position to make such changes in policy. 

      The rest of the quoted statements from your comment are submitted without my own commentary on them.  

      • Coastghost

        Accurate quotes as far as they go, although I did specify that “enlightened” women are intent on freeing themselves from maternal bondage, the sisterhood is always winning fresh converts. (The topic is perniciously susceptible to satire, as you observe, I myself have hardly begun.)

        • 1Brett1

          I was merely waiting for you to put enlightened in quotes, as that ostensibly was the tone of your comment; so, thank you. I shall now more accurately quote your statement with the full measure of its spirit: “…”enlightened” women are intent on freeing themselves from maternal bondage…”

          • Coastghost

            (I vastly prefer corporal quotation to spiritual quotation, the semantic quanta are not as volatile.) Plus: I hate drawing attention to the unfulfilled ambitions our feminist avant-gardes continually have to confront. I think having exclusively female armies worldwide would instantly address feminist complaints. 

          • 1Brett1

            I do give you credit for humor and intellect; those score some points…and, hey, if I am to interact with a chauvinistic neocon, he may as well have a kind of charm that possesses at least two qualities I value. So, a proverbial tip o’ the hat to you for those qualities.

          • Coastghost

            –in which case we are both in good company! (Chauvinist I may be, neocon I am not: a Burkean liberal or a paleo-conservative [with due emphasis on "paleo-"], with some Machiavellian prejudices thrown in, let’s say.) 

          • 1Brett1

            Whew, that makes much more sense…and I should have been more astute; you are much too intelligent to be a neocon. Apologies.

  • Steve__T

    Disqus

  • Steve__T

      I think, I read and I know that when cattle are led to slaughter, they are not afraid, until…

  • 1Brett1

    A teacher armed with a gun might have more of an opportunity to stop a crazed shooter who enters a school. However, absolutely, an unarmed teacher stands a much better chance NOT to have his/her weapon either used against him/her in an act of violence or have his/her weapon accidentally discharge, which could result in injury/death.

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

      well we have armed teachers in many places. neither thing you describe has happened. you ignore the deterrant effect. no one has ever attempted a school spree in Utah

      • 1Brett1

        No unarmed teachers have ever had their guns used against them, nor have they ever had their guns accidentally discharge, either with or without injuries/death resulting.

        No armed teachers have ever stopped a shooter with their guns. 

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

          no armed teachers have ever had their guns used against them, nor have they ever had their guns accidentally discharge, either with or without injuries/death resulting.
          No armed teachers have ever stopped a shooter with their guns. how could we possibly know that? school shootings that do not happen are impossible to measure

          • 1Brett1

            Not to continue YOUR point (which isn’t what mine was; I refer you to my original comment on this thread to read again so you can make some attempt to dtermine what my point was), but how many teachers in class rooms are armed? …I know; you don’t know. Of the teachers who have concealed weapons carry permits in Utah, how many carry guns in their classrooms? …Also, you don’t know. You also don’t know why there haven’t yet been any school shootings that we know of. 

            Your confidence in your opinion is based on opinion with no supporting data. My opinion is based on possibilities of what might/could  happen/if we arm teachers–not what has happened–and I don’t pretend it is anything but an opinion about possibility/probability (i.e., an armed teacher is more likely to have a gun used against him/her than an unarmed teacher, etc.) 

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

            your probablities are based on made up numbers. you admit that we have no idea how may teachers carry (its legal in 30 states). I know that there are some teachers who carry. That’s far more than zero. None of their guns have caused problems or we would have heard about it i am sure. so far they are batting 1000. I don’t know why school shootings have not happened in Utah, maybe it has nothing to do with armed teachers, but i do know that they have not happened there and that teachers there are allowed to carry. maybe its a coincidence.  So where do you get your data about accidents when teachers CCW in order to calculate your probiblity?

          • 1Brett1

            If something is “more likely” than something else, that involves probability. I didn’t provide any numbers, so nothing is made up. I don’t mean to insult your intelligence but you haven’t been understanding my comments. Unarmed teachers are less likely to have a disaster with their guns BECAUSE THEY DON’t HAVE GUNS! 

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – good luck with FutoBuddy (FB).  Facts, logic and semantics seem irrelevant to this poster.  Earlier, I described FutoBuddy’s frequent (nearly 100 today alone) posting as a sort of “spray and pray” technique.

            Today alone, FB has erroneously claimed that “[in] places like chicago or DC … guns are banned”  When I pointed out that FB was likely referring to handguns, FB countered with “and its those handguns that are doing most of the killing, all currently illegal.”  When I countered that handguns are not “curently illegal” in either Chicago or Washington, DC, I have been met with nothing but silence thus far.

            I’d also refer you to the hilarious irony contained in this post:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/01/week-in-the-news-230#comment-788722926

            At first I thought FB was stalking me, as there had been 10 posts from FB directed at me at one point.  Then I saw that FB had made 80 or so posts in the four hours prior to my observation.

            As I said, good luck.

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

            oh am i posting too much for you? then i did not post and that was also upsetting to you for some reason? how often should i post so you can discuss the topic? does that have anything to do with any topic? i guess if you are not interested in a discussion about issues you are a waste of time.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – please post as often as you wish. I was simply making note of your prolificacy. As I stated, at first I thought you might be stalking me, but then I realized that the multiple posts directed toward me were simply a relatively small part of a large group. I rather enjoy our sparring, but I must confess it’s getting to be a bit much for one day.

          • Gregg Smith

            FB, you’re messing with Henna and Brett’s blog. Don’t make too much sense, they’ll not have that.

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

            ok i am saying i dont think any teachers will have a “disaster” with their guns even though they have had them for a while.  While it is a theoretical possiblity that it could happen the statistics so far is that 0% of teachers guns cause “disasters” in schools you cannot be less likely than 0%

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

          have armed teachers ever had that happen?

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

      are you basing your pronouncement on the 1986 kellerman study? you know thats been retracted and was highly flawed right? its like when the pro-prohibitioners make the false claim that cannabis causes brain damage based on a bogus experiment where rhesus monkeys were essentailly suffocated using cannabis smoke untill they got brain damage from lack of oxygen. if you use these studies knowing they are wrong thats very misleading

      • 1Brett1

        No.

  • Gregg Smith

    Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has a message: “Calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option”

    Here’s the PSA:

    http://localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/milwaukeecountysheriffsoffice-1.mp3 

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

      that is awesome. the police chief in modesto,ca expressed a simular sentament. he had been resistant to issuing CCW untill they cut his budget then he declared that he could not protect people and began issuing liscenses to anyone who is eligable. Can we hire this guy in Worcester?

      • Gregg Smith

        I heard an interview with him too, it’s exactly the right message.

  • hennorama

    The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides some perspective on the magnitude of the issue of US border security by compiling the following info:

    The US has land and water boundaries with Canada and Mexico that are a combined 7,458 miles in length. We also have “general coastlines” totalling 12,479 miles.  These figures total 19,937 miles, which is equivalent to 80% of the equatorial circumference of the Earth.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf

    It’s a rather formidable task to secure borders of that length.

    Brazil has international land borders of 10,492 miles and 4,654 miles of coastline.  They also struggle with border and immigration (both legal and illegal) issues. 

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/28/world/americas/brazil-immigration/index.html

    The issue of illegal immigrants is not solely a US issue.  India has several million.  Brazil has hundreds of thousands.  The UK and the EU combined have millions.  There may be as many as a million unathorized immigrants in the Dominican Republic who came from neighboring Haiti.  China has at least tens of thousands.  Etc., etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

    Most illegal immigrants move to other countries for economic reasons, followed by issues surrounding warfare, natural disasters, and political persecution.  Virtually any nation with a strong economy will have illegal immigrants seeking greater prosperity.

    http://thoughtdigest.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-causes-of-illegal-immigration-part-ii/

    This is the main issue in the US.  Until employer sanctions and enforcement are greatly increased, little will change.  Undocumented workers will accurately judge that there is a ready market for their services, and will weigh the risks involved in crossing the border accordingly.

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

      maybe when we put an end to our foolish war on drugs the drug gangs in mexico will disappear and the tens of thousands of murders down there will end and we won’t get as many refugees from the conflict we create there

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – you may be right. Do you have any info on the size of the problem you state, such as the number of “refugees from the conflict we create there?” While this may be an issue, one suspects the numbers are not large.

        Also, did you know that the Pew Hispanic Research Center reported last year that “the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries …”

        Ini other words, inflows and outflows of migrants between Mexico and the US appears to be either equal, or there may even be net outflow. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush pointed this out during an interview on Meet The Press just before last year’s Republican National Convention.

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

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

          i dont know how many refugees we create with the 60,000 plus killed there in recent years there. it does have to be quite a few. I know it will be less if we end the war we created there with our prohibition. yup its roughly a net zero change with them coming and going but we have quite a backlog of illegal immagrants living here that we need better policies to deal with

    • pete18

       None of your links disprove that there isn’t lots of room for improvement that is entirely attainable.

      • hennorama

        pete18 – TY for your response. Your point is well-taken. My intent was to provide a bit of perspective on the issue, partly in response to another poster’s (rather numerous) rhetorical questions, i.e. “What can be said about a great and mighty nation that is powerless to secure its borders?????” – davecm.

        The point is that securing such a long border is an enormous task, and there is no practical way to completely secure it. One can make it more secure, but not completely secure.

        The reality is that the primary motives behind the vast majority of illegal immigration are economic. Given the disparities between the economic opportunity and wages in the US vs. other countries, and the proximity of some countries with poor economic opportunity and low wages, it’s no surprise some are willing to take the risks involved in crossing the border. There is a bit of a “chicken vs. egg” conundrum here, but without employers willing to break the law by hiring undocumented workers, the risk/reward calculation for prospective illegal immigrants would be far less favorable.

        There are also views from economists and others, according to the The Economist, that “Evidence suggests that increased flows of people across borders could ignite global growth.”

        Further, regarding “native” worker displacement and the impact on “native” wages (FTA):

        “Even a modest (and more practical) easing of restrictions could be very rewarding. Lant Pritchett of Harvard University estimates that just a 3% rise in the rich-world labour force through migration would yield annual benefits bigger than those from eliminating remaining trade barriers. The incorporation of women into the rich-world workforce provides an analogy: this expanded the labour supply and the scope for specialisation without displacing the “native” male workforce.”

        “Rich-world residents nonetheless worry that migrants will gain at their expense. Yet in a survey of research on the topic Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn of Cornell University find that few studies turn up a negative impact on native wages. In a recent paper on western Europe Francesco D’Amuri of the Italian central bank and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis find that immigration encourages natives to take more complex work. Such “job upgrades” are responsible for a 0.6% increase in native wages for each doubling in immigrant labour-force share. Where immigration disadvantages subsets of the population, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego reckons that charging an entry fee to migrants or their employers could help pay for training or benefits for those who lose out.”

        See:http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21566629-liberalising-migration-could-deliver-huge-boost-global-output-border-follies

        • pete18

           I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think that the motive for immigration is mostly economic. I also would agree that one would have to enforce the hiring laws on employers to make an impact in curtailing the flow of illegal immigrants. Increasing the percentage of immigrants may or may not be a good idea, but it should be done through a legal and enforceable process
          not by ignoring the current problems.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TY for your response. Your points are well-taken. I do not mean to imply that the issue of illegal entry to the US, regardless of motivation, should be ignored. It’s a real problem that needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner, including significant enforcement on employers. In the view of many, reform during the Reagan administration failed in large part due to lax/non-existent enforcement and sanctions on employers.

            The stubborn fact of the matter is that without employers who are ready and willing to break the law by hiring illegal workers, few would take the considerable risk of crossing the border.

            Thanks again for your thoughtful responses.

  • hennorama

    Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace enhanced his journalistic standing today in his interview with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.  Select headlines and links:

    “Fox News’ Chris Wallace Explodes At NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre: ‘That’s Ridiculous, Sir, And You Know It’ ”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nras-wayne-lapierre-fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace-2013-2#ixzz2JtB2suVS

    “LaPierre on hot seat defending NRA”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/02/lapierre-on-hot-seat-defending-nra-155955.html

    “NRA Likens Universal Checks to Gun Registry”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nra-likens-universal-checks-gun-registry-18391258

    NRA CEO: “I don’t think you can trust” the White House

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57567348-10391739/nra-ceo-i-dont-think-you-can-trust-the-white-house/

    Here’s the entire 15 minute video, which FoxNews.com has titled “NRA chief: Criminals ignore background checks”

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2139988963001/

    And here’s a rush transcript of today’s entire Fox News Sunday show, written by Chris Wallace, titled “Capt. Mark Kelly, Wayne LaPierre on chances for compromise in gun control debate”.  The interview with LaPierre starts about 1/4 of the way down.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2013/02/03/capt-mark-kelly-wayne-lapierre-chances-compromise-gun-control-debate

    • Gregg Smith

      I think his journalistic standing is pretty high already. I’m not surprised at all. IMO Fox has the best Sunday show. It wasn’t always so clear. I admired Tim Russert a lot. David Gregory is no Tim Russert. This Week Needs David Brinkley… as Rush says. David Brinkley set the standard. Those were the days. Tony Snow got Fox going and deserves a mention too. HE was great. Schieffer? I never have been a fan.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Thank you for posting this.  It is not surprising that the media elites are fawning over Wallace’s bullying of the NRA dude.  It isn’t surprising given Wallace’s biased performance.  The weakest moment was when Wallace attempted the ‘gotcha’ over LaPierre’s private security.   Unfortunately for Wallace he made himself look like a fool.  His argument made no logical sense. At least he’ll still get invited to the beltway cocktail parties.

      • pete18

         I disagree, I think it was a fair question for Wallace to ask and that he’s generally a pretty honest broker, usually giving tough questions to both sides. However, I don’t think it was much of a “gotcha’.” All he established was that not all people
        who have armed guards or send their kids to special schools are elitists and that the President’s kids are more likely to be targeted than other children These are minor points. They don’t dilute LaPierre’s main argument on the hypocrisy of the some of the gun control advocates when it comes to the use of guns for self-defense or their children at school.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I agree with you that Wallace is generally fair.  My issue was Wallace implying LaPierre was a hypocrite for having private security.  Wallace’s argument made no logical sense because LaPierre is FOR security — private or personal.  Also, Wallace repeatedly brought up the recent Navy Seal shooting.  While tragic, I don’t see how the Navy Seal shooting is related to the gun control debate.  It was simply a device to tug at the viewers emotions.

          Let’s see, the interview was 15 minutes and I only had issue with Wallace on those two points (but they were really unnecessary).  The rest of the interview was fine — so maybe I was too hard on ole Chris.

          • hennorama

            WorriedfortheCountry – how can you possibly type ” I don’t see how the Navy Seal shooting is related to the gun control debate”?

            Chris Kyle was a highly trained and highly effective former Navy SEAL sniper, who served four tours of duty in Iraq.  He and his his friend Chad Littlefield were shot and killed, apparently by former Marine Eddie Ray Routh at a Texas shooting range.

            Kyle survived four tours in Iraq, then gets shot and killed back home, at a shooting range, and you don’t see how this “is related to the gun control debate?”  You need to get your visual and mental acuities examined if that is the case.

            If such a highly trained individual, who clearly understands the lethality of firearms and who likely was armed himself, was at a place where firearms are used regularly and thus was aware of the potential for danger, cannot be safe from being shot and killed by someone using a firearm, what hope can there be for anyone else to feel free from potential harm via firearms?

            Obviously the example of the deaths of Kyle and Littlefield are relevant to the debate, as are the other 1514 or more US deaths via firearms that have happened since the Newtown Massacre.

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

          • Gregg Smith

            I agree with WFTC, where’s the relevance? You actually seem to be saying guns can’t save lives or Kyle would be alive. That’s absurd. Maybe you could clarify to WFTC.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I don’t believe you made your case.  So what remedy do you propose that could of prevented Chris Kyle’s tragic death?  None of the proposals I’ve heard in this latest debate would have prevented his death.

            How about all the gun violence in Chicago — via illegal guns used by gangs?  There are far more deaths by gang violence than by Newtown type tragedies yet the politicians seem to have no interest in solving inner city violence.  Since minorities are usually involved in the inner city violence — perhaps the politicians are racist.

          • hennorama

            WorriedfortheCountry – every single firearms death in the US “is related to the gun control debate.”

            The circumstances involved in the Kyle and Littlefield deaths are not all known at this time, but there are reports that the alleged murderer, Eddie Ray Routh, had mental health issues, and that this was known by numerous parties prior to these murders.

            At the time of my post, it had already been reported that Kyle’s non-profit, FITCO Cares, was working with veterans who had emotional and physical issues. It had also been reported that the alleged murderer had PTSD issues. There are further reports today that Routh “had been taken to a mental hospital twice in recent months and told authorities he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, according to police records.”

            Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/eddie-ray-routh-ptsd-suspect-chris-kyle-murder_n_2621764.html

            It is indisputable that preventing those with mental health issues from having easy access to firearms “is related to the gun control debate.”

            It’s also indisputable that a highly trained former Navy SEAL, who was likely armed himself, is far better equipped than the average firearms owner or any average American to prevent someone from murdering him with any type of weapon, including a firearm.

            Of course these deaths are relevant to the debate.

            Texas prohibits firearms possession by a person who is subject to certain family violence orders. Routh had a history of family arguments. From the same article quoted above, prior to Routh being taken to a mental hospital last September, he had been arguing with his parents and threatening his father:

            “Routh’s mother told police her son had been drinking and became upset when his father said he was going to sell his gun. She said Routh began arguing with them and said he was going to “blow his brains out.”

            Given that Routh’s mental health issues were reportedly known by health care providers and law enforcement, one would expect that Routh’s firearms (assuming he had any) would potentially be subject to confiscation.

            Of course these deaths are relevant to the debate. To deny this is absurd.

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

          what average person has armed guards?i can’t afford 24 hour bodyguards so i have to protect myself,by myself, like most americans

      • hennorama

        WorriedfortheCountry – TY for your response, and you’re welcome. I respect your views.

        Characterizing Chris Wallace’s interview of Wayne LaPierre as “bullying of the NRA dude” and “Wallace’s biased performance” is a bit much, IMO. All of Mr. Wallace’s questions to Mr. LaPierre were fair game. None of Wallace’s questions could possibly have been a surprise to LaPierre.

        Wallace asked about universal background checks and whether they would make a difference, pointing out that “since 1999, 1.7 million people have failed background checks” even though the cehcks are not universal. Wallace asked whether LaPierre was for universal checks. He asked about the photo of Pres. Obama firing a shotgun. He asked about the murder of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who was ” gunned down at a Texas gun range.”

        He asked if LaPierre thought “that that is a more serious threat, marauding bands of Americans during a hurricane or a tornado, do you think that’s a more serious threat to the average American than the steady drum beat of gun violence and sometimes mass gun violence?”

        And so on and so on. He was challenging LaPierre’s prior statements and positions, as well as his repsonses during the interview, all of which is standard journalistic practice. LaPierre was evasive and combative and tried to avoid answering Wallace’s questions directly, often changing the subject. Wallace pointed this out, and continued to challenge LaPierre, and allowed LaPierre considerable time to answer and editorialize.

        It’s difficult to view this as “bullying” or “biased” unless one views LaPierre as a saint.

    • JGC

      WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”

      “Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over 200 politicians in his personal collection.  ”Everyone hears about the bad guys in COngress.  Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote.  I’m proud to be owner of many of those guys.”

      Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate…”Right now a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants.  There’s no background check, no waiting period.  And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

      In addition to limiting the sale of politicians, Ms. Foyler said it is time for society to look at the “sheer number” of politicians in the U.S.:  ”There is no doubt that we would be safer if there were fewer of them.” 

      • hennorama

        JGC – TY for bringing this to my attention. I don’t follow Borowitz very much, but I do find his satire both amusing and on target (pun intended) in this case. His use of fake news stories is similar to both The Onion and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, both of which I find uproariously funny.

        Thanks eversomuch for sharing.

  • Gregg Smith

    I thought Beyonce’s halftime show was impressive. It’s hard not to be impressed by a spectacle such as that. The musicianship, choreography and “kick it when it counts quotient” delivered big time. I don’t think she lip synced, don’t care.

    I don’t know, I like melody. I’m a codger. I like to be able to whistle it and still capture the essence. I liked the year Paul McCartney did it. He just rocked, that’s all. The Who took full advantage. Loud, in your face and old school. I wasn’t even ready for that one. I’ve always regretted not going to see them when I had the chance. It was the 11th grade.

    I went to one, Super Bowl III. I was 9 and I remember the half time show even more than the game. There were marching bands and two giant parade float statues of Namath and Unitas.

    No point really, just wondering who liked which half time shows best… or if anyone has any Super Bowl stories… it seems appropriate about now.

    • JGC

      My husband and teenage sons were studying Beyonce’s halftime show veerrrry carefully for signs of lip syncing – at least that’s what they told me they were watching…

      • Gregg Smith

        God bless their diligence.

        • JGC

          !!!

          • Ray in VT

            I didn’t see the performance, but I’ve been carefully inspecting the stills that I’ve seen online.  Very interesting stuff.

  • Steve__T

    ” So before you ‘go out’ guns a blazin’, or decide to pull off a McVeigh
    type act because of some distorted view you picked up from right wing
    “news” ”

    You call me Paranoid? You don’t know me.

     ”The Declaration of Independence isn’t legal document and can’t be cited as precedent or as being binding in court. ”

    So is that why we had to fight for Our independence?
    “Purpose of Declaration was to  provide moral grounds for dissolving legal ties between us and England.”

    Don’t you mean Governmental ties?
    And if it were legal ties, why wouldn’t it be considered a legal Document?

    I don’t own an AW or a gun clip that has a capacity over 7 rounds. I don’t have a problem with existing gun laws.
    Those need to be enforced, before tacking on more laws that can become ambiguous, restricting the rights of ordinary citizens.

    • Fredlinskip

      Steve
      You  said “As this Government is just a step away from being Great Brittan, I’ll keep my Gun and my rights thank you.”
       I used word paranoid, because you implied someone was after “your gun”.
      Apparently a large percentage of owners seem to be “up in arms”, because they think “gov is coming for their guns”. And NRA play on this fear to raise $ and fight against common sense legislation.
         No one is coming after anyone’s guns. No one is proposing such a thing. Maybe there are a couple of Congressmen WAY on fringe suggesting something like that, as on other end of spectrum a few are suggesting bulletproof glass and armed security in ALL schools- these folks are NOT getting their way. (I sure wouldn’t want to be the one coming after someone’s legally purchased weapon).
        You’re right, Declaration is “interesting document to take a look at” and I appreciate you doing so, but I don’t BELIEVE Declaration is legal document so as to be used as precedent in court. If you have evidence to contrary, let me know.
       
        “a step away from Britain” is a stretch as well. If you are suggesting we are becoming aristocracy as was case at the time- there’s truth there, but Monarchy we’re not.

          My Great concern is that there seem to be a lot of folks that have come to believe that Constitution granted the right of gun ownership so as to counter “tyrannical gov”. This is DANGEROUS interpretation. At best it justifies that they stock up on all the “latest and greatest” multi-round weapons in case “gov comes a’callin” (which apparently lots of folks are doing). AS such this brings more of these weapons in circulation, and increases chance some will eventually find way into “wrong” hands. **Largely BECAUSE of a misreading of our Constitution.
        At worst some of these folks may decide, either 1)  “Gee, govs got helicopters and stuff- need get some illegal weapons as well”, OR 2) because there is a thin line between “protecting oneself from tyrannical Gov” and becoming “hostile to (alleged) tyrannical Gov, SOME of these folks might get a notion to put some of these weapons to use and go on offensive.
      Those two reasons are why I believe it’s REAL important to DISABUSE anyone with the notion that Constitution somehow grants right to “bear arms” in case they need “defend their liberty from Gov abuse”. It doesn’t.
       There is NOTHING in constitution or BofR to that effect.

      • Gregg Smith

        Cuomo said confiscation may be necessary.

        • Ray in VT

          Are you referring to the December 21st interview where he said  “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be
          an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”?

          This is what he actually proposed in his State of the State Address on January 9th:

          Number 1: Enact the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation period.

           

          Number 2: Close the private sale loophole by requiring federal background checks.

           

          Number 3: Ban high-capacity magazines.

           

          Number 4: Enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns on school grounds and violent gangs.

           

          Number 5: Keep guns from people who are mentally ill.

           

          Number 6: Ban direct internet sales of ammunition in New York.

           

          Number 7: Create a State NICS check on all ammunition purchases.

          And the NY SAFE Act does provide for one instance in which firearms may be confiscated, namely when a mental health professional reports to police that they believe a patient to be a threat to themselves or others.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yea that’s the one. It’s on the radar is my point. It’s not a crazy notion despite the creepy feeling I get when  I say so. 

          • Ray in VT

            I think that it is a crazy notion, and I am surprised that an official in a state with such a large rural population would use that phrase, even if it was maybe just once in a radio interview.  My main point, of course, was that no such thing was proposed or enacted.

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s just on the radar, that’s all. Progressives take their time.

          • Ray in VT

            I know.  They’ve been taking us on the long road to socialism since 1933.  They sure are patient.

            So is getting rid of contraception also on the radar? Rick Santorum criticized it for allowing people to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t, as well as criticizing the Supreme Court ruling that legalized it.

          • Gregg Smith

            Santorum has a record.

            We are not there yet but taking over 1/6th of the economy with Obamacare is a move in the direction. Single payer is coming. Installing a government CEO and running GM is a move towards it. Half the country receiving money from the other half (No, not your dad) is a move in the direction of Socialism. 

            I’m willing to take the heat for the claim. I’m not alone.

          • Ray in VT

            The ACA isn’t a government takeover of healthcare, and, quite frankly, pretty much every other first world nation seems to have had a pretty good experience with national health care.  Largely they have attained better results for less money.  Seems like a win-win to me.  My company would save thousands per year per employee based upon our for CEO’s work looking into it.  The government is getting out of GM, and besides, doesn’t that guy from Forbes say that they’re heading towards bankruptcy again anyways, except for the fact that they are billions in the black.  Which half is receiving money?  The 47% who aren’t paying federal income taxes?  Median income has fallen almost every year since 2001, while at the same time the share of the economy owned or controlled by the wealthiest among is has steadily risen.  It certainly seems to me that we’re looking more at plutocracy than socialism, and laissez-faire and trickle down certainly deserve a lot of the blame for this.  No, you’re not along in your position, but many of the policy positions that you advocate from time to time are certainly not widely popular.

          • Gregg Smith

            .

          • Gregg Smith

            I strongly disagree. ACA is a takeover. It’s designed to end private health care. Look at the fines and the 20K costs per family. The camel’s nose is under the tent. I honestly fear for our country. I do think it is being fundamentally transformed.

      • Steve__T
        • Fredlinskip

          Is it legal in that we are separated from England. Yes. (Some Brits might disagree).

          Can it be used as precedent in court of law Don’t believe so. 

          Your most authoritative. link, legal- dictionary:
          “Although the D of I stands with the Constitution as a founding document of U.S., its position in U.S. law is much less certain than Constitution. The Declaration has been recognized as the founding act of law establishing the United States as a sovereign and independent nation, and Congress has placed it at the beginning of the U.S. Code, under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.” The Supreme Court, however, has generally not considered it a part of the organic law of the country. For example, although the Declaration mentions a right to rebellion, this right, particularly with regard to violent rebellion, has not been recognized by the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government. *The most notable failure to uphold this right occurred when the Union put down the rebellion by the Southern Confederacy in the Civil War.…..In this way, the Declaration of Independence remains the most outstanding example of the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of U.S. law

          • Steve__T

            I Respectfully disagree, your honor.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
            alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

            Ever since their creation, these ideas have guided the development of U.S. government, including the creation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The concepts of equal and inalienable rights for all, limited government, popular consent, and freedom to rebel have had a lasting effect on U.S. law and politics.

          • Fredlinskip

               Seeing as you claim we are currently on verge of tyranny, I would again respectfully  remind you sir, that if you act on your delusional belief in an attempt to overthrow our government, the Declaration of Independence is not going to help you in a court of law.    It didn’t help McVeigh. It didn’t help those in Shay’s Rebellion (a revolt against alleged tyrannical Gov right around the the time of Constitutional Convention). 
                D of R would be more relevant in an English court, discussing the legality of our secession from them, as it is mostly about a list of grievances as it relates to English law. 

          • Steve__T

             Delusional? I love this Country, I don’t love where its going or what it has become. I want no part of whats to come. I plan to head to the hills. But when you wake up to the truth, I hope you know how to survive.

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

    um, a govt of by and for the people? i will assume you support gun control (i apologise if i am wrong in that assumption) Stop letting yourself be ruled by your fears!

    • fmpro

      Yes, I’m very much in favor of gun control.  I fear real things like gun nuts shooting up schools and movie theaters.  That’s not being ruled by fear…that’s being pro-active.  You know you’re ruled by fear when you fear such imaginary things as mythical tyranny in the United States.

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

        yeah what are the chances of being killed in a mass shooting? pretty slim. 
        The National Weather Service publication Storm Data recorded a total of 449 deaths from lightning strikes between 1998 and 2008. According to the National Weather Service, lightning causes an average of 62 deaths and 300 injuries in the United States each yearwow looks like you are waaaay more likely to be hit by lightning. better stay inside

         ”it can’t happen here” famous last words.  what is a “gun nut”?

        • fmpro

          You’re really comparing acts of nature to guns?  We have no choice.  Nature is nature and will do what it will do.  We do have a choice about what and how guns will be available.  We can choose to minimize the completely needless deaths they facilitate.  A gun nut is someone who thinks the threat of an imaginery dictatorship is more important than the actual lives of children.

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

            you are calling others “nuts” but you are wasting energy being afraid of something less likely to happen to you than being struck by lightning which is famous for being very unlikely. Any you think that threat is so great we need to relinquish our liberty for it?
            Dictatorships are imaginary? Millions of people live in dictatorship currently. I challenge you to find a dictator that is not in favor of gun control. Chavez banned them just last year.

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

    so legal citizens are now considered insurgents? only a tyranny fears its people

    • fmpro

      They are if their intention is to over-throw the government.  They would also be law-breakers making their activity illegal.

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

        if anyone is plotting to overthrow the legitimate govt that is a crime. 

  • Michele

    Just listening to the podcast today.  The whole idea that we don’t need gun reform is ridiculous.  Arming women, no criminals will go through background checks, etc.  May I remind those with these twisted ideas that it was a woman who legally owned the guns used in Newtown.

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

      did she just say it was crazy for women to own guns?

  • fmpro

    But if you decide the government is not legitimate, then it’s not?  What criteria would you use?  Our current government was elected by a democratic majority.  Would that make it legitimate in your eyes?

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

      what if there was a coup? why do you think we have not had one?

  • Fredlinskip

    “If safety was about more guns, America would be safest nation on the planet”- Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, 2/4/13, PBS news

    • anamaria23

      There are 88 guns for every 100 people in USA which accounts for 80 % of  all gun homicides among civilized countries and 20 times  greater than Switzerland at number 3 and 87% of gun deaths of children under fifteen  (ABC news Bill Weir;  Gun Deaths a Familiar Experience) 2012

      • Gregg Smith

        It is my understanding that Switzerland is armed to the teeth, including assault weapons. Could that be why the homicide rate is so low? Could it be why they have the lower crime rate in the world?

        • Fredlinskip

          no, it couldn’t.

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

            why?

          • Fredlinskip

            If I told you, 
            I’d have to shoot you.

            See Ray’s article for some perspective.

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

            you mean you havent dropped your gun off at the buy back yet?

        • Ray in VT

          Here’s a bit of their perspective on the differences:

          http://www.theworld.org/2013/01/swiss-worry-about-americanization-of-gun-debate/

          • Gregg Smith

            Thanks Ray, that was very interesting. I do think the Swiss model shows more guns do not equal more gun violence but that claim is quite timid given the evidence. I also see the “one big difference”, both in a practical and philosophical sense. Duly noted.

            I admire the Swiss. They reek quality. Swiss watches, Swiss Chocolate, Swiss Banks, Swiss Cheese… etc.

      • hennorama

        We’re #1?  American exceptionalism indeed.

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

        so how can we arm the other 12? maybe we should have gun control more like switzerland. govt subsidised ammo for all!

  • Fredlinskip

    U.S has 2 times ownership rate  & about 2 times gun- related death rate as Switzerland
    US has nearly 3 times O.R.    &   3 times      GRDR   as Sweden
    U.S. has nearly 3 times O.R.   &   7 times     GRDR  as France
    U.S. has 3X  O.R.        &        >5 times      GRDR as Canada
    US has   3X  O.R.        &         >9X           GRDR as Germany
    US has nearly 6X         &          >10X       GRDR as Australia
    US has over 100X O.R.  &         >100 X      GRDR as Japan

    There seems to be some kind of pattern here.
    These countries need get with program and get some more guns, they’re not keeping up and killing themselves ANYWHERE NEAR enough

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

      how about mexico?

      • Fredlinskip

        Their gun-related death rate is a bit higher and I say
         that’s a national disgrace!Let’s get us some more guns.

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

          they have extremely strong gun control. so if we follow suit maybe we can keep up with their murder rate.

      • Gregg Smith

        I’m heading there next week.

  • Gregg Smith
    • jimino

      Having you evaluate the substance of anything said by Ted Nugent would be (to coin one of his phrases) like having Jeffrey Dahmer critique how we take care of our children.

      I thought he promised to be dead or in jail by now.  What happened?

      • Gregg Smith

        I found his pointing out the devious flaw in the 100K/year figure to be completely relevant to the debate. I thought he made several good key points. What did he get wrong?

        I mean, I expect Jefe to say something nasty about me in lieu of a cogent counter-argument but I figured you’d at least try.

        • jimino

          I’m just using his language and method of communication that you obviously find so persuasive.

          So why isn’t he dead or in jail as he promised?

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s his points and logic that I find persuasive but no one seems to want to go there.

          • jefe68

            Wait a minute. So when I reply that Ted Nugent defines you and you say it’s an insult, how does that work into this last comment? 

            Well, I can see my impression and view point about Nugent fans when I was 14 still holds true today.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dude, you can’t insult me. I don’t care.

          • jefe68

            The why bother responding in such inane ways?

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s my question to you… sparkey.

        • jefe68

          Nasty? Your comments define your point of view. That’s pretty clear to me. That you find that kind of observation to be insulting, well that also says a lot about your mindset. 

           Ted Nugent is an idiot and mediocre musician. I never liked him when I was 14 and I still have the same viewpoint on his fans that I had then, which I loathed it and them. 

          If you don’t like people like me coming to those conclusions stop posting. Or at least try to use some thought. There is no counter argument to Ted Nugent, none. 
          He’s not interested in having a dialogue with anyone. But that’s fine, it’s his choice and right to be who he is. It’s also mine to raise up and tell people who post his type of garbage that’s what I think of him and by proxy, you.

          His ideology is repugnant to me on all levels.. It’s extremist and out to lunch.

          You posted the link, and now when people start to call you on it you get all testy.

          That’s how you roll and it’s so easy to wind you up like some coo coo clock.

          I thought you were leaving?

          • Gregg Smith

            And still no substance, why reply?

          • jefe68

            No substance? So in your messed up world Ted Nugent is normal? 

            The substance of my comment is that Nugent is an extremist and his viewpoints on guns reflect that mindset.  
            Do you get that sparky?

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

        ted does know a lot about guns. much more than our president who does not even have the correct terminology to discuss them with.  it would be more like asking jeff dahmer about how to kill and eat children, you may not like him but you do have to accept he knows what he is talking about

    • jefe68

      That you post this kind of nonsense is indicative of who you are, are you aware of that?

  • Gregg Smith

    Bush waterboarded only three victims, Leon Panetta says it led to the killing of Bin Laden. It was looked at by the lawyers and debates by Congressional leaders. Now we learn Obama can snuff out Americans with one person’s okay. And nary a peep. Its disgusting.

    • pete18

       That’s because those critiques of Bush were not born of principles but of politics.

      Victor David Hanson sums this up rather nicely in a recent op-ed:

      “If an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent and the economy shrinking by 0.01
      percent a year — with a fifth consecutive $1 trillion annual deficit —
      are indicators of recovery, what would the old 5 percent unemployment, 4
      percent growth in GDP, and $300 billion annual deficits mean? Or do the
      meaning of words and the nature of “facts” depend on who is in the
      White House at the time, or rather on whether the president is trying to
      make us more equal or to enrich the 1 percent?
      At key points, whole controversies vanish without a trace. Suddenly,
      about four years ago, Guantanamo was no longer a gulag. Then it became
      no longer much of anything — in the manner that renditions, preventive
      detention, tribunals, and drone assassinations likewise disappeared from
      public discourse even as they became institutionalized.”

       ”Whether the president is responsible for the economy depends on the
      circumstances. Bush did nothing to improve the economy between 2001 and
      September 2008. But he is responsible for the bad economy from September
      2008 to January 2013. Neither house of Congress has any real
      responsibility for our economic fate, so between 2007 and 2011 both were
      irrelevant. But one house of Congress does sometimes. So starting in
      2011 the House of Representatives in two years caused the mess we’re in
      now, in a way that the Senate and House had not in the four previous
      years.”

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339789/new-age-falsity-victor-davis-hanson?pg=1

      • Gregg Smith

        I would be great if a liberal could comment substantively on that but it’ll never happen.

      • jimino

        You ask “what would the old 5 percent unemployment, 4 percent growth in GDP, and $300 billion annual deficits mean?”  

        It would mean that our economy was being falsely propped up by an unsustainable housing and credit bubble that, when it popped, destroyed over $8 trillion in primarily middle class assets, leaving millions underwater on what they owed, and led to the worst economic downturn in close to a century.

        But is was sure good while it lasted, wasn’t it?

        • pete18

           Then I’m assuming to be consistent you would also say the thriving economy under Clinton was one that was falsely propped up by an unsustainable dot-com bubbly that when it popped destroyed trillions of dollars of middle class assets? Yes?

          • jimino

            I don’t equate losing the paper value of ones Pets.com stock, which one has not gone into debt to purchase, to losing half the value of my home on which I now owe more than its market value.  Not to mention the drastically more significant job loss in the more recent recession.

            They were both bubbles, but it’s a matter of degree.  Kind of like the economy being “sick.” One was a cold.  The other cancer. 

            Do you really see no difference in the two?

          • pete18

            Now you’re being disingenuous. As you well know, the stock market lost trillions of dollars in value during the Dotcom crash and
            large amounts of people lost their savings, retirement pensions and jobs because of it.

             I’m happy to continue debating the Bush economy, with you or the differences between the two crashes but that’s not really the issue. The
            point made by myself, Greg, and Victor Hanson is that there are no consistent principles or measures used by the left when discussing the economy or war. Words don’t mean anything. Enhanced interrogation is a war crime when a republican is in office, killing an American citizen, without due process, using a drone is a moral necessity of war when it’s done by a democrat.

            A great economy and low unemployment is considered
            a “jobless recovery” brought on by a bubble when it’s delivered by a Republican
            but a good economy that was influenced by a bubble under a democrat is an argument for the effectiveness of higher taxes.

            A president who has increased the deficit dramatically during his four years in office after demonizing his predecessor as being “unpatriotic” for far lower debt and deficits, is allowed to blame the depth of a “unexpectedly” bad economy for his actions. Of course he knew full well how bad it was when seeking office.

            He also hasn’t done anything to improve the horrible unemployment rate, but is able to get away with blaming everyone else for the failures of his presidency because he has “good intentions.” For Republicans the buck has to stop at their desk, for democrats, the desk gets moved wherever it’s convient.

            Certainly the right also indulges in inconsistent principles in certain areas but I have never seen such blatant, hypocritical moral preening and excuse making
            by and in defense of the current holder of the oval office.

    • jimino

      That isn’t what Panetta said, but these are significant issues that will affect our efforts to fight non-state actors, which is obviously where our main threats emanate and the way things are going to be for the foreseeable future.

      Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden had been a US  citizen we would have had no right to kill him as we did?

      • Gregg Smith

        I’m saying it’s a dangerous world and deep dark weighty decisions must be made. Obama made a mockery of that notion by demonizing Bush over Gitmo, Military Tribunals and enhanced interrogation. Bin Laden was not a US citizen but Awlaki and his 16 year old son were. It may have been righteous to assassinate them but it has been leaked that all it takes is one man’s judgement and Americans can be snuffed out. That’s alarming, but Obama can get away with it.

  • Duras

    You just won’t engage the fact that laws curtail availability of powerful weapons and lots of amo.

    Yes, I am willing to take away assault weapons and high capacity magazines to save at least one life.  Because I hold human life at a greater value than the value of some people having weapons that are beyond what is necessary for self-defense, especially since they can still fire assault weapons within the confines of gun clubs.

    This is ultimately what you value: unnecessary property or human life. 

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

      because it is not a fact. its wishful thinking.
      so should we apply that standard to other things or just firearms? how  bout nightclubs by your logic we should “take away” nightclubs because they kill hundreds of people and are not necessary? we could say that about any number of things so what else should we ban and confiscate” to save at least one life”? a man was killed here recently when he was struck in the head with a propane tank. by your logic a propane tank ban would have prevented that death. do you really think that would work? how did you become such an expert on self defense with firearms to determine whats necessary? were you the guy who used the term “double-barrow shoot gun” or was that someone else? do you even have a definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon” or a “high capicity magazine”? I value not attempting foolishly to trade our hard fought (thousands of human sacraficed their lives to get our rights) liberty for the illusion of a little security.
      (just for fun what is “lots of amo(ammo)”? how many rounds is “lots”)

  • Duras

     You are now arguing in circles.  Nor do you engage the fact that the weapons of the mass shootings were purchased legally and it is highly foreseeable that Adam Lanza would have had to use a hand gun instead of an assault weapon if there was a ban in place.  But you won’t engage that as well you.  I’m not talking about gun violence at large and you continue to go there: I’m just talking about mass shootings and how to mitigate them.

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

      right you are ignoring the larger issue. on the smaller issue there is no evidence that adam lanza would not have aquired the same weapon either illegally or just used another weapon like you said. do you really think he could have not done the same thing with a pistol? really?
       i cant see any way these laws would have mitigated the CT shooting at all.

      • anamaria23

        If The shooter at Sandy Hook could have killed 26 people in seconds with a pistol   why does anyone need an assault rifle?  Oh, you may need it to mow down the US Government, right?  Good luck with that. 

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

          the question of “need”  is often raised though its quite irrelevent. no one “needs” anything but food water and air.
          why do the police “need” an “assault rifle”(whatever that means) to “mow down” the people of the united states? you never saw red dawn?

          • Gregg Smith

            And the DHS is trying to buy 7000 of them for “personal Protection”.

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

            havent various federal agencies bought over 1.5 billion rounds of .223 recently?

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 24, 2014
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, left, talks with Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Covina at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Monday, April 21, 2014. Hernandez proposed a constitutional amendment that would ask voters to again allow public colleges to use race and ethnicity when considering college applicants. The proposal stalled this year after backlash from Asian Americans. (AP)

California as Exhibit A for what happens when a state bans affirmative action in college admissions. We’ll look at race, college and California.

Apr 24, 2014
A Buddhist monk lights the funeral pyre of Nepalese mountaineer Ang Kaji Sherpa, killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest, during his funeral ceremony in Katmandu, Nepal, Monday, April 21, 2014.  (AP)

A Sherpa boycott on Everest after a deadly avalanche. We’ll look at climbing, culture, life, death and money at the top of the world.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 23, 2014
Attendees of the 2013 Argentina International Coaching Federation meet for networking and coaching training. (ICF)

The booming business of life coaches. Everybody seems to have one these days. Therapists are feeling the pinch. We look at the life coach craze.

 
Apr 23, 2014
In this Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012, file photo, Chet Kanojia, founder and CEO of Aereo, Inc., shows a tablet displaying his company's technology, in New York. Aereo is one of several startups created to deliver traditional media over the Internet without licensing agreements. (AP)

The Supreme Court looks at Aereo, the little startup that could cut your cable cord and up-end TV as we’ve known it. We look at the battle. Plus: a state ban on affirmative action in college admissions is upheld. We’ll examine the implications.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment