President Obama reveals his gun proposals today.
House Republicans are to decide their debt-ceiling strategy at their annual retreat.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is reportedly stepping down.
Pelosi: Boehner has spent $3 million to defend DOMA.
The Pentagon won't fight a military spouses' group's exclusion of a lesbian wife.
7 House seats the GOP thinks it can flip.
Crews begin construction of the spire on top of One World Trade Center.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Media not unscathed by week's scandal frenzy
Video: Russian spy games conducted with theatrical flourish
Video: New conditions open possible move of Yemenis from Guantanamo
Video: Series of heists sets the mood for mystery
Video: Word nerds issue call for etymological help
Video: What tonight’s show is all about
Video: American ingenuity sometimes the best steward of freedom
Leave a Comment:
I'm amazed this morning at the hullaballoo over the NRA criticizing the left's desire to take away guns, while the President and his family are surrounded by guns. That's a serious hypocrisy, and just another reason for the citizenry to be armed. This is how despotism starts.
Re: #1
The President and his family are "surrounded by guns" because, as Joe Scarborough just said, they have "targets on the backs".
This is NOT how despotism starts. This is how we keep another president from being assassinated.
And I'm amazed that you're still so ignorant that you think they want to take your guns away. Are a few extra regulations on killing weapons such a bad thing? Right now it's easier to get a gun than for a patient with a prescription to get his ADD meds.
If you're so pro gun, what's your suggestion to curb the 30,000+ yearly deaths by gun violence, genius?
This isn't how despotism starts ... it's how we protect our president from people who are scared out of their mind someone is going to take their guns. They are exactly the kind of people who would try to take a shot.
I recall a group of armed citizenry tried to take on the federal government in 1861. That didn't turn out so well for them.
On the other hand, our history is full of groups who took on local governments, state governments, and the federal government over issues such as civil rights, labor rights, clean environment, and expanding suffrage (just to name a few), using political action and other non-violent means.
Last I checked, those groups have had a lot better track record than the ones who instigated, or tried to instigate, armed insurrection.
I applaud the NRA for framing the discussion about guns in a way that makes gun possession the only guarantor for the survival of democracy... The culprits of propagating this idea are Republicans and (some) Democrats who are paid off by the NRA... The comical idea that is accepted by Americans and has become an assumption underlying the national discourse is the following: if the government turns despotic Americans will be able to stand up to it with revolvers and semi-automatic weapons... However, no one asks the question how would this type of weapons fare against airplanes tanks missiles available to the despotic government?
Second, Who said amendments cannot be repealed? remember Amendment 18?
Finally, to the liberal puss***... yes we want to take away the guns... Why is that so outrageous?
Wrong again shooter; the reason a president needs a security detail for his family, and himself, does not extrapolate your reasoning into meaning that a McDonalds needs a armed security guard with a shotgun! You are the despot of your mind, in the way you think. I have been to Guatemala City, and they do have armed guards at a McDonalds. Is that really how you want to live. Do you sit in your bathroom, in the morning, locked and loaded? Your paranoia runs deep, but your logic doesn't....
Shooter242, you sir are a moron of the first water.
Nobody and Pres. Obama never said take away guns! More scare tactics by the NRA. If we still need guns in America for fear of the government then we have not evolved as humans. No wonder the world is still so violent. As for the use of automatic weapons for sport shooting by the NRA what sport is that exactly?
So far as I'm aware there are virtually no automatic weapons being used for sports shooting. Do you understand what an automatic weapons is?
Eric; you are right, but a semi is just as fast, in a lot of cases. A gun designed as a killing machine, and not for hunting, is still a killing machine. What hunting purpose does a .50 cal serve for hunting; hunting dinosaurs?
I am reading and not very happy that 180 House members voted "Nay" to the Hurricane Sandy Relief package.
Because it didn't happen to them personally...
I haven't looked at the Nay votes yet, but I wonder how many are from the south and fought for Katrina aid.
Shooter, what paranoid delusional fantasy world do you live in? The president is surrounded by people with guns because people like you want to do him harm because you think he wants to take away your guns. Well, he does want to make sure the mentally ill dont have guns so I guess you do have something to worry about.
Shooter thinks he is Wyatt Earp reborn, never mind that all shooter knows about Earp was a bio that fictionalized the OK corral incident, but hey why let facts get in the way of your delusions.
Any action from our leaders would be an improvement from the total silence that usually marks the aftermath of our routine mass shootings in this country. America has been held hostage by the hacks of the NRA for far too long. It is sickening that it had to take the mass murder of first graders for lawmakers and the president to assert their role in protecting citizens, and even then we may not achieve anything of substance thanks to conservative intransigence. The United States stands out as an uncivilized and deadly hotbed of gun violence when compared to other industrialized nations. This must change. - progressive
I'm not sure what you mean by the President asserting his role in protecting citizens. You may not be aware of it but a number of years back the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a legal obligation to protect the citizenry. Essentially that means that people are responsible for their own defence. A disarmed population can defend itself... how? To my mind that creates a nation of potential victims and yes kids in or out of school are included.
These spree shootings are being committed by unbalanced individuals. I don't believe that it is fair to put all citizens at greater risk because of a small number of bad actors.
Except that ruling did nothing but stop police from being sued for not acting fast enough. You are not Wyatt Earp nor is it the 1880's no matter what your delusions tell you.
I Have a Few Things to Say About Life; in America and the understanding of theory v. application or as I call it your fantasy land knee jerk reactions to serious problems.
As far as guns and the continued violence in this country...
Here's just some of the issues here that kind of "kibosh" the idea of banning all gun and going door to door to sweep homes and collect them all. Many more people will die! Not by my hand or voice, but it will happen and you know it will. Also, lots more constitutional violations that run a total muck of the bill of rights.
Here's a fair solution in the same tone that I heard this past election regarding health care. "Do people get sick differently in Alabama than they do in Massachusetts, no" okay???
So back to issues,
Quick breakdown:
Schools need to be safe.
Schools need to be pro forming better.
Inner city schools are troubled.
Teachers are grossly underpaid and under respected.
Teachers are not safe from students in some cases.
Some schools perform better than others, resulting in unfair advantages.
Solution: POTUS emergency action to Draft ALL School District Personelle into the department of Education. Militarize it. I want Guards. The department of the Treasury had the Secret Service. Why not ensure they are safe everywhere, balance the field, elevate teachers, protect our future.
We are doing something wrong and need to reexamine the real problems and not knee jerk gather up all the guns talk.
Do you even know statistics on gun violence with illegal or unknown guns? Common, think first... The more rare they become, the more violence you can create too, you've got to consider that option too.
Sincerely, Christopher-Aaron Felker
to Christopher-Aaron Paul Francis Felker...what a strange mixture of fantasies you present. There is NO, absolutely none - serious discussion of "banning all gun and going door to door to sweep homes and collect them all." but, in your favor, you exhibit a fantastic lack of knowledge of how the government is actually organized so you may have an excuse for the overall idiocy of your post.
Mr. Aron. Once again, you miss the premise. They are going to regulate guns, like you regulate power, or cars. No one called for banning legitimate protection. You just made up a bunch of excuses as to why that should not happen, and it will be on your head, not mine, if something happens, as you just called for armed sedition, and insurrection. You border on sedition, and you had better think about it. Your post wouldn't be so long, and boring, if you cut out your rhetoric, and came up with real ideas, and solutions, not excuses.
Boehner's squandering of taxpayer's money to defend DOMA should be plastered all over the media and social networks. It's flagrant hypocrisy and profligacy at their worst. I wonder how BLAG achieved standing to argue. I also wonder howBoehner was able to spend millions over the objections of Dems if BLAG is supposed to represent the views of the full House.
Republican mentality: Rules for thee are not rules for me.
Republican mentality: Rules for thee are not rules for me.
We need to do whatever we can to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.
But it seems to me that the people screaming loudest about their rights to have whatever guns they want, are maybe the ones that shouldn't have any.
If you want to convince me that these guns can be owned by sensible and responsible people, then don't do it by looking like a stark raving mad lunatic.
Yep when your paranoid and delusional putting a gun in your hands is the worst mistake the government can do. FFS these nit wits believe its 1770 and they can take over the government that they elected because they misread the laws of the land and they dislike not getting what they wanted from the government in their minds someone else got what they were more entitled to, how crazy do you have to be before you can't buy guns.
Re: #8.1
In addition, they - the anti-gun regulations people - seem to think they are all united and in agreement.
From an article on TheGrio:
"During that time [late 1960s], the NRA and conservative politicians such as California Governor Ronald Reagan supported gun control as a means of restoring social order, and getting weapons out of the hands of radical, left-leaning and revolutionary groups, particularly the Black Panther Party."
Or in other words IOKIYAR.
The Pillow Talk Military fights back against Those People!
But then last year it was some big issue that one of the officer's wives didn't want to join the spouse club because she worked.
That's an on-going joke in the military, about the assumption of power by the wives being equal to or greater than that of their uniformed spouses...just know they aren't all this shallow and mean.
The Second Amendment Needs To Be Amended
I have had it with the NRA and the millions of gun lovers citing the second amendment (1791) in regards to the Right to Bear Arms.
In 1791 our weapons were flintlock rifles and pistols that needed to be loaded with black powder and a metal ball. It took many minutes to load the rifle, and was only
capable of firing one shot at a time.
There were three main reasons for the adoption of the second amendment:
*Only a few years earlier, we fought and won the Revolutionary War with England. If the British took back the newly formed country, the Americans would have been put to death for treason.
*Most Americans lived in very rural areas and there were no supermarkets to buy food. They had to hunt for meat to feed their families.
*Our 911 system wasn't working very well at the time.
So, if gun lovers feel the need to protect themselves and their families, if they get a high from killing defenseless animals, or want to go down to the shooting range
to let their friends see their newest toy, I guess that would be their right. But
not without a comprehensive background check, not with a semi-automatic weapon, and not with ammo clips that hold more than six or seven bullets.
I will never understand why the Second Amendment wasn't revised over fifty years ago.
I'm reading this: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/GMO+uproar+in+EU
And this: http://www.panna.org/british-activist-spurs-conversation-ignores-science-ge-crops
A story that Rachel brought up last night could turn hot against Democrats. The fact that a couple of states want to change winner take all electoral college votes, to proportional distribution, could skew a future presidential election, even if the state voted in the majority for a democrat. The gerrymandered red state governments are trying this, even though the state voted a majority of votes for O. I think that the winner should get all of the votes, and this needs a law, or a constitutional amendment. This is not about minority party rights; that happens in the senate. This is about who wins the right, fairly, to win the presidency. I would abolish the electoral college, if we can't get this straight. This is a future shock topic, and it appears to be co-ordianted by the republicant party. Be very afraid.....
The Second Amendment Needs To Be Amended
I have had it with the NRA and the millions of gun lovers citing the second amendment (1791) in regards to the Right to Bear Arms.
In 1791 our weapons were flintlock rifles and pistols that needed to be loaded with black powder and a metal ball. It took many minutes to load the rifle, and was only capable of firing one shot at a time.
There were three main reasons for the adoption of the second amendment:
*Only a few years earlier, we fought and won the Revolutionary War with England. If the British took back the newly formed country, the Americans would have been put to death for treason.
*Most Americans lived in very rural areas and there were no supermarkets to buy food. They had to hunt for meat to feed their families.
*Our 911 system wasn't working very well at the time.
So, if gun lovers feel the need to protect themselves and their families, if they get a high from killing defenseless animals, or want to go down to the shooting range to let their friends see their newest toy,
I guess that would be their right. But not without a comprehensive background check, not with a semi-automatic weapon, and not with ammo clips that hold more than six or seven bullets.
I will never understand why the Second Amendment wasn't revised over fifty years ago.
looking forward to hearing the plan, and Rachel's commentary on it tonight.
Let's role the gun laws back to 1791 when the 2nd amendment was ratified. Provided we only use the same single-shot, manually loaded rifles, muskets and pistols that were in use then. I can protect myself from the vicious bunnies in my backyard.