President Obama writes an Op-Ed on guns for a Connecticut newspaper.
Sen. Harry Reid promises to bring gun legislation to the Senate floor.
Sen. Rand Paul pledges to "nullify" the President's executive actions on guns.
What filibuster reform might look like next week.
A Freshman Congresswoman hires immigration activist Erika Andiola.
FL Gov. Rick Scott distances himself from the law he signed that cut down on early voting.
An Algerian official tells the AP that 20 foreign hostages, including Americans, have escaped.
Leave a Comment:
Rand Paul is a misogynistic, hateful, scumbag weasel.
I'm not sure what you are saying, your statement is so vague :p
Sprint, I'll try to be clearer next time. ;)
Obama's proposals would also ban any gun with a magazine and 1 military style feature. Does this mean that a pistol could no longer have a Picatinny rail?
Don't know what a Picatinny rail is? Developed for the military, picatinny rails are a standard that allows any number of accessories to be attached to a firearm. For instance, a laser sight, or a light designed to illuminate a dark room or confuse and disorientate an intruder.
If using a gun for self defense, a laser sight is so accurate, that it virtually eliminates stray bullets, guaranteeing you to hit your target. So, I'm not allowed to put a light or laser sight on my gun now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picatinny_rail
If using a gun for self defense, a laser sight is so accurate, that it virtually eliminates stray bullets, guaranteeing you to hit your target. So, I'm not allowed to put a light or laser sight on my gun now?
Wow - You don't even need to have any training at all - Bullets automatically hit the bad guys!
Actually, I'm joking. I can see why you'd need a laser sight to hit a small moving object....Like a kid.
Perhaps the key phrase is
The job of the military is not to hunt for deer, or to blow the nuts off of little squirrels. It's the job of the military to kill lots of people.
And if you think any kind of sight will
you're delusional.
...Developed for the military
Know what else was developed for the military? Surface to air missiles. So you can harvest your deer in bite-sized pieces.
This is why gun control is hard - or any legislation for that matter - there's always minutiae that needs to be negotiated. I think we can all see why semi-automatic assault weapons are inappropriate for home defense - but I'll concede that even as a pro-gun-control liberal that there's a point to be made that the attachment of a laser sight to a gun is a relativly benign thing and probably shouldn't be affected by such restrictions.
So here's what we both do: Don't Panic. Remind ourselves that this is a process, don't take it personally, and encourage our lawmakers to do the same. This is a process, and there's endless opportunity to refine the laws, even after passage, so let's devote ourselves to that.
That is a good question. One that needs to be answered. Sadly given the responses so far, it is clear you won't find answers or rational discussion on this issue on Maddowblog. MSNBC is driving this issue as hard as Fox News drives any of its pet rock issues. They know what is going to help their ratings.
The fact that we can't find rational discussion of proposals anywhere is disturbing, but not surprising. We will always have to go to primary sources.
maus_malone posted about the same time I was typing. His is a rational response.
No, Maus (And Ron). This is why gun control is hard - There is always minutiae to be exploited by pro-gun advocates into parsing out and watering down legislation - That is what happened to the assault rifle ban. They drag down the conversation with red herrings to prevent even the simplest, most common sense reforms from getting anywhere.
Less trees. More forest.
And, a correction. My comment that
needs clarification. I should say that "it's the job of the military to, when called upon to do so, kill lots of people". The military does other things, and I wanted to recognize their capabilities. My remark was shallow and one-sided, and I regret that.
Legislators are always called upon to move through the forest tree to tree. To any legislator worth his salt there is nothing unusual about the picatinny rail question. It is one of the questions legislators need to consider. The lights mounted from those rails make it easier for a frightened citizen to his the bad guy. If you are going to allow guns at all, and we are not going to not allow that, then the picatinny rail has to be considered a safety feature.
As I have said before, I don't give a damn what a gun looks like. All I care about is how it functions. The serious proposal in this package is the 10 round magazine limit. That is where the real fight is going to and should happen because nearly every modern full sized semi-auto pistol has more than 10 rounds in thier double tiered magazines.
Ron - I pretty much agree with all you wrote, and I appreciate the detail that our representatives have to deal with. The problem, as I see it, is that we can't get here:
The serious proposal in this package is the 10 round magazine limit. That is where the real fight is going to and should happen
...Because we get stuck on the minutiae that people like Alva bring up...Minutiae that could easily be left for another day. Alva has brought up the pistol issue again and again, through a variety of angles, with the sole purpose of undercutting all serious gun control legislation. It's a red herring.
A lot of things were developed for the military. MRE's were developed for the military. Somehow, I don't think MRE's are going to kill anyone.
But all a picatinny rail does is allow you to attach stuff to your gun. That's all. It helps you aim, or helps you see in the dark with a gun. If someone breaks into my house, wouldn't you prefer that I have a light on the end of my gun so I can see into a dark room? Wouldn't you prefer that I have both hands on my gun instead of holding a flash light with my other hand?
Here, this is what a picatinny rail looks like on a Glock.
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/prail.jpg
Am I allowed to have a little notch on my gun? Pretty, please? It's just a notch. Nothing more than that. Just a little notch.
This is what the notch is used for.
http://viridiangreenlasersales.com/catalog/images/GLOCK_X5L.jpg
See? Nice little laser sight. You could put a light on it too. they even sell laser light combos. Can I have that on my gun so I can better keep myself alive from people who might break into my house and try to kill me? Pretty, please, can I just have a little notch on my gun? That's not too much to ask, is it?
Oh god no!!! Too Scary, scary!!
Conservative lawmakers and politicians across the country are placing the interests of their own party and their own sick and twisted ideology above the safety and protection of innocent Americans and innocent children. I don't know if these hacks really think they are winning support from the majority of the nation with such unhinged language in support of all guns, all the time, but this strategy is clearly not working. Most Americans want tighter gun regulations and want common sense reforms that will stop these mass killings. If Alex Jones or Rand Paul or any other far-right personality -- all a tiny minority of public opinion -- can't take it, they are free to leave the country immediately. - progressive
Why is it "undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal immigrant? That's just wrong. They came here illegally as opposed to everyone else and yet they get all this courtesy. It's a slap in the face to those who OBEY rules and shouldn't be "politically correct"!
If you grant a psychotic the validity of his delusion's major premise, the rest of the delusion becomes logical and normal. In this sense, Rand Paul is correct. The President's constitutional powers are set out in Article II, and with a few exceptions (war, national defense, etc) presidential powers are constitutionally circumscribed. That having been said, the limited executive actions the President will undertake are hardly indicative of the "king complex" that Paul perceives (or thinks he does). They tend to be based on existing law, or, are proposals to urge Congress to take action in areas where only Congress can act. At least one of them, funding for armed guards where school districts decide they want them, promotes a position taken by Wayne La Pierre in his post Newtown press conference. I wonder if Paul and La Pierre are now reflexively against that.
As I write this, I wonder if I should change my stance. When Paul talks about the obstacles to the President getting his proposals through the legislature, he references legislators in gun-enthusiast districts facing voters after they supported a "ban on guns." But the only ban in these proposals is a restriction on weapons of war, and that restriction won't confiscate weapons of war from those who already legally own them. Paul's statement is thus a cleverly phrased deception and distraction. He begins with the general constitutional limts on presidential power, and then proceeds to emotional and illogical characterizations of the President's actual proposals, as if they were logically connected to his generally true statement. It may thus be that Paul is a demogogue and NRA whore, rather than a lunatic. I'm sure his constuents will so relieved.
It seems like the Op-Ed that Obama wrote, is actually a transcript of his speech from yesterday...
And, this is relevant because....?
I agree with Maus Malone:
"So here's what we both do: Don't Panic. Remind ourselves that this is a process, don't take it personally, and encourage our lawmakers to do the same. This is a process, and there's endless opportunity to refine the laws, even after passage, so let's devote ourselves to that."
Don't panic, but do pay attention.
Rick Scott wants to avoid responsibility for bills that he signed. If he did not support them he should have vetoed them and if the legislature overturned his veto so be it. He is a weasel and needs to be held responsible for his manipulative actions. Hopefully his poor rating will be reflected in the next election.
always great to get Rachel's news report
"Could I See Your License, Registration, and Your Flight Path Please..."
One way I could see an answer to this dilemma would be to apply the same laws that apply to driving a car. If I want an "HK Krowdkilla MkII", then I've got to go down to the Motor Vehicle office (well, one door over) and get my picture taken, talk to a person about safety (seat belts and blinkers eh), register the beast and pay a small fee. Once done, I get to own enough fire power to arm a small militia.
I mean really!!!!!!!....what I go through to drive a car: license; written test, driver test, pictures, fingerprints, eye exam. Purchase insurance and provide proof of this, drive to smog station and pay for inspection, provide proof of that, pay to register the vehicle, have the VIN verified...I also have to go back every few years and get my picture taken again, and so on and so on! (this, by the way, is a system that was conceived and implemented BEFORE the existence of electronic databases!)...
It seems to me that owning a car is a liberty governed by the civic principles of privilege, and gun ownership is a liberty governed by..... a statement in a document written when muzzle loaders were "high tech" and the fastest vehicle on the market had four legs.
When I hit the highway, I find it somewhat comforting to know that the guy/gal driving the fuel tanker next to me at 70 mph had to drive someone around the block first.
Letting them drive that tanker without any prior qualifications, and saying "well, we'll put more cops on the highways and that should protect everyone" doesn't seem logical.
My neighbor called me the other day "what are you doing?" I asked. "Hooking up a GoPro camera to my quad 'copter so I can fly it from my PC using GPS"...
How about that?
What happens when someone finally figures out they can go target(?) shooting using a small(?) caliber bore on an RC (Radio Controlled) aircraft using GPS and joysticks?; "now I don't have to go to the shooting range, I can practice my 'drone-ING' from my PC, laptop, or even smart phone!"
But then, what happens when someone who "couldn't pass the driving test" gets their hands on one (from the local gun show)!!! How soon until the first "private sector" crime is committed with this (now very common) technology?
Now there's one for Chris Hayes' "What you should know"
"...that for the cost equal to the avg. paycheck I can purchase the technology that would allow me to remotely fly a gun to your back yard, shoot you, and then crash itself into the ocean"
or maybe even drop cyanide in your beer.
My understanding is that the right to own and bear arms was written into the constitution as a measure to protect ourselves from tyranny either foreign or domestic. But in the modern world we would be kidding ourselves to think that we could arm ourselves (even collectively) to a degree wherein we could successfully defend ourselves from a tyranny wielding today's far reaching technology. To me it merely preserves the conceptual dignity of "not going down without a fight".
LOL ( Have you seen a Through the Lens video of a drone strike lately?)
I love my country - my planet, but it scares the crap outta me some times...
Give Americans motorcycles and one of them will try to jump the Grand Canyon with one. This is a society that puts a new degree of "X" in "eXtreme" every day, but gouges the "I's" out of "Civil" doing so.
'punkin
EDUCATE THE NRA ON THE DANGERS OF WOMEN'S PMS
School teachers are getting trained how to use guns to protect school children.
Let us hope there's no single pre menopausal teacher out there who goes through a periodic pms or mood swings. Some school children could get very unruly, disrespectful and be very trying to an already short tempered, frustrated, school teacher. Once that trusted school teacher snaps... well, heaven forbid, she sure was trained and would know how to use that gun.
Parents whose minor child uses a family owned gun in committing crimes must be made accountable if they neglect to lock up their guns.
Before voters respond to calls for political contribution, it makes sense to ask for the voting record of that particular Congressman or Senator on gun control legislation.
No ifs and buts; ask the candidate for a simple, firm "Yes" or "No" to one simple question: "Are you for gun control?.
Keep in mind, not of those birds, ducks, and deers but those of our children's lives hang on the balance.
Listen closely and note down the names of would be candidates and their position on this issue.
During the midterm elections, vote sensibly. Otherwise, what happened in Conn. will more likely to happen more often someplace else.
How does the GOP reconcile their PRO LIFE platform with those of the NRA's?
In the light of the tragic event at Sandy Hook, how does a pro life Congressman or Senator, no matter the political party might be, explain himself if he/she votes against President Obama's proposals to at least reduce gun violence in this country?
Are Republicans really just pro birth as others claim?
LET US PRAY
Let us pray for the repose of the souls of those who died in Sandy Hook elementary School. May God console and comfort those who lost their loved ones.
Let us pray that the holy souls of all the children who lost their lives through gun violence will speak and appeal to the heart and conscience of those who possess assault weapons; that they will work for an end to gun violence.
Let us pray that the holy souls of the adults who died with the school children will speak to the heart and conscience of those who need enlightenment; may they have a change of heart and right perspective; a correct, true understanding of what the Second Amendment really is.
Under the Second Amendment, we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves.
Unfortunately, to others, it seems, this is no longer a right but a license to kill people and to hunt and kill animals for their own pleasure or entertainment.
The NRA claims that they have to have guns for hunting or other sports. To use guns for hunting or sports falls more under "the right to the pursuit of happiness" (?). If this were so, how can one be happy knowing that one took out the life a deer, a duck, a bird who is not a threat to one's life?
In the light of the tragic event at Sandy Hook, the NRA's rational for owning assault weapons or objecting to the ban on the same is the Second Amendment.
The question that needs to be asked is: Did these school children threaten the life of the guy who gunned them down?
In the eyes of the NRA, was there a need or justification for the person who killed these innocent children to protect his own life? If there was none, what is the NRA true understanding of the Second Amendment?
I hold my hands up. I am just saying...