If not for MSNBC with Chris Matthews, with Ed Schultz and with Rachel Maddow where we get the truth we would be in big trouble in America. We sure know the truth about Paul Ryan who is not anything but an Ayn Rand idiot.

I love The Rachel Maddow Show and I watch every episode. But, do you really have to spend so much airtime discussing the change of popes? I think it's a total waste of time to give credence to Cult of the Papacy, rather than to focus on more important issues. I don't understand why the American news media, from top to bottom, is giving this story such attention. Even Catholics understand that it's an outdated and irrelevant institution.

Re: birth control and the Vatican, there's a great new book called "Champion of Choice" about Nafis Sadik, the woman who ran UN-FPA and fought Pope John Paul to get birth control in the population policy. It seems like the history is repeating with the Vatican roping in the Russians and the Iranians. Last time, the Vatican tried it with the Muslim nations, but Sadik--being Muslim--was able to get them to see that the Vatican didn't even care to save a woman's life if her pregnancy has complications. Sadik is an amazing woman!

So suppose we get universal back ground checks. Question: how do you actually enforce that?

Let's review how gun purchases are made in this country. Suppose I want to buy a gun. I can go to a gun store and buy a gun. That gun store would also be a Federal Firearms License holder. This permits them to initialize a background check. The customer fills out about 3 pages of paperwork. The gun store (FFL) then uses the paperwork to contact the FBI, and in some states, the state police as well. If there's no criminal record, the sale goes through. If there is a criminal record, the sale is denied.

Now suppose instead I go and buy a gun online at say gunbroker.com. I could buy a gun from a gun store in Missouri, and that gun store ships the gun to a gun store in my home state, and background check in done.

Now suppose I buy a gun from a private seller in another state. That private seller sends the gun to an FFL in his home state, and it's transferred to an FFL in my home state.

So how about the "gun show loophole"? This would more accurately be called a "private seller loophole". If I want to buy a gun from another private individual and we both live in the same state, then no background check needs to be done. Why? Because you don't have interstate commerce in such a transaction.

Suppose you pass universal background checks. How do you enforce it? If I buy a gun from someone I personally know, then do you really think a background check will happen? No, it probably won't.

If a straw purchaser buys a gun and goes back to his apartment, and invites a guy over interested in buying the gun, then will he contact the FBI before he takes cash in hand and gives the guy a gun? Nope.

Now suppose you inherent a lot of guns. If you inherent guns from someone's estate, will you have to get a background check?

Suppose a 20 year old wants to go camping with his friends, and his dad gives him a gun to keep him safe while camping. Does the dad have to contact the FBI first?

Or will this law just state that all gun shows must require 100% background checks?

If a straw purchaser buys a gun and goes back to his apartment, and invites a guy over interested in buying the gun, then will he contact the FBI before he takes cash in hand and gives the guy a gun? Nope.

Straw purchasers are people who can legally buy a gun, and then sell that gun to people who cannot legally buy a gun.

Now suppose you inherent a lot of guns. If you inherent guns from someone's estate, will you have to get a background check?

The lawyer executing the estate should perform the background check prior to turning the guns over. Not sure if the law covers that, but it seems the most logical course of action.

Suppose a 20 year old wants to go camping with his friends, and his dad gives him a gun to keep him safe while camping. Does the dad have to contact the FBI first?

If he's 20 years old, he can buy his own gun, and not place any liability on the father. That would be the responsible thing to do.

Wow it 3/31 already where does the time go

I fail to see how an old man, ascetic though he may be, can tout social justice, but campaign for the enslavement of women.

Re: commitment to a lie.

By election day anyone who voted for Mitt knew he was a liar; they merely believed he was lying to others, and not to them. The RWNJs believed that he was lying to the moderate Republicans, after the primaries, just to get their votes, and the moderate Republicans believed he'd been lying to the RWNJs during the primaries to get their votes. So they all knew. I hope most of them had to hold their noses in the voting booth.

Sharon P Carr: It is neither inauthentic nor hypocritical to be against poverty and birth control at the same time. It's blatantly THEOCRATIC, that's all. If you start from the assumption that your particular theology is the only "true" one, and should thus bind everyone else (the First Amendment notwithstanding), being against contraception and abortion is perfectly compatible with being against poverty.

The major premise is that everyone must conduct their personal lives in accordance with your religious theology. The first minor premise is that sex is shameful unless sanctioned by religious ritual, so that an unsanctioned baby is a lifelong stigma. The second minor premise is that the major and first minor premises are neutralized when contraception and abortion are available. The conclusion is that contraception and abortion should be banned, and poor women should be forced to put an aspirin between their knees so they can work their way out of poverty while bound by sex-is-shame theology.

It's perfectly logical unless you don't accept the idea that Christian forced birth theology must govern all people. Christian forced birth theology is made somewhat more palatable by re-branding itself as pro-life.