Today's edition of quick hits:
* An interesting exchange on gun policy today between Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Expect more on this from Rachel on tonight's show.
* This is the bill they were debating: "The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a measure to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, the first major Congressional vote on the issue since the ban expired in 2004. The vote to approve the measure ... went firmly along party lines; the 10 Democrats on the committee voted aye, and the 8 Republicans of the committee rejected it. The legislation would also limit the size of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds."
* Iraq: "Eighteen people were killed and 67 were wounded on Thursday when a suicide bomber blew himself up inside the Ministry of Justice compound, which he and other armed attackers had managed to infiltrate after a series of car bomb blasts nearby, the police said."
* Benghazi: "Libyan authorities have detained a man investigators believe could be an important witness or suspect in the attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya last September, according to people familiar with the matter."
* Speaking of Benghazi: "Republican lawmakers are threatening to subpoena U.S. survivors of the terrorist attack in Benghazi."
* More on this on tonight's show, too: "Rejecting an appeal by some Detroit leaders, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan said Thursday that his administration was proceeding with plans to send an emergency manager to run the state's largest city, and that he favors a lawyer who worked on Chrysler's bankruptcy proceedings for the job."
* Deadly shooting: "An overnight police standoff in upstate New York ended Thursday after the man suspected of killing four people and injuring two more in a shooting spree was shot and killed by law enforcement officials."
* One party is open to compromise, one party isn't: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she'll consider Social Security cuts as part of a sweeping deficit-reduction package."
* I'm sorry to hear about the demise of the Boston Phoenix.
* My favorite tweet from CPAC comes by way of Julia Ioffe: "They're handing out a little book called 'The Ayn Rand Sampler.' Ironically, it's free."
* Congrats to Kevin Drum on the 10th anniversary of a blogosphere staple: Friday Catblogging.
* And a hearty congratulations to MSNBC's Chris Hayes, who's headed to primetime.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
Can WE require the GOTP to go thru some mental health exams, no really?! These people run away from reality like cats you're trying to bath, what is their issue? Oh that's right - they're trying to discredit that black man at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and destroy the American people that voted for him instead of the Plutocratic 1% liar that they ran......Sigh......
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she'll consider Social Security cuts as part of a sweeping deficit-reduction package."
And the "Democrat" cave-in continues. All these goddamned asswipes are RICH and will never use Social Security, and we have to have these spineless scum for our "defenders"???? Go ahead and do it Nancy - you bastards will never see another penny from me if you do. Since you'll have taken away my ability to do anything like that.
me either, tc, gutless bas tards!
F*ck Nancy 'Impeachment is off the table' Pelosi. WTF do dumbocraps want to sell out the legacy of the democratic party?
As I've said before, the democrats are spineless. People have paid into social security for decades with the understanding that when they retire, they will have some income from it. If they are going to cut the benefits, will they refund the contributions made for decades by the hard-working people of this country? If Pelosi, caves, we may as well all become republicans. Many older people hold the moral values of republicans anyway, and the only reason they vote for democrats is because of the issues that affect them economically--i.e. social security.
What don't you people get? The democrats make these offers knowing full well that the republicans will reject them no matter what they put on the table. What they are doing is showing the GOP for what they are, a group of spineless greedy old guys who want everything their way and to heck with whats good for the country. Just think how it would look if republicans went home and said hey look I cut your benefits thanks for voting for me. Remember GOP voters want their handouts they just don't want others they deem as undeserving getting theirs.
No the economy’s blood (money) that is being sucked out is going into the bottomless pit of the 1%’s bank account.
" More on this on tonight's show, too: "Rejecting an appeal by some Detroit leaders, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan said Thursday that his administration was proceeding with plans to send an emergency manager to run the state's largest city, and that he favors a lawyer who worked on Chrysler's bankruptcy proceedings for the job."
They should name Congressman John Conyers.
Here's a guy who made literally 1.6 million dollars in salary alone over the last 10 years and yet claims to be worth less than $100,000, in a city where they literally sell houses for a dollar.
So he's an expert at bankruptcy, or an expert at hiding assets, but either way the prefect man for the job.
Well, obviously if he sunk that money into his house, it's a losing proposition.
I gotta back up my Senator Di Fei right now. I do not always see things as she does, but do we really have to bust out the highlighter? It says:
So, these militias sprouting up here and there are being regulated, eh?
RE: #4
Sandy, read the Heller decision. I'll quote it for you.
And if you don't mind reading through a fairly long intro, I highly recommend reading Federalist #46. The interesting parts are in the last paragraphs.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
Of course people have a right to defend themselves in their homes. They also might have to face charges and face the consequences, if they shoot their own loved one or if they are negligent and a child kills another child.
I think if they already banned assault weapons, they have already hashed that part out.
I do not expect people to stop trying to wear their weapons like fashion accessories and political statements. I do not want assault weapons for non military. Most of the police department agrees with me. Yes, it's said to be fun, I know.
This "taking our guns thing" is gone overboard. I don't want your guns. I don't feel safer when I see someone parading around with a gun. But I realize people want to protect themselves, family and property. But I do not think that means any weapon you desire is yours for the taking.
NRA seems to be protecting and promoting gun sales without any restrictions.
I think restricting certain things regarding who owns what guns is reasonable. I have already heard the slippery slope arguments.
I know Sen. Feinstein knows what she's doing in that area. She has been through it already. The prior assault weapon ban expired.
Alva, it's true the Heller decision held that an individual does have a right to own a gun and keep it in his/her home. What you apparently missed was part III of the majority opinon, written by Justice Scalia:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Scalia goes on to write, "…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons 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."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Cruz does not know what he's talking about. Not that I expect his ignorance to stop him from squawking. (Friends of Hamas anyone?"
In an interview on Fox News in July 2012 Scalia said: “So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
There are limitations on the First Amendment: You can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater, Child Pornography, you can be held financially accountable to someone when you say something libelous about them or defame their character.
There was a 10 year ban I beleive on Assault Weapons, why did that not go against the Constitution? No one came and took away anyone's guns during those 10 years? So why now do people need weapons used by the Military to protect themselves?
@ Sandy
Check again. Refer to the NYS Sheriffs'Association response to the SAFE Act put into place in NYS. Also, Saratoga Sheriff's Department PBA wrote a multi-page letter in response to it. There are many in law enforcement who do not support a ban on assault firearms.
Also, so NYS put a ban into place on assault weapons... last year homicides in NYS attributed to long rifles (which is the category that an assault weapon falls under) represented .007% of all homicides. So 0-.007% attributable to assault weapons. In NYS alone, the assault weapons ban does little to address the issue of violent death... it does not address 99.993+% of the homicides.
Sandy, Lorr, why in the blue hell do you think a civilian AR-15 is the same as a military M-16? You do realize, don't you, that an AR-15 WILL NOT SHOOT ANY FASTER THAN YOUR STANDARD PISTOL OR REVOLVER. No soldier would ever be armed with a civilian AR-15. They would be armed with the military version, which can shoot one round at a time with each trigger pull (also called semi-auto), fire 3 round bursts, or fire in full auto.
Yes, Scalia said that it's okay to ban guns in places like government buildings. I have no complaint about that. That laws that bar criminals or the mentally ill from owning guns are okay. I have no problem with that. That we can determine the laws that govern the sale of arms. I have no problem with that.
But that's quite a bit different from saying "the conditions that determine the sale of arms is that you can't sell them to anyone at all, ever."
Alva, I've never thought what you say I think! You are proving to be untrustworthy to converse with.
Cursing at me, so why the hell should I answer you?
I think you are trolling. Why should I talk to a rude?
Don't bother apologizing. Your CAPS LOCK bolded on top of it all?
Earlier you said:
I think you are coming off as a bit of crazy, so bye, bye.
Lisa, we have already established that we disagree. You might widen your sphere a bit.
Alva, you are aware that it can very easily be made full auto by anybody that knows guns. The first gen M-16 was single shot or 3 round bursts. We made them full auto in about 15 min. in a tent in camp.
And I ask again, who needs these mass murder machines? And that is what they are made for.
I think I showed this to Lisa already, too.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons
Thank you Rachel for your coverage of the Cruz v. Feinstein contretemps (hope I spelled that right, my French is a little rusty LOL)
Cruz is soooo obnoxious, smary, disrespectful, etc . . . I am not sure I could have been as restrained and dignified as Feinstein was . . . and yes, that "I have a penis so I know more than you do" act is shudder-worthy. uuugghh.
And on top of all that (yes, actually I AM a lawyer) his argument was Just. Plain. Wrong.
The Constitution doesn't ban books! but neither the 1st A nor the 4th A grant unlimited rights: you can hold any religious belief you want; but some 'religious behavior' is not protected under the Constitution (eg, you cannot - legally - sacrifice virgins!) OF COURSE some speech is restricted - the Constitution does not protect hate speech; or libel/slander . . . and, as we all know, you cannot (legally) yell 'fire' in a theatre (unless, of course, it is actually on fire).
There are DOZENS of cases that restrict your 4th A right to be free of 'unreasonable searches and seizures' - read a little crim law & you will see there are many, many exceptions; if you run into your home carring a bundle of cocaine, YES, actually, the police can follow you; if you are abusing your kid, the government can seize him/her. In most cities, if you want to play football - even if there is no evidence what-so-ever that you have ever had even one drink, or smoked one leaf of weed, you have to pee in a cup. . . even in junior high!
So what makes Cruz think that, just because the 2nd A includes the words "shall not be infringed" that any person can own ANY weapon they want? OF COURSE there is a line! we are just arguing about where the line should be drawn! and I wish that the assault weapons ban had never been allowed to lapse, and we didn't need to have this conversation . . . but we DO (or at least, the grow-ups do, and Cruz doesn't count as a grown-up!)
But it is not about banning books - that's just ignorant, and Harvard should take back Cruz's JD.
Thanks - it was hard to watch, but I'm grateful.
K
Sandy, I made that in bold and caps, because in talking to people, both here and elsewhere on this issue, there seems to be an incredible amount of confusion on what "semi-auto" means. Any standard pistol is semi-auto. 1 bullet comes out every time you pull the trigger. If you're going to call a civilian AR-15 a "death machine", you might as well call a revolver a death machine.
No larry, you cannot easily turn them into full auto. It requires you to replace a lot of parts which aren't available to the public unless you're clear to own ATF Class III weapons.
Rate of fire is the issue, not semi auto. Regarding the reasonable expectation of the limitation of a firearm, we turn to Scalia:
It takes at least a minute to reload the kind of Musket used during the Revolutionary war, and due to the kind of gunpowder used, only a handful of shots could be fired before the barrel would be too fouled too fire until cleaning.
So legislating the limit that a gun has to be a muzzle loaded flintlock, could fire no more than one bullet per minute, with max 6 or 7 shots before recleaning would be perfectly reasonable since no firearms of the time could be expected to do better.
That sounds good to me. Grab your shot balls and keep your powder dry.
RE: 4.12
John, what a silly argument. Go read Federalist #46. Madison makes it very clear that civilians ought to own what your average soldier can own. This is important to prevent a tyrannical federal gov't. If you don't like that line of reasoning, take it up with James Madison.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
Patriolatry rears its ugly head once more.
I thought gun nuts believed in the Constitution.
The law of the land is the constitutions, not the scribblings of a particular individual whose words in some essays you would like to believe back your point of view.
Typically, when confronted with facts and argument, the lunatics run for the hills like the intellectual cowards they are. I provided the basis for my argument, and cited Scalia- currently the most right wing defender of gun rights. He just said that gun laws would be reasonable if the they would be considered reasonable at the time of the constitution.
More than 7 shots, with rates of fire greater than one per minute were the accepted limitations of the time, and legislating a limitation of 10 shots and rate of fire no faster than 2 per minute would be perfectly reasonable because no firearm could do that.
Quit your bluster and show a little intellectual courage. Show me where my logic or facts are incorrect.
John
A nit picky FYI a good musketeer or rifleman could fire 3 shots per minute and that included ramrodding to clean the gun. Sorry this is what happens to a person with too many friend who do blackpowder.
Actually, my information when I wrote that was that an expert can get it down to 15 seconds per shot.
I understand the ramrod step to pack the ball and charge down, but wouldn't the revolutionary war muskets require a separate ramrod step for cleaning sufficiently to prevent the fouling due to the low grade gunpowder they were using?
" but wouldn't the revolutionary war muskets require a separate ramrod step for cleaning sufficiently to prevent the fouling due to the low grade gunpowder they were using?"
A pretty sure they cleaning with each shot. But I could be confusing that with cannons. I'll ask one of my historic weapons friends this weekend and get back to you.
Legalize flintlocks- everything else they can have replicas or paintball versions to play with.
Besides leveraging the Scalia remark, there is a more aggressive inquiry into the meaning of the term "arm". The framers could not possibly imagine any weapon capable of such mass murder other than a cannon with grapeshot. Did the framers mean something that could kill 26 people, or something that could kill one or two people before bystanders would be able to overwhelm the madman?
Re: cleaning, I found some videos. Here's one.
I guess if I only had a single question for your friends, it would be how many shots before the gun is so fouled that it cannot be safely fired. The source I read said "several" times, but perhaps the intended meaning was- you could fire it all day without cleaning, but some undesirable/ non fatal thing would happen. (Such as drop in accuracy or excessive wear on the barrel).
John
I sent off e-mails to two people who might help. The first is a professional pyrotechnician who work with historic weaponry. The second who does Revolutionary War reenactment as one of Daniel Morgan's Riflemen. I am waiting for their response.
John
Here's my friend who is in Morgan's Riflemen:
"Hi Maria,
Are we talking live fire, or just blanks. I have shot my Rifle at least 25 times without fouling problems, But patching does help clean the barrel. You may have to clean out the touch hole though. Blanks are more dirty, so fouling is worse.
I hope this helps.
A smooth bore is much easier to maintain."
John
I also got this response from the friend the pro pyrotechician
"Hi Maria. Muskets didnot use a cloth patched ball like
rifles of the period did. The musket ball was very loose fitting for two
reasons. First, speed in loading. On the first few shots {three or so} you
could usually drop the ball down the bore, tap the butt on the ground to seat
the ball, then fire. As the bore became foulded the ramrod would become needed
to seat the ball. In short, an experianced shooter could get off at least fifteen
shots or so before needing to clean the bore. I hope this helps. There are many
factors that could change this."
If Christopher Hayes is not allowed to retain his format of in depth panel discussion of the issues as he had in UP, then Mr. Phil "I don't care about journalism" Griffin is cheating the public.
Hayes is looking great as a talking head- those 3/4 shots of him filling for Lawrence made me giggle hysterically, but seriously- they made him look super sharp.
So here are my demands:
Hayes followers are activists, so Phillip, listen up. The penalty for non compliance you risk are 100,000 person marches down to Rockefeller plaza calling for your head.
And Mr. Hayes, don't let this crap go to your head. In my book you still suck at your job. Not as bad as fluffy, but your employment/ economic policy coverage still blows chunks.
Have a nice day.
Totally agree and am going to have withdrawals without my Up! fix every weekend. I just don't see him delivering that format in one hour, but hopefully he will prove me wrong.
My $0.02: Why don't they rotate Up! with all the show hosts? That way, they each would have ~1 month to prepare their show and utilize that great format. Now THAT would be truly creative.
I gave you an up vote by accident; the penultimate paragraph is dreadful. Hayes is a major bright spot on national television.
You have my number- and I agree I am psychotic- Some corporate morons noticed how much I yelled at people I liked and decided to make a lot of people work for me.
I hated it. People thought I was half joking when I informed them how sloppy their work was. Some were so nuts they thought I had some kind of warped admiration for them and I did it to get them to achieve more than they thought possible. It was all theater.
The truth is I am mean.
You have a nice day too.
I love Chris Hayes, but some part of me was really, really hoping that Keith Olbermann would be returning.
One thing is for certain, Chris will a huge improvement over Ed Schultz. I've never been able to listen to him more than a few minutes, and I don't think anyone will miss those hard hitting instant polls of his.
Chris is ok, but I LOVE Ed. He showed such kindness, love, and concern for the working people of this country during the 2012 Presidential campaign. I am glad for him, though, because now he will be able to spend more time with his wife and family. God bless you, Ed Schultz!
Now now. It's a big tent. If people can relate more to Schultz- that's great.
Ed Schultz can talk to independents and may be a kind of Democrat that you may not remember- many of whom may be hard to relate to because they voted for Reagan.
I strongly agree with him on labor policy and worker's rights, but yeah- stylistically I go more for Hayes' carefully reasoned approach or Naomi Klein's iconoclastic and wry take on politics. Schultz conducts great interviews with key people I want to hear from- People like Saunders, Pelosi, and leaders of unions.
If they give Ed two hours, he might be able to get deep into some workers issues, and I look forward to it.
As for Olbermann- I think he should let Tina Fey have some fun with him, Al Gore and other folks now out of the limelight that are willing to magnify some of the absurdities of the media and politics.
Fortunately, in the age of DVRs, we can all watch the shows we want, when we want to. I appreciate all the MSNBC hosts (even Tweetie on occasion but sans Joe), but Up! was the only show I felt compelled to watch. I hope it's the same with his new show.
Without doubt, if you like Up you will love Bill Moyers on PBS on Sunday. The shows are archived on the net. For example, Rolling Stones' Matt Taibbi going over lack of Banking accountability a few weekends back.
I had a horrible thought that Griffin is thinking it would be a good idea to force Hayes to cover 8 issues superficially in one hour. If so, I hope he sees the error of wasting Hayes that way and he doesn't have to wait until he is Moyers' age to get back to long form. Prime time and American politics needs in depth coverage- PBS does it with frontline, and Hayes is good enough to keep the guests from going off into minutiae.
Just wait'll we get our Hayes on you!
Just a rant:
When will people start wanting logic to be the guiding principle of the country and not politics?
This country is so buried in political and legislative ideas, it has no purpose in what to do for real. I would love to see any politician try to fix things without using politics.
The reason we have so much trouble is because we have each side trying to push their politics on the other side instead of handling things logistically. The Bible says that even though you can do anything, attaining wisdom is by far the most important thing. Politics--and political solutions--are not wisdom.
Jasmine on Catbloggign looks just my kitty Bouhaki.
Pretty kitty.
Very pretty, yes.
And Kevin was crushed when she died, too. But catblogging went on! And on, and on, and on...
Here's the text of S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban, that was voted on today.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s150/text
I'm not sure I follow precisely what it's saying, but I noticed language in there that I think bans all rifle calibers except for .22 rimfire. Can anyone here better at reading legalese than me confirm this?
No, but it is sorta weird.
The part about "except 22 rim-fire" is regarding the fixed magazine size Some 22 rifles can hold 15 or 16 rounds in the slide magazine.
Re:
Do they think the survivors are rape victims, who they can torture on the witness stand? I've never heard anything so outrageous.
Maybe they can administer trans-vaginal ultrasounds on them during their testimony and test them for drug use in case they ever need to go on welfare!
Yeah, God forbid we actually found out the truth!
Those on the right have little or no interest in objective reality and have a totally self-serving concept of "truth".
Good job MSNBC, Chris Hayes is a well spoken dynamo, Ed Schultz on the other hand should consider Assistant Manager positions at the local Winchells.
+100%
Ed is a good guy, his show and way of speaking brought those that were more aligned with sports, hunting and business owning over to the light from the ditto head world.
He is a good guy for talking to the guy's guy and advocating for working folks. He'll be missed.
I love Ed! He's not afraid to call out anybody - esp dems when they need a good kick in the butt! I decided too much politics was making me depressed so I cut out all of them except Ed and Rachel.
Freshly chiseled pencil pusher emulation moving to weekday prime time? Working class champion pickin up the weekends? Ed working 7 days/week? The corporate marble model strikes again.
I like Chris Hayes and his table discussions, but I dang well better see a little grit on his face come April.
Did anyone notice that Senator Feinstein didn't answer Senator Cruz's question?!?!?
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd end up defending Ted Cruz, but the man has a point. Should Congress place the same kind of limits on the 1st amendment as they're attempting to place on the 2nd?
Feinstein saying that this still allows 2,250 some odd guns isn't an argument for anything. That's like saying "we're banning free speech, but we're exempting 2,250 some odd words from that ban".
If there were NO limits on 'free speech', you might have a point. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment is beyond any qualifications or limits? Ground-to-air missles ok with you? Grenade launchers? Tanks? No limits for complete mental wackjobs? No limits for non-citizens?
SadOldVeteran. All they care to read is the Ammendment. They don't even know what the Supreme Court has ruled. They should try reading Scalia's ruling on the 2006 hearing. But, again, they don't care. they can't bother themselves with facts, logic or truth.
Sad, that's a red herring and a ridiculous argument. No one is saying surface to air missiles, grenade launchers or tanks should be legal. None of those weapons would be feasible for an individual to use to protect him or herself against other individual(s).
But if Congress is going to ban certain arms protected by the 2nd amendment, why not ban certain words protected by the 1st amendment? Should congress make it against the law for anyone to use the 7 dirty words you're not allowed to say on television?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8vIQHmcqZ8
Should Congress place the same kind of limits on the 1st amendment as they're attempting to place on the 2nd?
Quick answer: yes and no, as mentioned in the dramatization, the court has the final say in what is and isn't constitutional and the onus is not on Congress. I wish a comet would have hit this Congressional review while it was in progress, is that illegal speak? I guess I'll find out. Regardless of how victimized a gun owner might feel, there are too many victims of actual gun violence which rather naturally concludes that access to these weapons must be regulated more stringently or an outright ban on such weapons is necessary.
Congress has already placed limits on the First Amendment..."hate speech" (and "hate crimes") are not allowed.
Notice alva just can't grasp that at one time Americans could buy and use everything from full auto machine guns to high explosives with no limits placed on what weapon they were. It was the GOP who created the ATF and FBI as well as restrictions on what weapons a citizen could own during the 1920's bank robbery/ boot legger crime spree when local yokels found themselves out gunned by criminals. It is only since the 1990's that these 2nd amendment nuts started showing up because they didn't like Clinton and started this they are taking our guns away nonsense. They were 70 years to late as restrictions had already been decided constitutional by the SCOTUS.
As we just saw, she answered the question. It was a no, as he was hoping in his false equivalence.
Speech is given a broad brush stroke lately. SCOTUS thinks money is speech.
OK, so video is speech. Shall we let children go watch porn without regulating? Shall we let people peddle snuff films? It's just speech.
Is Cruz concerned about what is going on in Michigan?
Actually, I saw a far less edited version of this exchange on Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/ted-cruz-dianne-feinstein_n_2877307.html
It strikes me as a little strange that MSNBC would edit out almost everything Senator Cruz said here. Quite frankly, the way they edited it here, Feinstein comes off as a bit of a crazy. The full exchange I saw on Huffington Post makes a little more sense, but it becomes painfully clear that Senator Feinstein is simply refusing to directly answer Senator Cruz's very reasonable question.
"The answer is obvious NO"
at the very end Alva
the clip you posted, if you can't see to the very end, or are you trying to say she didn't answer at all? She answered. But you are stuck on that minutia instead of the whole points folks are making here. Not just me.
It seems like you're mistaken or is it actually trying to spread a minutia that is not a true point, instead of the actual point.
It's OK, you're allowed to say your opinion, but I saw the clip. I completely disagree.
Sandy, okay, let's see if we both can follow the bouncing ball here. I just posted a video exchange of this I saw on the Huffington Post. The video above in this blog post also contains this exchange.
The difference in how the two videos are edited is that the one here from MSNBC edits out almost everything Senator Cruz said.
Can we agree on that?
Did anyone notice that Senator Feinstein didn't answer Senator Cruz's question?!?!?
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd end up defending Ted Cruz, but the man has a point. Should Congress place the same kind of limits on the 1st amendment as they're attempting to place on the 2nd?
There are all kinds of limits on the First Amendment, so I'm not sure what your point is.
And that's exactly what should have been Feinstein's answer, by the way.
Except check out your history restrictions on weapons have been in place since the 1920's. Before the 1920's there were no laws on gun size, heck you could own cannons legally, the reason people didn't own them was because cannon rounds were to expensive for them to buy and making less then a dollar a day kept cannons from the workers back yards. It always cracks me up when people try to claim that the government is trying to take away their guns, they are almost 100 years to late for that whine.
Re: 13.1
Whom, I never said I wanted zero gun laws, or to retroactively eliminate all gun laws dating back to the 1920's.
I'm saying that if it is legal for me right now to practice my 2nd amendment rights a certain way, and in the future those rights would be limited, then should we do the same thing with other rights, such as the right of free speech?
Your argument is the same as saying that you're not allowed to complain about a proposed law that would eliminate the legal use of swear words, because we already aren't allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
Are you in favor of back ground checks for everybody attempting to purchase a fire arm?
larry, absolutely yes. To borrow a phrase from the right wing, anyone who objects to a background check has something to hide.
And probably shouldn't pass a background check for that very reason.
No, I am opposed to background checks on the grounds that it violates the Constitution.
We have a common law right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty. Background checks assume guilt and that you must prove your innocence.
Background checks also violate the 4th amendment:
People who use the "you only oppose this because you have something to hide" are people who don't believe in the right of privacy. People have used the same argument to drug test people who receive food stamps, it's been used to spy on what people read at the library, it's been used to monitor a person's every move.
I just bought a gun 2 weeks ago, and passed the background check. Both the FBI check and the Virginia State police check. So, no, I have nothing to hide. That doesn't mean I'm willing to give up my inalienable right of privacy.
dkm, you should be ashamed of yourself. People died to protect that freedom. And you mock it.
Or maybe you'll eat your own words. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if local law enforcement can set up cameras in your bedroom, would you? After all, you have nothing to hide, right?
Van, that's already well established under federal law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
Well, well, the "anarcho-syndicalist" actually stated his "reasons" for opposing background checks, conveniently removing any legitimate doubt that he is an unprincipled, unrepentant member of the Gun Cult.
Alva
I had to undergo a background check to be bonded for where I work. Background checks for gun purchases are no different. Background checks do not violate the 4th Amendment except in your fevered imagination.
Maria...,
And consider the many, many people who are thoroughly investigated before they get a security clearance.
For my current job I submitted to a background check by the FBI. It kind of tickled.
I have no interest in owning a gun, yet LaPierre says I need to own one so I can defend myself from someone that shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
LaPierre is using all his energy to make sure the bad guy can have his guns, and not respecting my interest in not wanting one at all.
My republican neighbor keeps telling me I need a gun to protect myself from my own government. If that is the case, I am going to need drones, atomic bombs, rocket launchers, tanks, and a lot of other stuff that isn't a gun.
Here's a thought: next time he makes that statement, suggest that you're thinking of getting a gun...to protect yourself from him.
(However, I am 90% kidding. Probably. From a distance, the guy sounds unhinged. Don't provoke him unless you know him well enough to know what you can get away with.)
I told my neighbor I was thinking of getting a gun. True story.
Sue. Read this.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
Sue, ask him who he thinks the "government" is? It is not a thing. It is people, working people. So which people specifically is he arming himself against? Maybe the same National Guard that would save his *ss in a cataclysm of violence, or a natural disaster? And how often does he fantasize about them? Because some of "them" may want to be aware of the degree of his obsession with them.
I am somewhat amused by all the Republican politicians who say the 2nd amendment is about fighting off a tyrannical government. 'So, Mr Congressman, sir, are you offering yourself as a legitimate target?'
Life,libertyand the pursuit ofhappiness.This is what happens when you cling to the 2nd amendment as a solution to combat fate..
hey guys , Rachel Maddow should do something more beside what she has been doing, explaining the democrat position on some issue like budget , the gop think that by talking or doing over and over people will believe to them ,
so Rachel on her show can do the same by explaining over and over the dem positions on many issues , the difference is that the dem positions are common sens , more balance approach and common sens issue compare to the gop extreme position on each issue
The Maddow opening with the new Lanza.evidence..at least proves one thing besides the fact that liberals keep using the Sandy Hook tragedy as a propaganda prop for their gun bans agenda...It was reported that Lanza had to shoot his way in the building..by shooting the glass out first,If these schools had armed security which was even proposed by Bill Clinton in the 1990's.this wacko would have not been able to get in the building,and more important wouldn't have even tried...Also It's amusing how Maddow and Feinstein used Feinstein gender as a "poor little me being picked on by a man" BS...The true facts are that the gun grabbing Feinstein gun ban bill was already tried and proven to be a dismal failure and was ended in 2004...This a fact and not a theory...And further, none of the proposed bans would have prevented,any of those evil mass shootings and if any gun grabber says that they would is lying through there teeth ...And according to the FBI more people are killed each year in this country by hammers then by rifles... any type of rifles ..including the invented liberal propaganda term "Assault Rifles"...and recently even the over the top Bloomberg has said that banning these rifles would be ineffective. Instead of these liberals who are binging on liberal ideology,why don't they focus on doing something that would really protect the innocent ..like cracking down hard on criminal thugs, and the so called straw gun buyers...and expanding our sagging mental health system,and putting qualified security in our schools..the same kind of security that the privileged has.
The elementary school I went to in the 80's had shatterproof wire reinforced glass. "shot his way into the school" sounds vague as hell to me.
Correction to "is lying through there teeth" Of course it should read lying through "their" teeth.
I think if the Senate does not pass this assault weapons ban, it will be appalling. I have been a university teacher and administrator for over 30 years. I have taught both in the United States and in countries where citizens were not even allowed to own guns. Where do you imagine I felt safest? But my point here is that on the day and time of the vote in the Senate chamber on this bill, every parent and family member of a person killed at Sandy Hook ought to also be present. They should be holding up a picture of their deceased loved one. Senators who vote against this bill ought to have to look at every family member in the eye as they cast their dissenting and dishonoring and disrespectful vote. They ought to have to see the tears, hear the cries, feel the pain of what they are doing. Because those family members are an example of each and every one of us who is saying: "That could have been or could be my family."
Jack
Jack...Everybody with any compassion feels for the families of the victims...But for Newtown and those families to be "used" on a daily basis as props for an anti gun agenda is reprehensible....and even further is the fact that none of those proposed bans would have prevented this tragedy or any future shooting tragedies...This is a fact...For example New York passed a gun ban on semi automatic weapons that look like real assault rifles,and limited the magazine size for any semi automatic rifle or pistol to 7 rounds...and what happen yesterday was another wacko's killed 4 people with a shotgun...But if he had used a rifle I'm sure he would have only used 7 rounds to comply with the law...Of course not....These bans and strict gun control laws would only effect the law abiding citizen...and I also disagree with you about feeling safer where citizens are not allowed to be armed...In Mexico the citizens can't own guns and well over 50.000 of the innocent have been slaughtered and they can't even defend themselves...many many similar examples..The UK after their gun bans and confiscation, the people live there in terror from armed thugs..with gun violence there has doubled since the gun bans have been in effect...Similar situation in Australia. In Chicago where there are some of the most strictest gun control laws in the country and last year they had more shooting deaths then Afghanistan ..well over 500..Regardless of the bogus liberal propaganda studies like that of Eric Fleeger..that falsely claims less guns equal less violence..the FBI facts are just the opposite...Where law abiding citizens own more guns the crime rates have fallen dramatically.
It sounds like a good idea, but in order to feel "that could have been my family" you need to have the capacity for empathy. Empathy is not in oversupply on the wing nut side. Witness how Ryan's "Budget" treats the afflicted vs. the comfortable in our society and how many republicans support it vs. how many oppose it.
I watched local evening news in Cherokee, N.C. Monday (3/11/13). One of the stories shown were meetings in selected towns to discuss proposing a gun law that will allow anyone in North Carolina to carry a gun (concealed or not) without a background check or a gun permit. The only criteria is that you are over 21 years old and are not using it to commit a crime. The guns would not be permitted in Schools and in businesses who would not allow a gun on the premise. There were a few who opposed by asking how can we have testing and driving laws in place to obtain a drivers license no standards for a gun. Most of the people who attended the meetings were in favor of this proposal. They are expected to visit more towns throughout N.C.
While visiting Cherokee N.C. Monday (3/11/13), I had the opportunity to watch the local evening news. Much to my surprise one of the main stories shown were about officials going to selected towns throughout N.C. to announce a new bill proposal that will allow people in N.C. to carry a gun (concealed or not) without a permit or background check. The only criteria were you had to be 21 years old and not using it to commit a crime. The stipulations would be they would not be allowed in businesses who didn't permit them and you could not bring them in schools. There were more things mentioned but i didn't make note of them.
There have been a couple of these town meetings and they are scheduled to have more throughout the state. Most of the people who attended these meetings loved the idea. They clapped and cheered about it. The opposition stated there are test and requirements to get a drivers license. There are laws in place to ensure people have a standard to follow when driving. How could they consider passing a law that allow no requirements to get a gun in N.C.
Now for tonights stupid gun ban equivalencies...
death threats---yup you cant have a bazooka
child porn==owning an m1 abrams tank ok both should be banned
yelling fire in crowded theatre===owning apache helicopter yup both very illegal
all of the above very illegal in all 50 states....carrying a concealed gun or in your car legal in about 45
shooting a home invader WITHOUT being sued by them--about half
shooting an attacker in public --about the same
The worst licensed armed security guard in connecticut probably wins a gunfight with Adam Lanza to boot theres only a handful of people on Earth nuts enough to commit such a crime
Now on the other hand....
magazine limits ====soda bans
"assault weapon bans====stop and frisk policies
no concealed carry(just like europe) ===ridiculous speech restrictions(just like europe)
Snyder has sent his buddies in to loot a number of communities. Have any of them been successful in getting the community back on its feet financially or have all of them resulted mainly in the community's further descent into fiscal problems while Snyder's BF got rich at community taxpayer expense? Is there any reason at all to think that this guy going into Detroit will be any different?
They need to have a full accounting of where each cent goes. Can some hackers get on that, maybe even just for the fun of it or school projects?
I am guessing some of it may go to hidden or numbered accounts. So screwed up.
Rachel is totally misinformed when she says it is better to have 10-round magazines, rather then 30-round magazines.
You can load up magazines while you are at home. I can put four 30-round magazines in my jeans pockets, which is one per pocket, because they are kinda large. I can preload 14 10-round magazines, and carry all of them in my jeans pockets. They are small, so I can put 4-5 of them in each pocket. It takes about 2 seconds to put in a fresh magazine, no matter what the size. They don't jam. And even if you did have a feeding problem, it takes put a quick second to clear the misfed round, by pulling the charging handle or slide back. You then just keep on shootiing. I have never had a jam in any gun I've ever shot.
I saw this demonstrated once. A guy had 1 30 round mag, 2 15 round mags, and 5 6 round mags (well 10 round mags with 6 rounds in them). He was then timed with a stop watch for how fast he could shoot 30 rounds.
1 mag = 20 seconds.
2 mags = 19 seconds.
5 mags = 21 seconds.
No, it really doesn't make a difference.
The real goal here is to have weird limits, like New York's 7 round magazine limit. since almost no gun is made with a 7 round mag, it is a defacto ban on almost all pistols.
That's the goal here. Ban as many guns as you can.
Van,
That's a pretty silly comment. I don't think anyone can make a correlation between politics and what these mass shooters believe in politically. There is such a thing as people who don't care about politics, or don't think much about politics at all. There was even an attempt by some to say that the guy who shot Gabby Giffords owned a copy of Das Kapital by Karl Marx. Well, hell, I own a copy too. That doesn't make me a commie. I also own a copy of the bible. That doesn't make me a Christian.
Here is a quote:
If you just said to yourself, "wow, that was gibberish", you'd be right. Those were also the words of Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner wasn't a liberal. He wasn't a conservative. He was just a loon.
His parents said he watched FOKKKs religiously. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Loughner may have been psychotic but he had a reason for what he did. And psychotic people are not closed systems. They are influenced by propaganda, hate speech,etc. I think Loughner probably was influenced by the right wing propaganda machine. It's much less likely that he was a liberal. Liberal philosophy doesn't encourage its adherents to murder the people who don't agree with them. Right wing propaganda does. And by the way, there is no liberal propaganda machine. The right owns the media which is why they own the message.