home

Gun Control Bill Defeated in Senate

The Senate today rejected new gun control measures.

Among the measures that failed: One that banned high-capacity magazines with more than ten rounds, one that banned rapid-firing "assault" weapons and one calling for expanded background checks.

The vote was 54-46 vote, and 60 votes were needed.

While I'm glad the bills failed, I think it was a mistake by Obama to keep bringing out the Sandy Hook survivors in support of his plan.

It's also clear from Boston that gun laws won't stop horrific acts of violence or terrorism. If guns aren't available, anyone bent on mayhem will find another way to commit it. Bombs have a greater destructive potential than guns. [More....]

Colorado Senator Mark Udall split his votes, and voted against Sen. Feinstein's assault weapons ban but for expanded background checks. He explains:
"Coloradans, including sportsmen, hunters and responsible gun owners, agree that we need to keep dangerous military-style weapons off of our streets and out of places like our schools and movie theaters. In carefully studying the language of this specific assault weapons ban, it became clear that it went too far because it also would have banned certain hunting rifles and even some shotguns. And there was no opportunity to amend this legislation to make it work for Colorado sportsmen.

While this legislation sought to keep the most dangerous weapons off of our streets, we needed a more tailored and measured approach that better respected our traditions of hunting, sport shooting and responsible gun ownership. More specifically, if this bill had been more carefully crafted to only ban weapons designed for the battlefield and keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, I would have supported it.

"Although I voted against this version of an assault weapons ban, I voted earlier today for strengthened background-check legislation. And I will vote for legislation that bans high-capacity magazines, because that more focused policy similar to what passed in Colorado at the state level achieves many of the same goals without unnecessarily infringing on Coloradans' Second Amendment rights."

< Bon Jovi Denver Wrap-Up | Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Forced Blood Tests for DUI Suspects >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's more than shameful (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    It's a travesty that the right wing nut jobs and the NRA can obstruct the Senate with this "60 votes are needed" nonsense. These obstructionists are a danger to the people of this country.

    Look at the bright side (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:28:56 PM EST
    .

    Obama can now pivot to the economy.  With only 4% thinking guns are a priority, good policy is good politics.

    Link

    .

    Parent

    Utter nonsense (3.67 / 3) (#54)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:31:51 PM EST
    A large majority of Americans support expanding background checks on gun owners. It's a huge issue. Got any more tripe to share, or did you eat it all for dinner?

    Parent
    heh (4.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:39:09 AM EST
    No, the poll is entirely credible (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:55:41 AM EST
    It's the implication (because many people don't view gun control as the #1 issue, it's not important) that's not credible.

    Parent
    "Only 4%" - heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:41:14 AM EST
    Funny poll.

    Setting aside the fact that a huge majority support universal background checks and a majority support the other provisions in the bill, why is it significant that "only 4%" rate it as the most important issue.  I'm surprised it's that high.  While I think gun control is very important, I wouldn't rank it higher than jobs, the economy, healthcare, education, poverty, etc.  He//, it ranked higher than taxes and lack of money.

    Guess we can stop worrying about taxes, education and lack of money, too ...

    Parent

    You miss a major point (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:09:52 AM EST
    When asked if you support A or B you have to select one.

    So yes if Americans are given the choice of one or the other they go with the flow and say sure I'd like better background checks, just like I'd like more money or a sunny day.

    However when asked to choose between several other issues guns are way down on the list.

    That's why the bill failed.   The majority is not hankering for more gun laws.

    I'd support more background checks because I don't own guns and I don't really care but I'm much more worried about Obamacare, the economy etc... and am not going to work myself into a lather because this bill failed.

    And most Americans aren't either.

    The president really embarrassed himself yesterday and made himself look weak.  He lost because senators from his own party abandoned him.

    Move along, write a better bill but stop using the parents of Sandy Hook victims and political pawns when we all know this bill wouldn't have done anything to stop that tragedy.

    Horrible day indeed.

    Parent

    No, I didn't (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    However when asked to choose between several other issues guns are way down on the list.

    That's why the bill failed.   The majority is not hankering for more gun laws

    I'd support more background checks because I don't own guns and I don't really care but I'm much more worried about Obamacare, the economy etc... and am not going to work myself into a lather because this bill failed.

    And most Americans aren't either.

    Of course guns "way down" on the list.  They're "way down" on my own list, and I think gun control laws are very important - just not more important than jobs, the economy, healthcare, education, etc.  When asked to choose the most important issue, I'm surprised 4% chose gun control laws - not because people don't think gun control laws aren't important, but because they don't think they're the most important issue facing our country.  Using your logic, if a bill to lower taxes failed, it would be because "most Americans" don't really care about the issue, as evidenced by the fact that only 2% ranked it as the most important issue - half the number who chose guns.

    But trying to blame Obama and a few Democrats for this is funny, considering it's the NRA and their paid-for party that filibustered this bill.

    The ridiculous statements about the Sandy Hook victims shouldn't even be dignified by a response.

    Parent

    And that's a good summary (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    of what makes me sick to my stomach about this topic:

    I'd support more background checks because I don't own guns and I don't really care

    Maybe you'd care if someone close to you got gunned down.

    Parent

    Your right, I might (3.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:49:25 PM EST
    But the likely hood of that is very small.

    Just like the likely hood of someone I know getting killed in a Tornado is very small.

    I'm much more likely to have someone I know get killed in a car wreck but I'm not out asking the feds to make cars and the roads safer.   It's a risk that I'm willing to live with.

    I favor freedom in all circumstances and the freedom to own firearms has been with this country long before I came along and will be here long after I'm gone.

    I'm willing to live with the risk of gun incidents so that my fellow Americans can choose to own firearms.

    Maybe one day I won't feel this way but I can't see that happening.

    The moral grandstanding by the left on this issue is breathtaking.  

    Thousands die in this country every day for all sorts of reasons but the odds that it will be in a mass school shooting are 1 in a trillion.

    This is the most pressing matter we face?  This bill will stop the horror?

    Hardly.

    Sorry, I just can't get that worked up about it.

    Parent

    Cold and heartless IMO. (4.20 / 5) (#145)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    Your right, I might (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:49:25 PM EST
    But the likely hood of that is very small.

    Just like the likely hood of someone I know getting killed in a Tornado is very small.

    I'm much more likely to have someone I know get killed in a car wreck but I'm not out asking the feds to make cars and the roads safer.   It's a risk that I'm willing to live with.

    The very real pain of the Newtown and other families is not an abstraction.

    And you SHOULD be asking 'the feds' (which is really society, actually) to make cars, roads, and everything safer. It's called caring about the common good.

    Parent

    Actually, (3.67 / 3) (#99)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    We've had gun control measures in this country long before you came here.

    For example, the Gunfight at the OK Corral happened because Wyatt Earp was trying to enforce gun control laws (as in - you were not allowed to have firearms in the town of Tombstone).

    Parent

    Exactly my point (none / 0) (#123)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    We've had gun laws for years.

    Yet the horror still happens.

    Maybe criminals don't abide by the gun laws.  Maybe criminals will never do so, no matter how many we write and how well written they are.

    If we really wanted to stop this we would outlaw the manufacturing of guns.

    If you were for changing the constitution so we amend the 2nd amendment allowing the feds to do so then I'd support you because I don't really want or need a gun.

    But that's not the law of the land.  

    So I'm offered a choice.   Support more laws on top of already useless laws that won't prevent anything or support freedom.

    I support freedom.

    Parent

    "Freedom" - hah (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    If you were for changing the constitution so we amend the 2nd amendment allowing the feds to do so then I'd support you because I don't really want or need a gun.

    But that's not the law of the land.

    Really?  Which of the proposed gun control measures is a violation of the 2A?  See if you can cite just one case to support that claim.

    We've had gun laws for years.

    Yet the horror still happens...

    So I'm offered a choice.   Support more laws on top of already useless laws that won't prevent anything or support freedom.

    Name one law that prevents all of the crimes it's designed to prevent.  Just one.

    No?

    Guess these laws are just "useless then, huh?

    "Freedom" - The "freedom" to but a gun without having your criminal history checked.  The "freedom" to buy weapons designed to spray up to 100 bullets as fast as you want without having to reload.

    Heh.

    Parent

    More fake arguments (4.00 / 4) (#86)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    That's why the bill failed.   The majority is not hankering for more gun laws.

    The majority of Americans ARE "hankering" for more gun laws. In fact, 90% of all Americans are "hankering" for more gun laws. No, the bill failed because the senators who voted against it are bought and paid for by the NRA. Read Gabrielle Gifford's op-ed. She knows these corrupt little weasels and exposes them for exactly what they are. When 90% of the Americans support expanded background checks on gun owners, and then NRA-owned senators kill the bill, there is only one response:

    Disgust.

    If you think the majority of Americans won't be disgusted by this you're dreaming.

    Parent

    News flash (none / 0) (#93)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    That's not how democracy works.

    If 90% were overly concerned the bill wouldn't have failed.

    They aren't, so it did.  

    If 90% really wanted this the NRA couldn't stand in their way but they don't so the NRA has the upper hand.

    All these conspiracy theories about the NRA are silly.   They have no more power then any other lobbying firm in relation to public opinion.

    The facts are Americans like guns and many Americans own and use them.    If this issue was as popular as many on the left portray it the bill would pass.

    Politicians aren't stupid.   Look at Gay Marriage.   Once the cat was out of that bag they couldn't line up fast enough to tell us how they'd struggled with this issues etc...   BS.   They have the backbone of a snail.  

    When America starts voting based on guns then we'll have more gun laws.  Until then we won't.

    Parent

    Newsflash (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    90% want universal background checks and majorities want the other provisions.

    Facts are a little harder to deal with than baseless statements, huh?

    Parent

    Why are you arguing with me (none / 0) (#126)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    I'm well aware that lots of people "favor" this bill.

    Favoring and supporting with your vote are two different things.

    If the red state democrats thought this was so popular that it'd help them politically they'd have voted for it.

    It's not, so they didn't.

    Parent

    Because you're contorting to avoid ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:34:26 PM EST
    ... the truth.  People want this law passed.  The question in the poll was whether people would vote for or against these laws.  Much as you try to deny it, the majority of the people want these laws enacted.

    The fact that you try to place blame on a few Democrats that voted against this bill as opposed to the 42 Republicans who did is just funny.

    Hard to say which is more transparent, though.

    Parent

    Just keep telling yourself nonsense like this: (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    If 90% really wanted this the NRA couldn't stand in their way but they don't so the NRA has the upper hand.

    It isn't "if." The fact is, 90% of Americans want stricter gun regulations. And yet, the NRA prevailed...gosh, I wonder how that happened? Couldn't have anything to do with the financial, lobbying, and and advertising stranglehold the NRA has on so many members of Congress, could it?? Forget your limited understanding of "how democracy works" and just try facing the facts about how Congress works.

    Parent

    I guess it depends (none / 0) (#122)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    on what you mean by "wanting"

    If wanting means I'd rather have A then B then yes most of Americans "want" it.

    If wanting means Americans need it so much they're willing to vote based on it then no, they don't want it.

    Parent

    "Want" (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    It's not as hard as you want it to be.

    Parent
    I can google want (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    Americans don't WANT this bill.  If they did it would have passed.

    What is so complicated?  

    If Americans truly wanted this bill they'd have lit up the phone lines of Capital Hill, written emails, marched on the capital and this bill would have passed.

    They didn't.

    Red State Dems ran scared for a reason.  

    Maybe 90% plus of the country supports this bill but the voting constituents of their home states must not.

    Parent

    Like I said before, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    you have a fantasy about how democracy works, and no conception whatsoever about how Congress works.

    Parent
    Anybody can (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    Yet you're the one making the claim that Americans don't want it, when Americans themselves say they do.

    But watching you go through these contortions to avoid placing blame where it really belongs is just funny.  So are statements such as these:

    Americans don't WANT this bill...

    Red State Dems ran scared for a reason.  

    Maybe 90% plus of the country supports this bill but the voting constituents of their home states must not.

    So now we decide what "Americans want" not based on what they actually say they want, but on the assumed opinions of majorities in 4 small, conservative states.

    Heh.

    Parent

    No. No. No. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    Their constituents supported the bill, it's the Senators beholden to the NRA who didn't have the courage to vote for it.  


    Parent
    Funniest comment all day (4.00 / 4) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    All these conspiracy theories about the NRA are silly.  They have no more power then any other lobbying firm in relation to public opinion.

    Sure, and I'm the tooth fairy.

    Parent

    You have to tell yourself that (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:51:05 PM EST
    to believe what you believe.

    Plenty of lobbying organizations out there but somehow the NRA has super powers?

    Which one is more like the tooth fairy?

    Parent

    "Super powers" = more straw (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    No one claimed the NRA has "super powers".  What they have is $$ and focus on a single issue combined with the ability to fan the flames of fear among a paranoid base.

    Why Is the NRA So Powerful?

    The risk of daring to disagree with the NRA.

    How The NRA Became The Most Powerful Special Interest In Washington

    Why the Gun Lobby Usually Wins

    You need a few dozen more?

    Parent

    come on Slado (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    the NRA is very powerful.  Their members are gullible as hell.  I Know, I live with one and hang out with many others.  The NRA sends them literature they should address it "Dear SUCKER". When the NRA wants a bill killed they call these guys and LIE and tell them to call their senators and congresspeople and threaten them and baa baa baa, these NRA members do it.  
    Do you know how many times I have sworn to the significant other that there is NO bill before congress to take all our guns away?
    The NRA contributes big bucks to campaigns in many states and it can be the difference between victory and defeat.  They have the same type of power the unions have and that is pretty damn powerful.

    Parent
    I only... (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by sj on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    ...wish the unions still had the same kind of power the NRA has.

    Parent
    The list of phony, NRA-owned Dems: (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:16:25 PM EST
    Mark Pryor (AK)
    Max Baucus (MT)
    Mark Begich (AK)
    Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
    and Harry Reid (D-NV), who claims he voted against so that Democrats could bring the bill up again. Let us not forget that it was Reid who failed miserably in his responsibility to reform the filibuster.

    those Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    are in solid Red States, they represent their constituents well, or they are voted out

    do you remember former Senator Blanche Lincoln (D)of Arkansas?

    she was the 60th vote to bring Obama Care up for consideration, and she ended up voting against the Bill, so just that "party vote" did her in, the election was something like 60 to 70% against her re-election

    she had a part in the banking reform bill, so the banks came against her too

    States have powers to regulate guns as in New York, Colorado and Connecticut, that's Federalism

    NPR has been covering the gun issue here and they bring up Indiana's more tolerant approach and their Gov Reps response, "well, if we are so loose here in Indiana, how come your gun crimes are higher than ours and you have some of the most restrictive laws"?

    Nobody wants to face the character issue of personal behavior

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (type of person)".....John Adams

    questions of immigration and citizenship also should have a serious discussion

    Parent

    Indiana's gun crime rates ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    NPR has been covering the gun issue here and they bring up Indiana's more tolerant approach and their Gov Reps response, "well, if we are so loose here in Indiana, how come your gun crimes are higher than ours and you have some of the most restrictive laws"?

    Nobody wants to face the character issue of personal behavior

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (type of person)".....John Adams

    questions of immigration and citizenship also should have a serious discussion

    In reality, Indiana's gun crime rate is higher than the states with more gun control laws.  So, given the fact that the those states with stricter gun laws have either lower or much lower gun crime rates than Indiana, I wouldn't try to pretend Indianans have better morals, personal character or behavior.

    Parent

    FYI, Sen. Reid voted against it ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    ... as majority leader for procedural terms, because it allows him to resurrect the measure at a later date should circumstances offer him the opportunity to do so. Per Senate rules, had he not done so, he would not be allowed to later offer a motion for reconsideration. (Disclosure: I'm a legislative parliamentarian.)

    That said, you are absolutely spot on in your observation that Sen. Reid bears an awful lot of responsibility for today's failure, due to his own unwillingess and / or inability to effectively bring about reform of the U.S. Senate's filibuster rules.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:37:32 PM EST
    just don't see Reid bringing it up at a later date.

    He is one of the weakest leaders I've ever seen.

    A shame.

    Parent

    Weak as it is, it's ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    ... still more than what you're offering.

    Parent
    Do (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:04:21 PM EST
    you see Reid actually bringing it up at a later date and fighting effectively for it?

    Do you think he is a strong leader?

    I had thought, from what you wrote, that you were not particularly impressed with Reid's leadership.

    Apparently you are.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Did I say he was a strong leader? (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    Don't put words in my mouth. But compared to what you offer on the political level, which is nothing, Reid's the second coming of Douglas MacArthur.

    Because unlike you, at least Harry Reid's out there in the public arena giving battle, albeit not very effectively a lot of the time -- whereas you're just sitting in the left field bleachers, having a beer and heckling the umpires.

    Parent

    Oh, Jesus, here we go... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:38:00 PM EST
    Who the f**k do you think you are, Donald?  Do you have any arrow in your quiver other than this one?  Because it's gotten rather predictable, this habit you have of denigrating people whom you have decided - based on nothing more than blog comments - do not meet your standard for being sufficiently active in political matters to deserve to speak.

    Are you familiar with the term "florid?"  How about "manic?"  You seem really wound up tonight, Donald, wallowing in hyperbole and over-using the bold and italics functions; I expect any moment now for links to some insulting and puerile you-tubes to make their appearance in your comments.

    You might try a little more Pat Summerall and a lot less John Madden.

    Harry Reid is supremely ineffective as a majority leader, failing to deal with the filibuster and other rules, among other things.

    And for the love of God, Donald - we have one of the worst mass shootings in history, and four months of the president's sparking personality isn't enough to get this thing across the finish line?  Nobody does speeches and photo ops better than Obama - but political expert that you never stop telling us you are, you have to know that these things are won and lost not in the Rose Garden but in back rooms and cloakrooms.  It isn't hearts that need to be twisted, but arms.

    Get the hell over yourself.

    Parent

    Thanks for the advice, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:40:23 PM EST
    You go first.

    Parent
    And FYI, ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07:26 PM EST
    ... Pat Summerall never had to work in politics.

    As Tip O'Neill was fond of saying, "Politics ain't beanbag." You want to be effective in this business and get something done, you better be prepared to play some hardball when necessary -- because if you want people to do the right thing politically, quite often you have to compel them to do so. Strident rhetoric means schitt in this particular neck of the woods. The players who are good at this game will see right through you, and whatever you saying won't amount to much if anything, unless can demonstrate that you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

    Harry Reid has proven that he can indeed play hardball, as he showed effectively in his 2010 re-election campaign against Sharron Angle. His primary problem is that he's quite often been clueless regarding WHEN to play it in the legislative arena.

    Now, that's all I'm going to say on the subject. Aloha.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:27:28 PM EST
    getting something done requires playing "hardball", I don't see much of it coming out of this white house - or from the Senate Majority leader.

    Maybe Harry can play hardball, or not beanbag, when running his sorry keister for re-election, but it doesn't do us much good when he wins and can't get a goddam thing done.

    Parent

    Great (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by sj on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:31:57 PM EST
    Reid plays hardball when his own skin is on the line.  Now if only he would do that for ours.

    Parent
    To be fair, Harry Reid ran against a whacko (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    Tea Partier who wanted to abolish Social Security and Medicare and ban the sale of alcohol, among other things. So, it wasn't really a fair fight.

    Harry Reid and Claire McCaskill were last November's luckiest politicians. They won the crazy opponent sweepstakes.

    Parent

    If the only evidence of Reid playing hardball (4.33 / 3) (#51)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    you can come up with is that he won his last campaign, then he deserves to lose the leadership post. He doesn't play hardball when it counts. He FAILED on reforming the filibuster. He's weak as the weakest tea.

    Parent
    I'm not disagreeing with you, shoephone. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:34:05 PM EST
    Look, Harry Reid's a smart and even savvy guy, but there's really little or no question that he's been a weak leader. I just pointed out his 2010 political campaign to show that he is fully capable of playing hardball if he has to do so.

    But ultimately, it's up to his Senate colleagues to change the present dynamic in that chamber, either by lighting a fire uder his a$$, or by dumping him overboard in favor of someone whos more willing to step on people's toes in order to get things done.

    Okay, this has been fun, but I've got to get ready for the 7:00 p.m. conferernce committee on the state budget. We'll be here until midnight tonight.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    did you (none / 0) (#48)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:06:02 PM EST
    actually believe that if the background check amendment passed the Senate that it would go anywhere in the House?

    Parent
    You're right. They should never take a stand (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:21:47 PM EST
    on anything because those other mean people in the other chamber might not pass it. Wah! I'm so frigging tired of hearing these cop out arguments, where the people we elect--whose salaries and health care WE pay for--don't have to represent us when it's time to vote on legislation because of the possibility it might not get passed. So these corrupt little weasels should just keep copping out and GUARANTEE the legislation won't get passed?? They should just keep doing the bidding of the NRA, the Koch brothers and ALEC, and laughing all the way to the bank??

    HE[[ NO!! If Blue Dogs behave like Republicans, time to throw them out.  

    Parent

    Gabrielle Giffords disagrees with you (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:26:13 AM EST
    Here is her op-ed in the New York Times. She knows these people and calls them out for their cowardice. This is a scathing piece. And it's exactly what they deserve.

    Parent
    ... there's no pressure on the House whatsoever to do anything. Successful practical politics on matters like gun control requires you to focus on the long game, and not get discouraged by the short game.

    Quite honestly, I never expected anything to pass this year. 2015 will be the earliest we can expect significant change on this front.

    So, with the long game in mind, it's like what's happened with same-sex marriage. Opponents of gun control will have to be lucky forever just to maintain the present status quo, whereas determined and diligent proponents only have to get lucky once -- with a little hard work, of course -- in breaking the logjam.

    Ultimately on this particular issue, the ability to play the long game depends upon the sustainability of public opinion in order to undermine the political influence of the NRA and their sugar daddies, the firearms manufacturers. Right now, in the aftermath of Newtown, the public is actually quite engaged and concerned, but the politicians in Washington are wagering their careers on its short-term collective memory.

    But once another massacre occurs -- and you know that's likely inevitable -- and voters correctly perceive that Washington's unwillness to act responsibly on a matter of public safety is due primarily to their own politicians' narrow special interest concerns, they might well proceed to punish a few high-profile miscreants electorally at the polls in 2014. If that happens, there's not going to be enough gun lobby money in the world that can save them.

    And were I in D.C., that's where I would begin to focus a twofold effort right now, toward organizing gun control proponents politically and identifying a few of the more politically vulnerable members in the opposition. Because electoral success on that front would probably be your game changer, in which the Beltway's conventional wisdom regarding the politics of gun control could finally give way to a major realignment on the issue.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#163)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 04:52:55 PM EST
    as I mentioned to Yman, the "long game" is "national registry", if they wanted "background checks" at gun shows/internet, they had the votes, Tom Colburn & Co backed out when Schumer started going to "keeping records by private sellers", I mean it was such a joke, that they wrote a provision in the bill against using the data for a registry  

    Parent
    Jerilyn (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:21:40 PM EST
    You're way off the mark on this one.

    The people in the gallery who shouted 'shame' were absolutely right.

    The 2nd amendment was to protect EXISTING state governments; the "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part and the 'right of the people ... " part is rooted deep in Anglo-Saxon tradition that, in lieu of a standing army, depended on armed subjects to defend the realm.

    The Civil War, for all purposes, rendered the 2nd amendment a useless anachronism.

    This is not 11th century England nor is it ante bellum America.


    cal, the civil war (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:56:16 PM EST
    may very well have "...rendered the 2nd amendment a useless anachronism."  Well then we should have changed it by now and we have not. Until we do, it still means that citizen's right to bear arms must not be infringed in case there is ever a need for a community to to organize a militia.  
    I for one am not convinced that there will never be a time when a community might not need to form a militia.

    Parent
    We have one (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    It's called The National Guard.

    They are always accepting applications for people who want to carry guns and help communities.

    Parent

    cal1942 versus the Supreme Court (1.50 / 8) (#11)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:44:59 PM EST
    I think I trust the Supreme Court on this subject more than I trust you.

    Heck, I trust Lawrence Tribe more than I trust you.

    Please take your historical revisionism to a circus.

    Parent

    You go first. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:57:31 PM EST
    You do realize that the Supreme Court (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39:46 PM EST
    did not take the opportunity to deem New York's strict gun laws unconstitutional.

    Parent
    About the people from Newtown (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    Jerilyn, your remarks about the Sandy Hook parents lead me to conclude that you believe the Sandy Hook parents, unlike the NRA, had no right to lobby.

    Disgusting.

    And by the way, the bombs at the Boston Marathon has nothing whatever to do with the all too easy availability of military weapons.

    Stating that there are additional forms of senseless mass murder is a crappy way to justify the failure to erode the capability of another form of senseless murder.

    We've all heard that senseless, asinine argument before.

    Really. (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    If the person who put out those bombs had decided to spray the mass coming across the finish line with bullets, he would have killed more people than the bomb did.

    Parent
    I knew it was only a matter of time (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:09:32 PM EST
    until the tragedy in Boston would be used as justification for not reducing gun violence.

    Parent
    'asinine' (1.57 / 7) (#13)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:50:33 PM EST
    Describes your personal attack style of argumentation.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    interpreted Jeralyn's comment differently.

    I believe that she was stating, or implying, that Obama was using the parents as props - and too often. What she said had nothing to do, imo, with the right of the parents to lobby the congress.

    Obama should have, imo, been making impassioned arguments on a daily basis - and let the logic of his thought and power of his passion sway the public and ultimately the legislators.

    Instead, imo, he posed with the families and saved his unscripted passion until after the bill had been defeated.

    Parent

    Oh, please! (3.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:54:55 PM EST
    lentinel: "Instead, imo, [President Obama] posed with the families and saved his unscripted passion until after the bill had been defeated."

    That's just simply not true. Further, it's a ridiculous and foolish observation, given THIS SPEECH, and THIS one, and THIS and THIS, among other moments.

    Can't you put aside your visceral hatred of this president for even one moment? Barack Obama's been out there in the public eye, crisscrossing the country to drum up public support for his gun-control package for the last four months straight. And for his part, so has Vice President Joe Biden.

    Google is your friend, lentinel. Try using it sometime.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:06:40 PM EST
    is no possibility of a discussion with you, Don.

    Parent
    And vice versa, I assure you. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    Nor will there be, as long as you continue to post nonsensical and emotive comments like the one above.

    Parent
    There (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:16:54 PM EST
    is no possibility of a discussion with you, Don.

    Parent
    I think you mistake military weapons (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:28:37 PM EST
    with some other type of gun.

    Parent
    That's a canard, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:24:09 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "It's also clear from Boston that gun laws won't stop horrific acts of violence or terrorism. If guns aren't available, anyone bent on mayhem will find another way to commit it. Bombs have a greater destructive potential than guns."

    And quite frankly, it's a rather silly, simplistic and shopworn canard at that. Further, it's one which has absolutely no actual factual basis to support it.

    In baseball parlance, Jeralyn, you just hung yourself out to dry with a slow pitch over the plate -- and for my part, the take sign's not on.

    Now, watch this.

    Per the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, there were 12,996 murders committed in the United States in the year 2010. Of that number, 8,775 persons in this country were murdered by firearms that year.

    That means that firearms were used in the commission of 67.5% of all murders in the United States -- or over two out of every three.

    I can further tell you from those CDC statistics that of those 8,774 murders by firearms in 2010:

    • 1,704 persons were killed as a result of stabbing, from either a knife or some other sharp instrument;
    • Another 540 met their demise from blunt force trauma, i.e., death caused by a motor vehicle, a baseball bat or a shovel, etc.;
    • A further 745 were killed by someone wielding a personal non-firearm weapon -- which includes bombs; and
    • 874 persons were murder by some other means not readily identifiable by the statistics.

    Now, of those aforementioned 745 murders in 2010 that were caused by a personal non-firearm weapon:
    • 358 victims were killed by direct physical assault, i.e., fists or feet;
    • 220 victims died from strangulation or asphyxiation;
    • 10 were drowned;
    • 74 were killed by fire;
    • 39 died because of a deliberate pharmaceutical overdose; and
    • 11 were poisoned.

    How many people in the United States were murdered by explosives (bombs) in 2010? A grand total of FOUR.

    So, to recap, there were 8,775 persons murdered with firearms in the United States in 2010. For that matter, another 8,583 Americans were murdered with firearms in 2011, which is the last year for which such statistics are presently available.

    You know, if we were losing American military personnel in a foreign conflict overseas at such an appalling rate, I've no doubt that you'd be screaming to the high heavens on TL about it, and urging your readers to call their congressional representatives, take to the streets and march on our nation's Capitol in order to compel our government to end the carnage.

    But when it comes to deaths from firearms violence in your own country, you simply shrug your shoulders, offer us a wholly baseless -- and appallingly insensitive -- canard, and say, "Hey, what're you gonna do?"

    Suffice to say, I'm very disappointed in you. It's one thing to take the position you have on this issue, and another thing entirely to be able to defend that position effectively.

    And by throwing out that ridiculous canard for our consideration, you've undermined your case against the proposed and otherwise-sensible firearms control measures in rather epic fashion -- not unlike how the Phillies' Mitch "Wildman" Williams served up the 1993 World Series to the Toronto Blue Jays.

    And as long as I'm reverting to baseball speak, were I your team's manager and you were on my pitching staff, I'd be shipping you to the minors, placing you on waivers, or handing you your unrestricted release based upon your performance in this thread.

    Aloha.

    Well Don (3.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:27:01 AM EST
    .

    The problem with the background check legislation that got voted down is that there was ZERO demonstration that it would have reduced the murder count you reference by even one.  

    Surely if expanded background checks would have reduced that murder total, the proponents could have pointed to a number of those 8,775 murders that would have been avoided with expanded background checks.  The fact that proponents could not even identify even one such example speaks volumes.

    .

    Parent

    Logic fail (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    Explain how it should be "demonstrated" that a proposed bill - never enacted - would have reduced the number of murders, to the degree that the NRA and 2A zealots would be satisfied.

    BTW - If you actually want to learn about the subject, there are many studies showing the effectiveness of background checks on firearms trafficking, weapon acquisition by prohibited persons, the reduction of risk of firearms/violent crime, etc. etc.

    Parent

    Correct me if I'm wrong (1.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:00:07 PM EST
    but background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook killings.

    It's not the mothers of kids killed in Chicago the President is standing with.  It's the more sympathetic parents of school kids he's using as political props.

    Sure background checks might help reduce gun violence a tad but so would the laws not enforced already on the books.

    So do aggressive police tactics.  Are you in favor of those since statistics show they reduce violent crime?

    Parent

    What difference does that make? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by sj on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    Replying To:

    Correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:00:07 PM EST

    but background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook killings.

    Are those the only deaths by gun that one should be concerned about?

    Parent
    Sure they could have (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    A background check into the mother would have revealed that she had a disturbed son with psychiatric problems.  The fact that she had so many guns would have set alarm bells off.

    Parent
    Correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    We don't know if background checks alone would have prevented Sandy hook, but then again, no one is claiming they would.  It's irrelevant.  No law will stop every crime.  The idea is to reduce the flow of guns to criminals, who currently use "private" sales as a way to avoid background checks.  That's why these parents are speaking out - as any parent would.  They want to reduce the risk of gun violence even though it's too late for their own children.  The fact that you patronize them by claiming they are being "used as props" is just ridiculous.

    The "might help a tad" thing is funny, although your link goes to your own comment.

    So do aggressive police tactics.  Are you in favor of those since statistics show they reduce violent crime?

    I'm fine with aggressive police tactics, as long as they're constitutional ... like background checks.

    Parent

    Yman (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    Chuck Schumer had Tom Colburn (big R) working with him on the bill, so they would have had more R's if it didn't try to force private sellers to keep a receipt/list of who/what sold, they would have gotten "background check"

    so the ultimate Government objective is "national registry"

    with the Supreme Court, like us, if something can be decided on other grounds, the main issue will not be settled and it is sent back to the Lower Court,

    so then what is still possible to do?

    1. the State can TAX gun shows, say $10,000
    2. if there are 50 booths, then have 50 police officers covering them

    best to put the money and burden on Government not We The People

    Parent
    That is a complete lie (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    Chuck Schumer had Tom Colburn (big R) working with him on the bill, so they would have had more R's if it didn't try to force private sellers to keep a receipt/list of who/what sold, they would have gotten "background check"

    so the ultimate Government objective is "national registry"

    The law did absolutely no such thing.

    Obama says bipartisan background check plan "outlawed any (gun) registry".
    - True

    Ted Cruz Admits Background Check Bill Doesn't Seek To Create Gun Registry

    In actuality, a federal registry of gun ownership is already prohibited under law. But the lawmakers crafting a compromise -- Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) -- wanted to ensure a smoother passage for their bill, so they made the punishment more severe. In addition to a potential jail sentence of 15 years, officials who create a gun registry or misuse federal records on gun sales or ownership would face a monetary fine.

    Don't believe the NRA lies.

    Parent

    two fold (1.00 / 2) (#172)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    1. as mentioned Tom Colburn was willing to extend background checks to gun shows and internet sales, and since he is a solid conservative/pro gun it would have been enough to bring on board others to make the 60 cut off

    2. since the Dems-Schumer would not drop the "private seller record sales" he lost the supposed reason "extended back ground checks"

    let me repeat that: Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer had the votes and could have passed a bill extending background checks, so he wanted to "hook" something else "in there"

    there are a few folks, both on left and right that hold extreme views, and have an agenda to push and they do it in incremental steps, just as Dianne Feinstein only wants to ban "certain" weapons, but her opinion is to ban all

    they have to get their Fixx, one thing leads to another

    as I recall Obama mentioned to liberal groups that Obamacare did not include "Single Payer", but it was a first step to get there, after a few years of social conditioning, I am sure

    Parent

    Let me repeat (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:47:38 PM EST
    1.  Federal law specifically prohibits a national gun registry,

    2.  the claim that this bill created a registry is a lie,

    3.  the other claims are just silly speculation.


    Parent
    reciept identification (1.00 / 2) (#176)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    is the first step, once records start being kept, like at Court, they subpoena them, later they could drop the "no national registry" unnecessary burden thing because folks have already been conditioned

    Congress passes laws, like no tax on internet sales, then, they change

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    Where's the actual evidence?

    NRA conspiracy theories aren't worth the imaginary paper they're written on ...

    Parent

    Stop making sense (3.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    Sense gets in the way of expansive government.

    The essence of progressive/democratic legislation is to create regulations, laws and agencies to make us feel better.

    If they actual do something, well that's just a nice coincidence.

    The issue is more important then the actual results.  You should know that by now.

    Parent

    And I'm disappointed in you Donald (2.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:47:41 PM EST
    that all you are is a partisan, Democratic party hack, but hey we can all be as disappointed in each other as we wanna be, because that's just life.

    Parent
    That may well be. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:22:12 PM EST
    I'm certainly never been embarrassed about my political inclinations, and have never tried to hide them around here.

    You can call me all the names you want, Zero. Yeah, I'm a local political operative, and I'm proud of what I've been able to accomplish. And quite frankly, I've been called much worse over the years by Republicans who are far more savvy at this game than you'll ever be -- not that that's saying very much, given what I've seen from you.

    I still like my side's chances, because as I've shown in my post (#18), we have facts and evidence on our side, as well as the growing tide of public opinion.

    Meanwhile, you and your Republican friends are living in your own private Idaho, a shapeshifting Never-neverland of make-believe that's rendered you impervious to reality and truth. But as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed, the arc of history may be long, but it bends toward justice. And mark my words, justice on this issue will prevail. You can count on it.

    Dogs bark, and the caravan passes. Aloha.

    Parent

    not sure if (2.00 / 1) (#165)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 05:31:33 PM EST
    "Proud" is the right word

    I have a Illinois-Indiana perspective, the Constitution necessitates a "moral and religious people" in order for it to work right, there is a need for self Gov or self control and limited Gov verses people who are "lacking" in the character department and need a National Gov/strong man to keep/beat them into line/order by fear

    as the State is made up of different individuals, the more "wild" the individuals get, or allowed or raised, and especially having an accommodating lax law enforcement, with sensitivity and diversity training, then there is the need for oppressive States and oppressive gun laws

    Parent

    I think he knows what he wants to say (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    And "proud" is the right word.

    OTOH - no idea what you were trying to say.

    Parent

    Shame. (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:42:56 AM EST
    "We're sorry your child was killed. We just aren't going to do anything about it. Signed, Congress."

    "Background checks for voting, but not for gun ownership."

    "One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and we all take our shoes off at airports forever. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns."

    Important difference (2.33 / 3) (#77)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    Guns are legal.

    Bombs are not.    

    There is no National Bomb Association.

    Parent

    Regulations on guns and gun ownership (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    are also legal. Scalia verified this in Heller vs D.C. and the Supreme Court chose not to take the opportunity to overturn New York's strict gun regulations.

    Dr. Molly's comment specifically referenced the "regulation of guns."

    Probably your most valid point is that "There is no National Bomb Association."  

    Parent

    Why, yes. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    1. Yes, we know. So are gun regulations.
    2. Yes, we know. Ironic, eh?
    3. Yes, we know. Thanks for pointing out the power of the
        scrofulous NRA.

    Parent
    Shameful (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:55:26 AM EST
    And shame on anyone who cheers this.

    How many deaths have occurred due to (4.91 / 11) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    bombs in the U.S. since Newtown?

    How many deaths have occurred due to guns since Newtown? 3,491

    How many deaths might have occurred (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    in Boston if one terrorist fired an assault weapon w/ multiple large magazines?

    Parent
    Clearly, we must outlaw pressure cookers (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:15:11 PM EST
    and we can look to Colorado to courageously lead the way in a campaign to do away with dangerous, contraband kitchen countertop appliances.

    Maybe we could just have armed Coloradoans line up pressure cookers by the thousands -- maybe in a mall movie theater parking lot -- and shoot the sh!t out of 'em.  

     

    Parent

    And perhaps we should outlaw ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    ... ball bearings and penny nails, too.

    Parent
    Enjoy slapping the bear grease (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:20:57 PM EST
    on your buggy's axles.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    Touché, mein Herr. Now, do you know where I can get my hands on some bear grease ...?

    Parent
    It can also be noted (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:12:52 AM EST
    that using a bomb is far more logistically difficult than picking up a semi-automatic, attaching a high capacity magazine and wreaking hell on a significant number of people.

    I think we've all been exposed to the bomb argument before.  It's an asinine gambit.

    Parent

    This would be such a pursuasive argument (1.67 / 6) (#2)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:24:33 PM EST
    MO Blue , if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the deaths from firearms since Newtown were suicides and criminals killing criminals in largely poor inner city neighborhoods.

    But hey, I guess it's fun ignoring that the best way to reduce gun deaths in this country(since you claim to care so much about these deaths) would be to deal with the problem of why so many people want to commit suicide and do something (like end the "War on Drugs") about the gun violence in the largely 'gun free legally' large cities.

    Parent

    Cite? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    Would you (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:47:25 PM EST
    link to sources for your statements?

    I am particularly interested in what you call, "criminals killing criminals in largely poor inner city neighborhoods".

    Who named these victims "criminals"? On what evidence?

    Where you got your "suicide" information from would also be interesting...

    but, frankly, the "inner city poor neighborhood criminals killing criminals" line sounds extremely racist.

    I also must take issue with the tone you take towards MO Blue's comment. This is obviously a person who cares about the tragic toll of gun violence in this country - so why you are so antagonistic and patronizing escapes me.

    Links please to corroborate your assertions.

    Parent

    seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:42:56 PM EST
    come on lentinel...you know where the majority of gun deaths are coming from and it is not in rural areas.  It certainly is not from mass shootings in schools and movie theaters or at political rallies.  You can count those deaths in your head with out even thinking hard. Common sense/common knowledge tells us where the majority of this crime is happening and it is in the cities, involving poverty, hopelessness and drug related activity.  Is it racist to tell the truth about that or is it racist to ignore it in the name of mindless PC?..... and then when you have nothing else, throw a charge of racism at the other person.  Blech

    Parent
    No, but it is racist to imply (4.00 / 4) (#72)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:49:58 AM EST
    that because so many of those deaths occur in inner city neighborhoods, they mean less and we shouldn't use the numbers to bolster the arguments for doing something about it.

    It's ok until it affects you, eh?

    Parent

    Lentinel (1.89 / 9) (#10)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    I'm not interested in humoring you.
    The fact that I LIVE in a poor city neighborhood as well as the statistics of firearm deaths (who dies and why)both in my city and nationwide have been linked in many threads on this subject on this very site. Once again, there are MANY OTHER THREADS On this subject within the past two months alone where you may find ME and Jeralyn, among others linking to firearm death statistics.

    Do you own research. There's this thing called Google. Or just admit you are too lazy to research and rely on emotion for all your 'arguments'.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:26:56 PM EST
    need you to humor me.

    I would add that even if what you said was true, and that the bulk of the 3500 gun deaths which have occurred since Newtown were suicides and people, even criminals, killing themselves in the inner city - that would be a source of concern to me.

    Stated differently, I would be in favor of limiting access to these guns which result in suicides or criminals killing each other.

    I simply do not understand your hostility.

    And no, I'm not about to spend time researching your assertions if you are not interested enough in supporting them.


    Parent

    it could be flipped (none / 0) (#16)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:11:55 PM EST
    to, "would you deny that many inner city killings are gang related" ie one gang shootin' it up with a rival gang over territory, drugs or retaliation?

    here in Chicago decent innocent folks like Haydia Pendelton get caught in the cross-fire

    so in Haydia's case, it was "criminals killing 'assumed' criminals in largely poor inner city neighborhoods"

    Parent

    Does (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    it matter whether many of the shootings that occur with easily accessible guns are gang related? Supposing they are. People are still being killed and innocents are, as you said, caught in the crossfire.

    I also ask - what is the source of the claim that the majority of the deaths cited by MO Blue - and undisputed by Slayersrezo - are of inner-city "criminals"? Have they all been previously charged or convicted of anything?

    And if the rest were, as Slayersrezo states, suicides... is that any less of a reason to limit access to these weapons?

    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#46)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:07 PM EST
    call them victims, I don't think they keep public records of whether a victim has a criminal record, do you have figures-statistics-percentages?

    Police have gang crime units dealing with violence with illegal guns, not law abiding gun owners

    Parent

    This would be such a persuasive argument (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:32:06 PM EST
    If those people whose deaths you dismiss because they were suicides/criminals weren't actually dead.  Or, in the alternative, if the number of firearms deaths (even excluding those deaths) didn't still dwarf the number of bomb-deaths.

    Parent
    Agreed. Per my post (No. 18) below, ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    ... there were 8,775 murders committed with the use of firearms in the United States for the year 2010, versus 4 murders  committed by the use of explosives that same year.

    Parent
    Thanks, Donald (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:49:24 PM EST
    I knew the number of bomb deaths was orders-of-magnitude lower than gun deaths, but didn't feel like Googling it.

    Yes, bombs (knives, blunt objects, etc.) can be very dangerous, but the fact is that guns are by far the weapon of choice because they're just easier.  Easier to obtain, easier to operate correctly, easier to conceal, easier to transport, etc. etc.

    Parent

    I've been working on ... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:08:15 PM EST
    ... gun control measures out here in the legislature this session. After the Xerox shootings out here in Nov. 1999, in which seven men were killed, we enacted what were arguably the strongest firearms laws in the country.

    (Interesting sidenote: Bryan Uyesugi, the guy who shot his seven colleagues that awful day, was also our Capitol office's Xerox repairman. After the murders were committed and Uyesugi was at large, the Capitol went on full lockdown, because the authorities were afraid that he would come here. Scary, huh?)

    You know how many people were murdered with a firearm in the State of Hawaii last year?

    One.

    Parent

    So why do you need more gun regulation? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    That's exactly what our state legislature ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:39:10 PM EST
    ... is presently discussing in conference committee. Quite frankly, yours is a question that I've been asking during our deliberations, as well.

    Speaking for myself only, it's my considered opinion that the majority of the gun control bills introduced out here this session were politically motivated and part of an efort to capitalize on the national outrage over the Newtown massacre.  

    For the record, the vast majority of firearms in Hawaii are long guns, i.e., hunting rifles. Possession of both military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds are espressly prohibited in the islands. Further, handguns in general are strictly regulated, and require a separate permit for each pistol.

    Handgun permits require the applicant to complete and pass a state-certified gun safety course, and first-time permit seekers are required to pay for their own fingerprinting. Even firearms inherited by relatives are expected to be registered with the county police. Failure to do so in willful disregard of the law can be charged as a felony, and is punishable with stiff fines up to $10,000 per weapon, plus up to five years' imprisonment.

    Persons with sufficiently dangerous criminal backgrounds or mental health histories aren't allowed to possess firearms -- period. And concealed weapon permits are very difficult to obtain, being granted only by county police chiefs on a case-by-case basis. Generally, you have to be registered security or law enforcement personnel to get one.

    As I noted above, I'm not sure what more we can do out here, other than perhaps regulate the public sale of ammunition. There was a proposed bill that was introduced in January which would have done just that, but it was deferred by the House Judiciary Committee in February, and it's not going to be resurrected any time soon.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#44)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:40:29 PM EST
    like in the cases of mentally ill folks being put on a bus for another State

    Governor Quinn is looking to cut the States budget, and close some prisons and do an early release of prisoners, a one way plane fare is cheaper then a years imprisonment, ya know?

    Parent

    You planning on shipping ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    ... a few of them out here, so they can hang out in Waikiki instead of outside Wrigley Field?
    ;-D


    Parent
    How many deaths have occurred because (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:33:03 PM EST
    someone accidentally designated a bomb and killed themselves or someone in their vicinity since Newtown?

    How many deaths occurred through the use of bombs in domestic violence situations since Newtown?

    How many deaths occurred through the use of bombs due to a drunken fight or argument since Newtown?

    And yes, how many suicides that resulted in death occurred through the use of a bomb?

    BTW, the gun deaths since Newtown have increased to 3,514 since my original post.

     

    Parent

    No recent accidential deaths from bombs (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:37:23 PM EST
    Congratulations! (1.67 / 6) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:07:11 AM EST

    The Senate should be congratulated on this civil rights victory.

    Background checks are not an infringement (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    of anyone's civil rights. Fake argument.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    Then lots of lawyers, doctors, people who need security clearance to work, or many regular people who take jobs where background checks are becoming more and more routine, are having hteir rights infringed..

    Parent
    Huh??? (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    Do you need a decoder machine? (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    Are you saying people with criminal backgrounds SHOULD be allowed to own guns?

    Parent
    Uh, no, not even close (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    I'm saying background checks are NOT infringments of civil rights because otherwise all those people I mentioned (who get routine background checks) would probably not be happy.

    Parent
    For example (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    To be admitted to the bar in Michigan, I had to provide information on every address I ever lived at since I was 16 (and I was 36 at the time) - that included an entry for every time I went to college for the year, and then every time I moved home for the summer.  I had to list every job I've had since I was 16 and every period of unemployment.  I had to get fingerprinted in Michigan for a driver's background check and criminal background check, and then again for Texas, because I had lived there 8 years prior (and I had to do that 3 times, because Texas kept sending the fingerprints back saying they couldn't read them). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    THEN, 2 years later, when I applied for the DC bar, I had to submit all this information again (no, not just the previous two years, but ALL that information again).

    All for the PRIVILEGE of taking the bar exam (in the case of Michigan), and to work in DC.

    No, my rights were not infringed upon.

    Parent

    and to imagine (1.67 / 3) (#166)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 05:43:22 PM EST
    Abraham Lincoln only had to read up, show up before a Judge in Court and demonstrate verbal competency and he was allowed to practice law

    unions can be barriers and they come at a cost

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 05:55:05 PM EST
    He also had to apply to the clerk of the Sangamon County Court to have himself registered as a man of good and moral character. THEN he had to take an oral exam in front of a panel of practicing attorneys.

    Parent
    You guys have a "union" !?!? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:51:35 PM EST
    In MD and NJ we have to do the same, but we only have bar associations.

    I'm a little jealous.  :)

    Parent

    Those medical examiners, too (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    If only we could have people "read up" and show up in the hospital.

    Imagine all the great "doctors" we would have if only we could get rid of those awful "unions" ...

    Parent

    The subject is background checks for GUNS (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:38:49 PM EST
    Were you applying to own a gun?

    Your grievances may be legit, jb, but they don't have anything to do with background checks for gun ownership.

    The opposing senators' arguments against background checks devolved into a screed that a national registry would result, and that law-abiding people's guns would be confiscated--which is a lie being perpetrated by the NRA.

    Parent

    I have no grievances on this (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    If I had my way, I would require blood, fingerprints, and DNA donations as part of a requirement to own a gun, along with full out psychiatric evaluations prior to owning a gun.  Finally, I would require full training and safety classes to be completed before a gun could be owned.

    I would also say that any screw up with said gun afterwards would carry a severe penalty.

    Parent

    Such a gun ownership policy... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    as you describe is a black market gun dealers wet dream.

    We can't legislate our way outta this mess...it's our nature that needs to change, not our laws.  

    Parent

    So, (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    We should do nothing, pass no laws, and hope everyone plays nice with each other?

    That's a great hope, but it's not reality.

    Parent

    What we have here... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    are two dueling fantasy lands...your way of passing law after law and reg after reg and control after control is just as unrealistic, if not more so.

    Congress and the executive have passed so many laws since this nation was founded that there are literally too many to count.  Utopia shoulda been here by now, maybe we should try the carrot instead of the stick for a change?

    Parent

    So, what's the carrot, kdog? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    What's the carrot that will keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them?

    Parent
    I'm saying... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    there is nothing we can do to stop someone who is hell bent on strapping up from strapping up...not with this many guns in circulation here and abroad.  You're tilting at windmills shoephone.  You want a gun no background check no questions asked there will be always be a seller...just look at drug prohibition.  You want heroin I'll have it by 5 o'clock.  I can't legally bet on the Mets today either, but I can as easily as buying a quart of milk.  

    An example of some carrots to reduce gun violence are expanded gun buy back programs, free confidential mental health care on demand, disarmament of law enforcement, more jobs, more education, more hope, more fairness, equality under the law, more love.

    Sh*t at this point Obama and the Dems would be more effective using reverse psychology.  Propose an assault weapons mandate and half the country might well throw their guns in the garbage.    

    Parent

    But you don't believe in having laws at all (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    I'm not sure your prescription for reverse psychology would work too well.

    Parent
    Nonsense... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    I don't how many times I have to say the human race is not ready for the great responsiblity that comes with anarchy, though working towards it should be the ultimate goal imo.  

    We need laws.
    We need laws.
    We need laws.

    Just because I don't think we need more laws than we can count doesn't mean I think we need no law at all.  But less is more, to be sure....too many and we have what we have, more prisoners per capita than any supposed "free" country in the world and a gun violence epidemic.

    Parent

    You know the "carrot" philosophy (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    doesn't work without the "stick" part, right?

    What's your "stick"?

    Parent

    Carrot only... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    always worked on me...bring out the stick I'm just gonna hate ya and spite ya at every turn.

    Where's your carrot?

    Parent

    Follow the rules (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:52:03 PM EST
    You get to live in peace.

    Parent
    Spoken like a (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    true authoritarian.  The rules leave no room for peace.


    Parent
    Libertarian simplistic trope. (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:11:37 PM EST
    The rules leave no room for peace.

    There is no way to escape rules. If you don't want society to make them, then you'll have the rules of the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor, the big over the little, the corrupt over the good, the violent over the peaceniks, etc etc.

    The "No Rules or Else You're an Authoritarian" is really silly. To paraphrase you, "The absence of rules leaves no room for peace" either.

    Parent

    Can we at least agree... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:40:40 AM EST
    that too many laws is just as dangerous as none?  That too many laws can ferment violence and hate and even practical lawlessness?

    The rub is finding the balance...I think any objective person can see which way we are out of balance.  

    Parent

    Yes, OK. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:59:18 AM EST
    Agree with your first paragraph, but not the final sentence...

    Parent
    Now we're cooking with oil! (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    Can we agree there are some very bad laws that cause direct harm, and those that do more harm than good, and those that just simply haven't accomplished the stated goal aka are too ineffectual or pie-in-the-sky or unrealistic in light of our culture & nature to even waste pen and paper on?

    I'll admit the area of guns is surprising lacking in criminal laws and regs at the federal level, considering the inherent danger. State level different story...some states far too few and others far too many and far too draconian.  

    I'm not ideologically opposed to more federal gun laws and regs, just of the opinion that they won't be effective in regards to the stated goal...preventing another Aurora or Sandy Hook.  So why bother when we can better use time and effort in other areas where we can be effective and we don't even have to worry about the reps bought and paid for by the NRA...education, gun buy-backs, mental health treatment & social isolation prevention, and other stuff like that?  

    Parent

    OK, yes, again, partly, but only bc you're kdog. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 03:30:26 PM EST
    :)

    Yes, of course, on your first paragraph. I have no objection to jettisoning most drug laws, for example.

    But, I am in favor of protecting innocent people from harm. And I am in favor of a civilized society working together for the common good. That is all that government really should be.

    And, I am truly out of patience with libertarian nonsense about abandoning all laws, rules, and protections -- all of human history shows us that the weak, the poor, etc. require protection in society. Not to mention things that are very valuable to some of us -- like clean air, water, etc -- that monied interests are destroying and where regulations are being continuously watered down. These laws and regulations should be strengthened, not abandoned.

    And I cannot abide the nonchalant, 'why bother, it won't help', shrug the shoulders mentality - it is infuriating when one considers the pain inflicted on real (not abstract) people. Statistics show that increased gun regulations work to prevent these kinds of things. Anyone who doesn't care about this, is preferencing their own selfish interests (i.e., gun ownership) over the rights of safety and innocence for kids, the right to not be afraid of gun-toting yahoos all over the place, the right to walk around with a hoodie on in peace, etc.

    What am I ever going to say that will convince you of the vacuousness of a libertarian/authoritarian mindset, my dear?? :)

    Shall I come to NYC, go to a bar, and fight about it over drinks???!

    Parent

    Ready when you are! ;) (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    Though I might prefer a casual political discussion over a spliff...no religion no politics in the pub, for good reason;)

    Please don't confuse my calls for more libertarianism in our ideological stew with the extreme libertarianism touted by Rand Paul or the f*ckin' Koch brothers, who just want the "freedom" to pillage and plunder.  

    Because if I believe in anything it is that every ideology has its pros and cons, and a society is at its best when it takes the best of each ideology, be it libertarianism socialism liberalism conservatism communism anarchism, and make a nice blend of it.  All in moderation kinda thing.  Balance between individual rights and freedom, and the sacrifices necessary for peaceful coexistence.  Just as there is no peace without law, there is no peace without liberty...and the default position should always be liberty.

    Reasonable people can disagree about how out of balance we are...but I think the fact there are so many federal crimes that there are literally too many count is a major point for my point of view;)

    Parent

    This is clearly going to take both weed AND drink. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    Plenty of room (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    Unless of course, you are dealing with people who want to do whatever the heck they want, even if it gets in the way of other people.

    A selfish, selfish way to live.

    Parent

    kdog, why are you against the 2nd Amendment? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    You do not like "regs."

    The 2nd Amendment calls for those with guns to be "well-regulated."

    I support the 2nd Amendment.  I want those with guns to be well-regulated.  

    That's why I support gun-control regulations.

    Parent

    Utopia is a fantasy (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:38:51 PM EST
    And was never promised by anybody.

    If we are going to live as a society, there must be rules.  We can discuss what those rules must be, but we must have them in order for society to function.

    If you want to successfully live with no rules, you will have to live alone on top of a mountain or on an island, because as soon as you introduce another person, conflict will ensue.  Maybe not a lot, but it will.

    Parent

    I get it now. (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    Just what was the rationale for all (none / 0) (#175)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    that bullcrap?
    I could see mental health or criminal history. But all the rest of it?

    And what possessed you to put up with it short of pure pecuniary interest?

    Parent

    I think those... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:55:18 PM EST
    convicted of a crime should have all civil rights returned to them upon completion of their sentence...the right to vote especially, and even the dreaded right to bear arms.  Do your time, get a clean slate.

    As to background checks, everyone needs to undergo one to get a drivers license, stands to reason you should have to undergo one to buy a gun.  That being said, I don't see what we accomplish really...we have still have the same number of guns in circulation, enough to arm every man woman and child.  All those instruments of death don't turn to dust.  Those who want to get strapped and can't pass a background check won't have any problem buying a gun...that's human nature and why we have thriving black markets.  

    Slado said it...it's about the issue and getting to tell your constituents you "did something" or tried, even in the case of the NRA party, they get to tell their people they "did something" by killing or weakening the bill.  I'm afraid all I see is a whole lotta doing nothing productive.  

    I'm all for making the loved ones of all the innocent victims of gun violence coast to coast feel better, but lets realize thats all we're really doing with this legislation...and possibly weakening the bill of rights and giving the government even more dominion over us in the process.    

    Our representatives would be more effective in reducing violence by standing on the corner with a sign that says "free hugs".

    Parent

    something to think about (none / 0) (#102)
    by nyjets on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    'convicted of a crime should have all civil rights returned to them upon completion of their sentence...the right to vote especially, and even the dreaded right to bear arms.  Do your time, get a clean slate.'
    Do you really want violent offenders able to get guns? People convicted of stalking? There has to be some limits

    Parent
    Difference between BG checks (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:09:10 PM EST
    for a DL vs. a gun, is a DL is a privilege, not a right. Obviously we don't need a BG check in order to vote, for example.

    Parent
    Though if the Founders were here... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    I wonder what they'd say about a right to operate a motor vehicle.

    I'm sure they viewed the right to ride a horse or operate a horse & buggy as an inalienable right.  

    Parent

    Interesting comment. (none / 0) (#133)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    Seems there are others who agree with you:
    Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

    The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

    Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.

    Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

    No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.

        "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."

    Edmund Burke, (1784)



    Parent
    Complete hogwash (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    Who is that clown you are quoting?

    "Please remember that driving is a privilege and not a right," says the booklet that virtually every driver has thumbed through while waiting in line for a renewal.

    It is repeated so often, it almost becomes a statement of faith. But some iconoclasts who read Law Talk have asked "says who?"

    Well, for one --The Michigan Secretary of State which prints the state's driving bible.

    The ability to drive is not considered a "fundamental interest," according to department spokesperson Fred Woodhams.

    Woodhams says because driving is done on public-funded roadways and since the state has jurisdiction over those roadways, the use can be regulated by the state.

    Gerald Lykins, a criminal defense attorney who once served as an assistant prosecutor in Kent County, says "rights" are regulated by the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions and must be explicitly listed - such as freedom of religion or the right against self-incrimination.

    The ability of the state to regulate drivers on the road dates to the dawn of the automobile in the 1916 Supreme Court decision regarding Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey.

    SNIP

    Case law also holds that the safety of the public can outweigh the ability of the individual to drive.


    Parent
    the gvt has no tight to collect income tax...

    Parent
    Well, he's worng on both counts (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    Thanks Kdog (none / 0) (#129)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    You'd think I was in the NRA for the way I'm attacked.

    Just pointing out the obvious.

    Call me crazy but I don't trust well intentioned federal politicians.  Those that came up with the Patriot Act, Obamacare and Gitmo.

    How about we get worked up about the state of the American family, crime and poverty.   The real causes of gun violence.

    Or as Chris Rock famously said, let's just ban bullets.

    Parent

    Thank you... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:44:32 PM EST
    for continuing to contribute to the discussion Slado.

    Signing a piece of paper won't make the evil in our nature disappear...if only it were that simple.  But it sure can harden hearts even more.

    Parent

    Just one question, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:49:45 PM EST
    Do you believe our society should simply abolish all rules (Laws,) period?

    No, "buts," no,"just a few," no "o.k. just some."

    NO LAWS??

    Because, unless you agree that there should be no laws whatsoever, your argument about buying some smack, or laying down a bet, is simplistic crap.

    How about baseball? Should it have rules? Maybe the next time the Cubbies have a lead over the Mets in the seventh inning they should just walk off the field, and declare themselves the winner.

    Of course we must have rules, or laws! That's what separates humans from all other species. Republicans believe in social Darwinism......survival of the fittest. Not me!

    Man, I agree with you on just about everything, and you know that. But, when you take off into zodiac land, no rules, no regulations, no laws, let's just love one another. I just hope, my brother, you don't live to witness the horrors I have in a land of "no laws."

    Parent

    No we can't have.... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    no laws at all, absent an evoltionary leap of some sort.  But that should be the goal, as few laws as possible until we need none.

    It boggles my mind that people can't see the problem with an over-saturation of laws that ultimately defeats the purpose of having laws...to coexist peacefully.  When the law is no longer worthy of respect, the house of cards falls down.  If anybody thinks our legal code is worthy of respect as it exists today, they are f8cking insane.  

    Parent

    With or without laws we will (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    Not "coexist peacefully," though I admire your optimism.  

    Parent
    That's what I'm saying.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:57:10 AM EST
    we're tilting at windmills...until we figure out a way to fix our hearts, minds, and souls we're just masturbating.

    Background checks before anybody straps up sounds great, but it will make no difference.  Human nature trumps the law everytime.  

    Parent

    What About Australia? (none / 0) (#3)
    by RickyJim on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    I have read that they have instituted extreme restrictions on gun ownership.  What sort of results were obtained?

    IMO (none / 0) (#83)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    One reason the Sandy Hook massacre did not get the same type of attention that Boston did is because of the images, not just the weapons. Boston was crowd sourced and the images of the destruction played over and over and over. Think if the children or teachers had recorded the massacre and the videos played over and over. As far as 'terrorism' goes Lanza may have had as much of a political motivation than the Boston bomber(s), and who's to say one must have a certain level of mental health to have a terrorist's motivations? We might well classify massive gun violence as terrorism.

    Maybe one approach is to equip everyone with little recording devices. Not big brother, but crowd sourced information. Everyone would be watching everyone - voluntarily. Could be just a little chip pinned to everyone's collar. Every violent event could be crowd sourced and viewed by all.

    I am only a little tongue in cheek on this. Actually I think it is very possible that this is the way things go. Libertarians would sigh for the good old days of mere big government surveillance. Little kids might like the idea of lots of home movies. Teens could review their day to see if that love interest did indeed flirt.

    I, for one... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    will never be equipped with a camera by anybody...if that quasi-tongue in cheek ever came to be you can find me in a cave somewhere, I give up.

    Before we get too crazy, lets remember that 99.9% of us are still not capable of mass murder.  Ok maybe 99.8%.  Granted, .01-.02 percent is still .01-.02 percent too many and can do unspeakable damage, but we can end individual liberty and privacy as we know and still never get it down to 0.00 percent.

    Parent

    Do you have a cell phone? (none / 0) (#111)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    It has a camera and if you bought one you did so on your own. Nobody ever "equipped" you with it.

    It seems we can't have LESS (as in less guns) but we can always have MORE (as in more eyes.) I'm not saying I approve of more cameras or of crowd sourcing. I don't approve of so many guns and the vast amounts of money they control. Approval has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that more personal surveillance is already happening, has been used in Boston, and IMO will continue to be used.

    Parent

    Regrettably... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    I do have a cell phone, but in my defense it is only because they ripped out all the pay phones in my area.  And right now it's at home, on my dresser, turned off.  I think it hasd a camera but I've never used it.

    I hear ya, that battle is over, the voyeurs and exibitionists and surveillers won.  But I would like to go back to 1994 when you could go out and let loose without having to worry about being broadcast to dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions.  The chilling effect of someone always watching.  I realize I'm an analog man in a digital age:)

    I thought you were implying the host of a large crowd or event should force people to be junior spies by issuing mandatory recording devices to attend or something.  I misunderstood, appy-polly-loggies.

    Parent

    No problem (none / 0) (#142)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    And no need to force anyone. People love to take photos and videos. Plus, your likelihood of being caught on camera doing something illegal is very small.

    NRA calls for more guns in schools. Most likely more cameras and recording devices will result too.

    I would also like to go back to the good old days before facebook, twitter, TSA scanners, public and private surveillance cameras, and the massive push and success of the NRA's efforts to heavily arm citizens and own government.

    Information is so easily manipulates according to an agenda. Images and moving images have huge motivating power. If we actually saw (repeatedly because that is what media does) images of children gunned down then this bill might have done differently.

    Parent

    Reid shelves gun control legislation (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cylinder on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    Reid sets aside Senate gun legislation for now

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put proposed gun legislation on pause Thursday, setting it aside for now after the defeat a day earlier of major provisions sought by President Barack Obama and Democrats in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre.

    The move emphasized the solid victory for the National Rifle Association and its conservative Republican allies in what Obama called "round one" of the fight for tougher gun laws.




    Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:56:18 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."
    ...
    "The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

    ...."One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners," he wrote. link