WTF Open Thread

(Yes. Blatant theft of ~~SL's~~ stinerman's creativity. But then, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

The Iranian situation continues. This dKos diary is very interesting even if anecdotal, and Iran's attempts to pull the US into this mess have begun. I'd love to be hopeful. But I remember watching Tiananmen Square and being hopeful then, too.

And some new gloom to worry about. Wheat rust. Who knew.

What's on your mind?

Submitted by Purpleface on Thu, 2009-06-18 12:11

-->

Purpleface's blog
Login or register to post comments

Tags:

Open Thread

Comments :

No public option?

Bipartisanship? Or cowardice?

"While I feel very strongly that consumers should have the choice of a national, Medicare-like plan, my colleagues do not. . . But we were concerned that the ongoing health reform debate is beginning to show signs of fracture on the public plan issue, so in order to advance the process of developing bipartisan legislation and to move it forward, it's time to find consensus here," Daschle said.

"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreements on one single issue," he said.

In a blow to President Obama and many of his Democratic allies in the health care fight, the plan recommends that there be no federal public option, but rather state or regional public-sponsored networks that would compete with private health plans, according to the summary released today by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

I'm thinking that these esteemed gentlemen are using the most convenient and palatable excuse instead of having to disclose their real motivation: they're bought and paid for by corporate interests.

It's always in a politician's self interest to have the citizenry fighting each other instead of holding the politicians accountable.

by: Purpleface - 2009-06-18 13:37 …………

Yup, cowardice

you can tell by the bullshit evasive phrasing.

I'm getting really sick of corporatist Democrats.

by: corph - 2009-06-18 14:23 ………… parent •

Evasive phrasing

My English professor always said to beware of people using tons of passive voice in their writings.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-18 21:15 ………… parent •

The epitome being

"mistakes were made". For me that's the best slogan to encapsulate the entire Bush Administration.

by: corph - 2009-06-19 15:02 ………… parent •

I wonder...

'State or regional public-sponsored networks' sound like public options -- just without the bargaining clout or central oversight that a single national public option would have. That's probably the point, I guess -- they won't have the clout individually to upset existing price structures too much. Kind of defeats the purpose, I think.

Of course, if all of these 'State or regional public-sponsored networks' wind up under a central federal umbrella of oversight, and can bargain collectively -- well, that's nearly as good as a true public option, maybe. Who knows?

A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings

by: thepuppethead - 2009-06-18 14:36 ………… parent •

That's exactly the point

It is because one provider will have enough bargaining power to reduce the profitability of the private insurers.

I prefer the 2nd paragraph option: states joining together to increase their bargaining power, but the plan itself being state-based.

However, I don't see how Congress can pass bills requiring states to do anything.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-18 16:45 ………… parent •

Yep.

It's all about keeping public insurers small enough to prevent them from negotiating lower prices -- which means we won't be able to afford national health care.

Price reduction/stabilization is the key to the whole enterprise -- without that, the whole thing is just an exercise in futility. Everyone knows that, too -- particularly Daschle. I don't know what he's doing, but it's either something really dumb or really sneaky. I'd lay odds at around 43% Dumb, 57% Sneaky. That's just me, though -- I guess that makes me an optimist.

A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings

by: thepuppethead - 2009-06-18 17:23 ………… parent •

Think about it for a sec...

Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices. Americans spent much less on health care in 1960 (5 percent of gross domestic product as opposed to 18 percent now). They also spent much less -- nothing, in fact -- on computers, cellphones, and cable and satellite television.

Your next car can cost less if you forgo GPS, satellite radio, antilock brakes, power steering, power windows and air conditioning. You can shop for such a car at your local Studebaker, Hudson, Nash, Packard and DeSoto dealers.

The president says that his health plan is responsive "to all those families who now spend more on health care than housing or food." Well. The Hudson Institute's Betsy McCaughey , writing in the American Spectator, says that in 1960 the average American household spent 53 percent of its disposable income on food, housing, energy and health care. Today the portion of income consumed by those four has barely changed -- 55 percent. But the health-care component has increased while the other three combined have decreased. This is partly because as societies become richer, they spend more on health care -- and symphonies, universities, museums, etc.

It is also because health care is increasingly competent. When the first baby boomers, whose aging is driving health-care spending, were born in 1946, many American hospitals' principal expense was clean linen. This was long before MRIs, CAT scans and the rest of the diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal that modern medicine deploys.

George Will has the piece in the WaPo

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-06-29 09:22 ………… parent •

Well, they are politicians, only doing what politicians do best.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

--British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-07-01 22:15 ………… parent •

Cough

stinerman's creativity.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-18 16:47 …………

Yikes!

Mea culpa!

Corrected above.

by: Purpleface - 2009-06-18 18:35 ………… parent •

:-)

I was just kidding. I'm not that vain.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-18 21:14 ………… parent •

Goldman Sachs

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/goldman-regrets-market-euphoria-that-led-to-crisis/

The non-apology apology of Lord Lloyd Blankfien.

“While we regret that we participated in the market euphoria and failed to raise a responsible voice, we are proud of the way our firm managed the risk it assumed on behalf of our client before and during the financial crisis,” he said.

Read, while we regret that we caused market euphoria and failed to notice, we are proud that our firm after stealing your pension funds with irresponsible high risk investments, we are pleased that we were able to make money while the you lost a whole bunch off both ends of the deal. We congratulate ourselves as banking investors for the great job we did managing your money.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-20 11:13 …………

Guns Laws are Meaningless

God bless the NRA, for lying that Obama is going to take your guns away.

This hyperbolic rhetoric of the NRA and Club for Growth has created circumstances where even terrorists can buy guns in AmeriKa without fear.

In spite of the rants and ravings of the right, freedom is still alive and well in Amerika.

Anyone can buy any amount of guns at any gun show. There is always someone willing to make a sale without checking your ID or anything else.

Don't worry, it's never dangerous to have anyone, with any background, or any kind of unstable mental history to own a gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/us/politics/20watch.html?_r=1&partner=...

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-20 11:25 …………

Well, at least the one being proposed by Lautenberg is ...

Lautenberg is a gun grabber from way back and he shouldn't even be in the Senate since the Democrats had to ignore election laws to get him there.

From you referenced article we have:

The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.

A report in May from the Justice Department inspector general found that the list kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation carried the names of 24,000 people included on the basis of outdated or sometimes irrelevant information.

And therein lies the problem with Lautenberg's proposal. People who are mistakenly on the list will be prevented from buying firearms in violation of the Second Amendment, which guarantee's a person's individual right to own a firearm.

Your complaint falls of deaf ears, especially given that the Democrats have been lobying for years to give terrorists all the rights of US citizenship. Well, buying a firewarm is one such right.

“We’re concerned about the quality and the integrity of the list,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association . “There have been numerous studies and reports questioning the integrity, and we believe law-abiding people who are on the list by error should not be arbitrarily denied their civil rights” under the Second Amendment.

I agree.

The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Mr. Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.

Translation: Lautenberg is whining because the FBI won't just hand out information in their files on private citizens to just anyone. Ironic position to take.

Overall this legislation SHOULD go down in flames.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2009-06-20 17:37 ………… parent •

The Gun Laws Mean Nothing-Zero

Any mental case can get his hand on a weapon or a truck load of em in this country.

It's easy to get around the law, anywhere any time.

If there is a willing buyer, a gun show dealer is happy to take his money.

Translation: No one has taken away your precious right to own a gun and no one has taken away your precious second amendment freedoms.

Whatever laws are passed are essentially ignored at the gun shows.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-20 18:26 ………… parent •

missliberties:

All of what you've pointed out in your above-mentioned post has resulted because, for at least the past four decades, the NRA and The Gun Lobby, which are both extremely powerful, well-organized and well-funded, have affectively bullied various lawmakers (including Congressmen-and-women, State Reps and Senators, and state governors) out of passing stronger, more affective gun laws, or at least strengthening the ones we've got. That, imho, is the WHOLE reason why our present gun laws mean little or nothing.

I also might add that if measures such as a waiting period, and the extensive screening of prospective firearms buyers such as background checks were implemented, people with histories of mental illness, anger-management issues and/or histories of drug and alcohol abuse wouldn't have access to firearms. All the being said, one has to ask why so many rogue gun dealers are allowed to continue to operate, and why people with the above-mentioned histories/issues are NOT denied access to firearms when their name(s) come up on a gun-dealer's computer screen(s).

by: independentminded - 2009-06-21 13:04 ………… parent •

It is blatantly obvious that neither of you has any idea

what you are talking about.

Fact: Federally licensed gun dealers are REQUIRED to perform background checks on every sale.

Fact: These checks are even REQUIRED at gun shows.

You can't buy a gun from a licensed dealer WITHOUT having a background check performed. Period. That includes at gun shows. So this notion of rogue gun delaers you speak of is a myth. A fanatasy.

The issue at hand with gun shows is the private sales of firearms between individuals. Individuals are not required to run background checks although some would oviously like to change that.

A gun show is no different than any other show for collectibles. Cars, toy trains, model boats and airplanes, antiques of all sorts, crafts, etc. It is all the same thing. Private citizens buying and collecting something they love, and the government has no place sticking their nose in the middle of private transactions between individual citizens who are exercising an individual right which is actually enumerated DIRECTLY in the Constitution.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2009-06-21 18:15 ………… parent •

We'll see

I hope so, but we'll see.

Seeing that, as Scalia said, the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to bear arms, it isn't very much of a stretch to think the 14th amendment incorporates that right so that state governments can't violate it either.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-21 18:35 ………… parent •

Fact:

All you have elaborated on here is the great big loophole, that's big enough to drive a truck full of AKA 47's through. Private citizens can sell however many, or whatever kind of weapons, they so desire, as long as they claim that all they are doing is 'collecting what they love', a houseful of firearms, and having a private transaction between individuals.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/06042009.xml

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.assault-weapons.html

When you say, "You can't buy a gun from a 'liscensed dealer without a background check performed.", then one has to wonder, how did these banditos, and drug cartels get a hold of these 'assault weapons'.

When it comes to guns sales, the phrase, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, rings true. Ka Ching!

The defense of not re-instating the assault weapons ban, allows anyone to own an AKA 47, for sport shooting. *wink* *wink*

On Tuesday evening, just before midnight, agents working near the Hidalgo port of entry observed a suspicious individual carrying a duffle bag through a parking lot adjacent to the port of entry. As agents moved closer to the individual to perform an immigration inspection, the man dropped the duffle bag and ran south towards the river, fleeing into Mexico.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-22 08:33 ………… parent •

Ask the Mexicans ...

When you say, "You can't buy a gun from a 'liscensed dealer without a background check performed.", then one has to wonder, how did these banditos, and drug cartels get a hold of these 'assault weapons'.

because it sounds to me like they were bringing them in illegally. :) Don't blame law abiding gun owners for that. :-P

But seriously, how do you know that the individuals you are referring to were "banditos" or "drug cartel" operatives? You're just making crap up. Excuse me if I don't agree to piss away my rights based on your made up crap.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2009-06-23 16:46 ………… parent •

One has to ask, then, GoRight,

why there are so many rogue gun dealers who allow emotionally unstable people and people with histories of drug/alcohol abuse and alcoholism access to guns despite the fact that the names of such people come up on a gun-dealer's computer screen, why isn't the number of firearms manufactured here in the United States regulated, and why do so many guns get into this country illegally?

They should crack down on rogue gun dealers who don't comply with the requirement of background checks, waiting periods, etc, and have them shut down, if need be.

I realize that an all-out ban on handguns and assault weapons isn't possible due to the omnipotence of the NRA and the Gun Lobby, but gun manufacturers should at least be required to take certain safety measures, such as the implementation of tamperproof locks onto firearms to prevent accidents in the event that the firearm is carelessly handled, or unauthorized use of the firearm(s) in the event that it is lost or stolen.

One also has to bear in mind that a stolen firearm is a real threat to society at large. All too often, one reads/hears grisly stories about how somebody's stolen gun was used in a homicide, a hold-up, or an assault against another citizen. Plus, the USA has the highest murder rate per capita in the Western Hemisphere, and one has to ask why.

Many, many lives would be saved, imho, if better, stronger gun laws were enacted.

by: independentminded - 2009-06-22 08:44 ………… parent •

With all due respect ...

you need to substantiate just about every claim you just made. Let us begin with "why there are so many rogue gun dealers who allow emotionally unstable people and people with histories of drug/alcohol abuse and alcoholism access to guns despite the fact that the names of such people come up on a gun-dealer's computer screen"?

That's complete nonsense. First of all, there aren't any "names of such people" on "a gun-dealer's computer screen". The gun dealers don't have access to the list of names ever. This just illustrates how you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

When you buy a gun from a licensed dealer you have to fill out Federal Form 4473 . It is a felony to lie on the form. The gun dealer send the information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for processing and they only receive an approval or a disapproval, base upon which the transaction is either completed or not.

The dealer is required to retain these forms for a specified number of years and the ATF is allowed to request them in the course of an investigation.

Every gun sold through a licensed dealer MUST go through this check and receive an approval from the NICS system (which is the background check).

I have no idea what a "rogue dealer" is. Do you mean someone who doesn't follow the law? If so, I refer to them as criminals, not "rogue dealers".

They should crack down on rogue gun dealers who don't comply with the requirement of background checks, waiting periods, etc, and have them shut down, if need be.

Never fear. When the ATFE becomes aware of someone doing this they send the to jail forthwith. Sometimes they even try to do this to honest law abiding citizens. There is no need to worry that the ATFE is beeing too timid in this regards. They are known for breaking and entering people's homes, often on false or even fabricated data, causing siginifcant property damage in the process, and leaving without so much as a sorry for the individual's troubles.

I realize that an all-out ban on handguns and assault weapons isn't possible due to the omnipotence of the NRA and the Gun Lobby, but gun manufacturers should at least be required to take certain safety measures, such as the implementation of tamperproof locks onto firearms to prevent accidents in the event that the firearm is carelessly handled, or unauthorized use of the firearm(s) in the event that it is lost or stolen.

In other words to render them completely useless for the very purpose the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own and bear arms? Namely self-defense? Sorry, but the Supreme Court has already ruled on that point (re: locks).

One also has to bear in mind that a stolen firearm is a real threat to society at large. All too often, one reads/hears grisly stories about how somebody's stolen gun was used in a homicide, a hold-up, or an assault against another citizen. Plus, the USA has the highest murder rate per capita in the Western Hemisphere, and one has to ask why.

Ask why? Sure. But the answer has nothing to do with firearms. They are inanimate objects. Murders are committed by people, not inanimate objects. Firearms harbor not intent, only people do. I won't bother to look up the data to refute your claim regarding the murder rate because in the end it doesn't even matter with respect to you question.

The factors at play are social issues, pure and simple. The murder rate is a function of society, not a function of the numbers or types of inaminate objects lying about.

Many, many lives would be saved, imho, if better, stronger gun laws were enacted.

And you would be wrong. The annual number of defensive gun uses dwarfs the number of murders .

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2009-06-23 18:30 ………… parent •

I disagree with you totally here, GoRight.

First of all, the NRA-sponsored phrase "Guns don't kill..people do" is an oxymoron. Guns areinamimate objects, sure, but they're designed for one thing: to kill people, and pretty quickly, to boot. One big problem with our firearms policy is that one just has to not be a felon or not have any type of criminal record in order to obtain a gun and gun permit. THAT, imho, is the big problem. The lack of background checks and waiting periods and adequate screening of perspective firearms buyers is what has led to disasters. Maybe all those assassinations wouldn't have occurred if mentally unstable people who were exploited as patsies by certain organizations here in the USA had access to and were allowed to buy guns simply because they weren't felons. How many times does one read or hear about kids getting access to guns, because somebody failed to use enough common sense to keep them unloaded and under lock and key. Most guns t hat fall into the hands of criminals are stolen from private homes, because that's often the first thing that burglars look for when they break into private homes.

Societal issues help lead to crime-that's true. However, the proliferation of firearms make it an even more volatile situation, where people are more likely to be permanently maimed or killed.

Most murders are committed by and against people who know each other, mainly in the home, during bar-room brawls, or on street corners, among family, friends, and acquaintences. While a person who's hellbent on committing murder can conceivably bludgeon, stab, beat or strangle his or her victim to death, a gun will kill many more people much more quickly, plus, sometimes, the chances of surviving and fully recovering from a beating, stabbing, or even an attempted strangle, depending on intensity and depth of the attack. A gun, however, invariably ends a life, or permanently and adversely compromises a life just by the squeeze of the trigger and the crack of the pistol. A gun can kill more people more quickly, where as a person who wants to beat, stab or strangle someone can't very well beat, stab or strangle two or more people at a time, whereas, with a gun, a person can shoot more than one person at a time. Does the Virginia Tech or Columbine High School incident come to mind here?

Also, more guns end up killing people during crimes of passion or pre-medidated murders than are used in self-defense. I think you're wrong when you say that the number of guns used in self-defense dwarfts the number of murders, most of which are crimes of passion committed by and against people who know each other.

Three years ago last fall, there was a tragic incident up in VT, where a 13-year-old boy who'd been the victim of constant cyberbullying by classmates, one of who suggested that he kill himself as a way out, did just that...with his father's shotgun that had been kept loaded and unlocked around the house, where the now-deceased boy had easy access to it. The combination of having unlocked and loaded guns around the house, plus lack of parental supervision for the deceased boy and his classmates while they were posting on the internet helped bring about the boy's untimely death.

by: independentminded - 2009-06-23 21:31 ………… parent •

I understand your point

However there isn't much evidence that gun control leads to decreased violent crime.

Columbine, V. Tech, et al., while tragic, are the price of living in a free society. Some people will abuse the freedoms given to them. That, however, is not a reason to deny everyone those freedoms.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-23 22:26 ………… parent •

That is again

a fairly gross over simplification of what 'gun control' entails.

I don't think the assault weapons ban, denies you any of your freedoms or inalienable rights.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-23 22:46 ………… parent •

No, I didn't think you would...

I don't think the assault weapons ban, denies you any of your freedoms or inalienable rights.

But then you don't know jack s___ about the constitution, liberty, or personal responsibility.

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-06-24 00:34 ………… parent •

Another gross oversimplification

That's a fun argument, you don't know jack s___, but relatively meaningless, when it comes to the details of the constitution, personal responsibility and liberty.

You could define liberty as my right to own an AKA47 so that I have the 'freedom' to kill people who I deem to be flagrant bullies and scolds.

You could define personal responsibility as a society that made the collective value judgement to provide a decent education and standard of living so that children learn that solving disagreements with bullets, is not acceptable.

You could define the constitution, as having the most liberty for the individual that causes the society at large the least harm.

Or you could change the name of this country, and leave out, what I would assume by your standards is our socialist descriptor, The United States of America.

I don't see any your or my freedoms being taken away if The United States of America, has a federal assault weapons ban.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 08:05 ………… parent •

No.

I define liberty as the freedom to own a AK-47 so I can defend myself, my family, and my property.

I define personal responsibility as the virtue it is;

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you... From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-06-24 10:58 ………… parent •

Unless you're being snarky here, Centinel,

If EVERYBODY owned a gun and decided to defend family and property at the least bit of suspicion of a neighbor's moves and motives, this country would be like the old Wild, Wild West, in the old, wild frontier. Is that what you really want?

by: independentminded - 2009-06-24 11:01 ………… parent •

Those are ML's idea's, not mine...

at the least bit of suspicion of a neighbor's moves and motives

I said defend my property, not attack my neighbors, and I quoted a passage reflecting the virtue of self responsibility.

That would preclude killing innocents IM.

You should know better than to propose such nonsense, come on.

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-06-24 11:08 ………… parent •

The nonsense

is that you need an assault weapon to defend yourself from your neighbors.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 12:47 ………… parent •

Liberty

I've spoken at length on this issue.

Liberty is a subset of freedom. Liberty is the ability to conduct one's affairs free from government control or regulation. More liberty is not always better (but very often is) than less liberty.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-24 18:49 ………… parent •

Minor quibble

Even law enforcement cannot use lethal force to protect property. Lethal force should only be used to protect life. Never property.

by: Purpleface - 2009-06-24 20:45 ………… parent •

Here's another thing, though, stinerman:

Having guns around the house can and often enough does, make a volatile situation worse. All too often, stories abound about how two people get into an argument and one pulls out a gun and shoots the other, killing or permanently crippling him/her. Also, a bullet does much more damage than a fist, a foot, a pressure point hold, or a take-down, because, unlike the afore-mentioned, where a person must be close to the person, a gun is fired from a distance, and a bullet travels with much, much greater velocity than a fist or a foot, thereby causing even greater, more extensive damage and/or infections.

Back to what was mentioned earlier, were there stronger, more affective firearm laws here in the United States, there probably wouldn't have been either a Virginia Tech or a Columbine. The notion that incidents like that are the price of living in a free society, imho, is pure poppycock. Too many unstable people have access to firearms, which, as I pointed out, is a big part of the problem.

by: independentminded - 2009-06-24 10:53 ………… parent •

And?

Even if I accept everything you say as being true (and I do actually accept most of it), that doesn't change what the 2nd Amendment says. I will quote it for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That means that everyone has a right to bear arms. That right can only be infringed (based on current jurisprudence) if the state has a compelling interest in doing so and must tailor the law narrowly.

A law requiring some sort of background check or mental health review is not unreasonable. However, I don't see why the federal government would be involved unless the buyer and seller are citizens of different states. The states can do the heavy lifting here.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-24 18:37 ………… parent •

My issue is

with assault weapons. Automatic machine guns on the street. I don't see the point in having citizens having more fire power than the police. It's unnecessary for a citizen to have an automatic machine gun.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 19:21 ………… parent •

Automatic machine guns

are not assault weapons. They are automatic machine guns (and are very tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 ).

Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-24 19:33 ………… parent •

The problem is

they are not tightly regulated. That is a misconception. Anyone can buy one at a gun show, if not right up front, then on the side, or in the backroom.

The regulations are essentially meaningless.

Do you really think gun nuts worry about what the sheriff or the federal government have to say about what kind of gun they purchase when the fringe element (not as small as you think, that fringe) is buying weapons to specifically protect themselves from the government. Some people at some gun shows don't give a sh*t about the feds, or the cops, or the laws. That is the whole reason they are buying guns in the first place.

You can buy an automatic machine gun to hunt mice at a 'garage sale' because everyone hunts mice with machine guns for the sport of it, don't they?

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 20:05 ………… parent •

What you describe is illegal

Anyone can buy [an automatic weapon] at a gun show, if not right up front, then on the side, or in the backroom.

That's illegal.

Do you really think gun nuts worry about what the sheriff or the federal government have to say about what kind of gun they purchase when the fringe element (not as small as you think, that fringe) is buying weapons to specifically protect themselves from the government. Some people at some gun shows don't give a sh*t about the feds, or the cops, or the laws. That is the whole reason they are buying guns in the first place.

These people are criminals. They should be in prison.

You can buy an automatic machine gun to hunt mice at a 'garage sale' because everyone hunts mice with machine guns for the sport of it, don't they?

Well, you can. However, that would be illegal.

You can't make it any more illegal than illegal. You sound like the Democrats with respect to Bush and FISA. It was already illegal for him to wiretap us without a warrant. So what did they do? They made it ultra double secret illegal so he wouldn't do it again.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-24 21:02 ………… parent •

The law is irrelevant

that's all I am saying in relation to guns.

The NRA is a very powerful lobby. They take extra double super duper special care to ensure that people are always afraid the gummits gonna cum and git yer guns. They happily lie to perpetuate that fear. I find it especially obnoxious that the NRA innocently insists that a machine gun is a hunting tool.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 21:44 ………… parent •

Further evidence

against the idea that gun control saves lives:

The state with the most liberal gun laws in the nation is Vermont. In Vermont you may carry arms openly or conceal them without the need for any special permits or licenses.

The state with (arguably) the most restrictive gun laws in the nation is Illinois. In several cities you are not allowed to own semi-automatic handguns.

On a per capita basis Illinois's murder rate is nearly triple Vermont's. Illinois has 5.9 murders per 100,000 residents , while Vermont has 1.9 murders per 100,000 residents . One would expect the opposite data if gun control curbed the murder rate.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-23 22:21 ………… parent •

That is not a fair comparison

You can't legitmately compare people owning guns in a crowded urban environment, with folks in the more rural setting of Vermont, where hunting is prevelant and kids are raised around guns for sport hunting.

That is a fairly gross mischaracterization and a full on demonstration of how numbers can be used to totally misrepresent the 'facts on the ground' so to speak.

That's a little bit like comparing the gun deaths of the city of Los Angeles, to the gun deaths in Billings Montana. The two are not comparable.

A more fair comparison, would be the gun related deaths in Chicago to New York City or Los Angeles.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 08:55 ………… parent •

That's my point

The issue isn't necessarily a liberal/conservative one. It is an urban/rural one.

If you're going to make the gun control argument, you have to use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. What might be good for Chicago, DC, etc. might not be good for Loving County, TX .

Start from there and the gun control argument might get some traction. Of course, I believe that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms, so I really don't care if more people (be they women, children, or otherwise) die because of the lack of restrictions on owning firearms.

Well, that's not exactly right. It isn't that I don't care; it is that the social outcome is inconsequential as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- ~~George W. Bush~~ Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

by: stinerman - 2009-06-24 18:27 ………… parent •

Yet the NRA cheered

and pushed to have all city gun bans removed. The Supreme Court just rule against cities banning guns. IN some cities they should be banned, or at least strongly regulated.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-06-24 19:22 ………… parent •

Others are even more extreme than the NRA

Crazy :

Hal Turner, an occasional talk show host on internet radio and blogger, was arrested today by the FBI in his New Jersey home on charges he threatened to murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago following their recent ruling upholding handgun bans.

According to the U.S. attorney's office, postings on Turner's web site included photos of the judges and addresses for them, with statements such as: "Let me be the first to say this plainly; These judges deserve to be killed."

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

by: Spiritual Lefty - 2009-06-24 19:47 ………… parent •

What about Florida?

Florida, too, has lenient gun laws.

The Bay State and New York are among the toughest to obtain gun permits in, thank heavens.

by: independentminded - 2009-06-24 11:03 ………… parent •

Really?

If they do checks at gunshows or at ordinary gun-dealers' sales, then they probably just check on whether or not a perspective firearms buyers is a felon. They don't check for histories of drug/alcohol abuse, mental illness, or anger management issues. More extensive background checks would go a long way towards saving lives, imho.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of rogue gun-dealers that operate underground, do all kinds of illegal or shady deals, and do anything/everything to circumvent whatever laws there are.

by: independentminded - 2009-06-24 10:45 ………… parent •

Stimulus Shmimulus...What a colossal waste of money!

Employers in the U.S. cut 467,000 jobs in June, the unemployment rate rose and hourly earnings stagnated, offering little evidence the Obama administration’s stimulus package is shoring up the labor market.

The payroll decline was more than forecast and followed a 322,000 drop in May, according to Labor Department figures released today in Washington. The jobless rate jumped to 9.5 percent, the highest since August 1983, from 9.4 percent.

Unemployment is projected to keep rising for the rest of the year just as the income boost from the stimulus package fades, undermining prospects for a sustained rebound in household purchases, analysts said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ahfK709b4uds

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-07-02 11:18 …………

Biden is a total idiot, and he is supposed to be running our...

...supposed economic recovery program?

God help us .

Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein

by: Centinel - 2009-07-05 13:51 …………

Palin is a total idiot

and she is supposed to be running Alaska? Oh wait, nevermind. She quit. LOL!

Did she quit right before she told HIllary to stop whining about that press microscope, also.

And Alaska. Gosh, that state gets more federal dollars per person than any other state in the union. But she still couldn't run the state. Oh wait. She quit.

I'm only half stupid

by: missliberties - 2009-07-05 17:07 ………… parent •