Skip to main content

View Diary: This Is What I Cannot Understand (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm, I think you've still misunderstood this (5+ / 0-)

    The 2nd a denies the government from banning the individual from keeping and bearing arms.  It still doesn't, even after Heller, stop the government from banning specific weapons.

    Just so you know, the AWB was based on looks, not functionality.  It would have done nothing to stop what happened yesterday.

    The only way that could have been stopped, if you want to ban stuff... a total gun ban, no one anywhere in the US being allowed to own, possess or trade a firearm, including the military and police.

    We could however re-establish our social safety nets that have been defunded by 30 yrs of Republican controls.  We could restore sanity by demanding free mental health services to all.

    That's the first step I want!  Screw losing control of the House, Senate, Presidency and our State Legislatures for the next 30 yrs.  

    We could, "tweak" State permitting laws.  In New York you have to identify all household members/occupants that may have access to a firearm, IF you want to get a valid permit.  

    Let's say you can't get a gun permit if you have children, or if one of your household members is on prescription drugs?  Mandatory prescription reporting to the NICS system? Say you don't get approved if you've been given Paxil or Prozac or any psychiatric drug or drug that can interfere with cognitive abilities?

    Those things could be done right now!  That's if we truly want to stop the slaughters. It wouldn't be that hard, really.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:32:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Guerrilea.... (11+ / 0-)

      A total gun ban?  I fear you are dreaming.  That will never, ever happen in this country.

      An assault weapons ban interrupts the rapid fire action of a mass slaying.  Congress banned those little magnetic balls found in children's toys.  When swallowed they obstruct intestines requiring immediate surgery to remove them.

      If Congress can ban those rare occurrences, they can get it together enough to ban high magazine clips on assault weapons.  

      •  My name is Gerri Leanne, or Gerrilea for short (0+ / 0-)

        You're missing the whole point here then.

        Banning stuff will not help anyone except the Prison Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex And our Corporate Overlords profits from the wars they start and the products manufactured by Prison Inmates.

        The AWB would not have stopped what happened yesterday, period.  It wasn't based on anything but looks.

        And Congress, I still believe, even after Heller, could do what you suggest, but again, it won't stop the killings or violence in our society unless we stop being an Imperialistic Nation.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:50:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  gerrilea is a gun enthusiast... (6+ / 0-)

        ...one might take her suggestion of a total gun ban with a grain of salt.

        Cheers.

        •  so she is (6+ / 0-)

          but it doesn't discount her comments

          I'm an enthusiast too, I guess. Learned to hunt when I was 12.  back when every 12 yr old in my part of the country hunted, and we got a high school day off for monday, the first day of deer season. I'm  in medicare now.

          I own a few guns, some historical, some nostalgic, some for defense. Haven't shot one in ten years. Don't need to, I'm already a qualified marksman. I practice my motor skills with an air pistol, for cheap fun. I "kill" old AOL CDs as targets. and I'm damn good.

          People who want to ban civilian "assault rifles" need to learn the technical details about what "semi-automatic" means (ref: her comment about "looks").

          "The AWB would not have stopped.... "

          I take your point about the "Assault weapons" ban and I sort of agree, but if you get the technical facts wrong, you will never win. If you don't understand the technical details about which you are complaining, you lose.

          I admit it is a tricky issue in this area. But I'm on your side. I don't know how to craft an "assault weapons" ban clearly either.

          But banning large capacitiy magazines - that could be done. And would help. Along with MUCH better Mental Health services - and that would help battered women, Domestic violence, child abuse, other things as well....why are we not doing this?

          This is beyond guns. Guns are just the symptom.

          Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

          by blindcynic on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 01:08:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you apparently lost track of which comment.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...you were responding to.

            Perhaps your aim isn't as good as you thought it was.

            Cheers.

          •  ammo needs to be banned. the .223 round needs to (6+ / 0-)

            be banned. The AR-15 can be adapted to fire only 3 bullets as in Germany. It can be adapted for two different types of NATO ammo as well as the .223. Banning a weapon based on its apperance is ineffective. Banning magiznes, banning semiautomatic weapons based on the fact that they are semiautomatic would be more effective. If the shooter was armed with a single shot weapon the carnage would smaller.

            But the NRA had input in committees to weaken the ban. The pro gun community neutered the bill. A weapon that reloads automatically whether semi or fully automatic should be banned as a first step. Confiscation should be the second step.

            How did we enforce the seat belt mandate. By combining it with regular police work. This can be handled in the same way.

            •  Gun Confiscation, are you serious? (0+ / 0-)

              I will not support any bill that will hand the levers of our government over to the Republicans.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 08:25:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  gun confiscation and Republicans...? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pescadero Bill, Laconic Lib, elwior

                ...enlighten us, please.

                Cheers.

              •  Are you serious about gun violence? There was a (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snapples, elwior, NancyK

                lot of concern about what the civil rights movement would do to the Democratic Party. In 1948 Hubert Humphrey introduced a platform position to the Democratic Convention and a number of Southern delegations walked out and formed a third party. Did that mean we should not have done civil rights least we endanger the party?

                You begin by persuasion. And debate. And it will get heated. And it will take a long time. We have faced crisis like this before many times in our country. But you must do the right thing. And take a chance. And prepare for a long process. The 27th amendment was introduced on 9/25/1789. It was ratified on 5/7/1992. Took over two hundred years to pass. Slavery did not end with the civil war. It took three amendments to end slavery. And more than 100 hundred years later we are still fighting for basic civil rights for people of color.

                We must first persuade the people that this is the right thing to do. No one is coming for anyone's guns unless the repeal is ratified. The ratification process is a part of the debate. This could take 75 years or more. But this is a fight worth fighting. As was civil rights. And women's rights. And LGBTQ rights. And the New Deal. All of which carried political risk.

                •  We're long past "persuasion", they've been (0+ / 0-)

                  arming themselves for 4 yrs.  And while I agree the Civil Rights movement was effective, this isn't the 60's anymore.

                  We talk gun confiscation and gun control and we will never be in power again.

                  How about we actually focus on restoring our social safety nets?

                  How about we actually focus on becoming a community again?

                  How about we actually focus on policies that will help the most Americans?

                  Free mental health services, a living wage, corporate responsibility???

                  Those things will cut our violent outburst in half, easily.

                  Make it unnecessary for anyone to believe they actually need a firearm?  

                  Teach our children reasoned logic, teach them peace.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 11:29:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If all we do is react to this outrage (0+ / 0-)

                    then we'll never implement all the good ideas in the above post, because none of them would have made a difference to someone who was from a rich family.

                    My point is that whatever we do, it has to be the result of working forward from our goals, not working backward from whatever the latest madman did.

            •  Would you ban revolvers? (0+ / 0-)

              They are one shot per trigger pull, no need to work a bolt or anything like that.

              •  Well, revolvers were the first semi-automatics (0+ / 0-)

                Q.E.D.

                emphasis on "Semi"

                Semi-Automatics have created a grey-area, and I don't know what the answer is to that. For waterfowl hunting, the solution was a plug for the shotgun...and they did that to discourage artillery barrages from the marshes...

                And they (revolvers) have "magazines" that are not easy to replace with higher capacity....I'd like to see a 100 round revolver, LOL....you'd need a forklift to carry it....

                Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

                by blindcynic on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:46:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  No, I do not own any firearms. (0+ / 0-)

          I"m a Constitutionalist and Historian and I support the entire Bill of Rights.  

          I understand that freedom is a dangerous and dirty concept, staying free is even harder in this world today. And I still believe the most Progressive document ever written was our Constitution.

          We can still be free and safe and it can be done without us losing total control of the levers of our government by pushing policies that will not help any of us.

          We must, as Americans, help each other and that's how I define my own life today.  

          I may not be able to feed the entire world, but dammit I can give some of my food stores to the homeless vet & their children standing on the street corner!

          We need fully funded public mental health services, not the crappy-for profit outsourcing that the Republicans have pushed upon us!

          I'm truly willing to give up a bit of my privacy for these necessary reforms.  Like the ones I suggested above.

          It won't take a constitutional amendment.

          It won't take a protracted battle against the Republicans, one they would surely win with gun bans.

          It won't take an Act of God.

          Just people understanding that we have to stop the madness and return to helping each other.

          Make that the purpose of our government again!

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:48:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok, g...understand and help gun control advocates. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib, mrkvica, elwior, NancyK
            Just people understanding that we have to stop the madness and return to helping each other.
            Okay, so help. Seriously. Lotsa your fellow citizens are not interested in the continuation of your mischaracterizations of  the issues and your advocacy against them - against gun controls. Your fellow citizens want your help in proposing and implementing gun controls, rather than the obstructionism that you seem to propose over and over.

            Cheers.

            •  Not productive or worthy of conversation n/t (0+ / 0-)

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:49:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  On second thought...when you label me as a (0+ / 0-)

              obstructionist that is stopping gun control advocates, you equate me to the Republicans.

              It's an intentional smear, thanks, flattery gets you nowhere with me! And you aren't here for constructive discussion when you play these games.

              I will fight against any measures that will empower future Republican control of the levers of our government.

              Gun control will destroy the Democratic Party for the next 100 yrs and I will not participate with your plans.

              It has already divided this nation to the point of people actually talking armed insurrection! "Obama's coming for your guns!" You're proving their meme correct!

              You do not wish to stop the slaughters if you naively take the position we will not lose total control by advocating gun control.

              WE CAN STOP THEM NOW, without bloodshed, constitutional amendments AND without dividing this nation even further!

              The gun violence is a symptom brought about by 30+ yrs of Republicanism that has destroyed our social safety nets!  

              Take responsibility for the millions you will sentence to death when they raise the age requirements for Social Security, (if they don't decommission it completely), When they raise the age for Medicare & destroy Medicaid.

              Take responsibility when they continue to cut the taxes for the most wealthy, increase their racist sentencing guidelines and then continue their unfunded wars.  WAR destroys the wealth of the masses!

              Take responsibility when more Americans fall through the cracks and become impoverished because of the Republican ideal of "free markets" that truly means their corporate sponsors are above the law and are too big to fail. Socialism for the wealthy and Capitalism for the poor!

              Take responsibility for the results your position will bring!

              NOW, if you want to call me an OBSTRUCTIONIST because I will fight you from destroying this nation even further, SOBEIT!

              /rant!

              OR we could actually talk solutions that will help those in need and stop the violence.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 10:36:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you seem to have started with... (0+ / 0-)

                ...mischaracterizin' again, and then, as the expression goes, you're off in the high weeds.

                So, I'm gonna take this opportunity to remind you of your own suggestion...

                ...stop the madness and return to helping each other...
                Cheers.
                •  Pot met Kettle, your mischaracterizations are the (0+ / 0-)

                  point here.

                  And belie my actual position when you utilize it.

                  But you did know that, a tactic you've used time and again.

                  Have fun.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 11:14:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  law enforcement, period. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grannycarol, Laconic Lib, elwior

        otherwise ban sale, possession or use.

        there is no useful purpose for an assault weapon for anyone other than law enforcement or military.

        anyone want to argue the hunting factor, what kind of sport is it when you have to use an assault weapon to kill a deer.

        there a number of activities that are already prohibited to prevent innocent people being killed, now add ass sault weapons to that list.

        anyone that argues against banning assault weapons after the carnage of children last Fri is really not even worth considering.........

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:45:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The 2nd Amendment (7+ / 0-)

      is in the section defining states rights, it guarantees individual states the rights to have their own militia not subject to federal control. This was an important safeguard for states wary of a federal 'monarchy'.

      RKBAers have reams of NRA propaganda trying to deflect this and hide the words 'well-regulated militia'. They will descend shortly.

      •  "Decend", I've been here all day! (0+ / 0-)

        I'd love to agree with your re-interpretation of history, really but I cannot. If history were anything but what it is, then maybe.

        The founders were Englishmen that had been guaranteed that enumerated right since 1689 in their own English Bill of Rights.

        They made one exception/modification to that unalienable right 100 yrs later,  DURING Militia Service. That's the only time the government could "regulate" said arms. AND only if you were defined as an active militia member.

        The constitution didn't create that right, please understand that historical fact.  

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 08:23:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand your point. Congress has the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grannycarol, Laconic Lib, LSmith, elwior

          right and mandate to pass laws that protect the wellbeing of the citizenry.

          They can ban any guns they have the will to do.

          Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

          by Pescadero Bill on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:42:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I don't see the current House of Reps. (0+ / 0-)

            doing that.

            "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

            by glorificus on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 12:45:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Great NRA talking points (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          Clever the way they try to get us to ignore the plain english language and context of the constitution and focus on a series of obscure non sequiturs. Like 'who you gonna believe, your lying eyes, or our slick expert telling what you want to hear'. It works particularly with authoritarian personality types so common around these debates.

          •  Sorry for the late reply, just saw this. (0+ / 0-)

            What's more authoritarian here if not banning things?  Do as I command and order, right??? You speak with forked tongue and imply I'm with the NRA.  

            1. I've never owned a gun
            2. I've never been a member of the NRA
            3. I'm a historian
            4. I've actually read history
            5. Said readings composed of the Ratification documents submitted to the Central Government, "that damn piece of paper", the Federalist, Anti-Federalist papers, The First Debates in Congress ON every Amendment presented as the Bill Of Rights AND the Common Law Court Decisions over the past 230 yrs.

            You need to review history at the link provided before you can accuse anyone of spewing NRA talking points.   If you do not then you are arguing from an uninformed position that holds no resemblance to actual history.

            I wish you well in your own re-education.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 05:00:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The history is as interesting as it is irrelevant (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, NancyK

        If you're curious, I recommend "To Keep and Bear Arms" by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

        No, the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not part of the Article that defines state powers.

        Irrelevant, because even under the Heller decision Congress is allowed to pass laws short of a total ban, up to limits that will be undefined until someone tests them.

    •  yes. I don't agree with everything you say (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grannycarol, lunachickie, gerrilea, elwior

      but it's mental health issues that need help.

      It is mentally deranged people who cause these problems. Mental health has been conspicuously underfunded for decades. Because insurance companies don't like it, too hard to quantify. This is a medical problem, obstructed by the insurance industry. That's what we need to fix.

      The details are hard, no question. Regardless of 2nd amendment people have a right to buy and own what they want. Hammers, Machetes, whatever. But they also have a responsibility to control, themselves, how what they own is used. That's not a guns issue. That's mental health.

      Ask yourself, if a young man is so twisted that he wants to kill his own mother, is there not something else going on here? This is elementary civilization 101.

      EOM.

      Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

      by blindcynic on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 12:49:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  a new assualt weapon ban would focus on the type (3+ / 0-)

      of ammo used. I could care less what it looks like. An AR-15 with a military stock or hunting stock will do the same damage. The ASW ban in the 90s was a failure because it contained too many loopholes. The law was way too technical and made too many exceptions. And it did not address the ammo issue. To those who say the ban was worthless I concur. It should have been much more restrictive. And should serve as a lesson on the wisdom of taking this out of the hands of Congressional committees and amending the constitution.

      I am willing, as a mental health patient to see laws that would prevent me or anyone in my house from getting a weapon. As I have never been in a criminal proceeding there is no way at this time to stop me from getting weapons. But that means I give up my privacy. Is your right to own a gun more important than my privacy. I would argue yes my right to privacy trumps the 2nd amendment. The political rights to be free from government surveillance trumps your right to own a gun. But I would support this.

      On your part gun owners you need to persuade gun owners to support expanded mental health care. And that means at the least support for Obamacare. The NRA is not known for supporting health care reform. They can not have it both ways. And it will mean higher taxes to pay for this health care.

      •  The right to privacy is a illusory concept today. (0+ / 0-)

        I was a mental health patient, voluntarily, in the 80's just before they were defunded.

        I spent 3+yrs at an Alcohol Outpatient Clinic and over 5 yrs (concurrently) going to our County Medical Center seeing a therapist.

        They never prescribed drugs and they actually helped me!  It was based on my income and I paid $3 a visit. I was going 2 and 3 times a week during that entire 5 yr period! I couldn't get anything close to that help today, even after paying for my "employer" medical coverage that cost me over $1600 a year!

        6 visits a year, that's all we're allowed under our health plans today!

        When you say the choice is between gun rights and rights to privacy I simply cannot agree.  There are too many Americans on prescription drugs today. Americans consume 80% of ALL pharmaceuticals manufactured on this Planet.  

        The side-effects of many of those prescription drugs interfere with cognitive abilities and some even MAKE people violent, depressed and DANGEROUS.

        The choice here is simple, your privacy does not trump the life of an innocent child. If we are to actually restore sanity to this nation, we must help each other again.

        That's the true problem here, too many people aren't getting the help they need or if they get the chance to see a doctor, their answer always seems to be "in a pill". Don't you dare mention that the Doctor is getting kickbacks from the manufacturer of said drugs! Don't you dare interrupt their Hawaiian vacation plans! Don't you dare talk about the institutional corruption!

        I have the right to know if my co-worker is on an anti-psychotic drug AND if they are a danger to me or themselves! If so, they shouldn't be allowed to own any firearms. Not until their condition has been resolved.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 08:15:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it were not for antidepresents I would have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, elwior

          committed suicide years ago. The best treatment combines meds with therapy. But who pays for therapy. If you have depression or biploar disorder for therapy to be effective it must be long term. A year or more. I will not have anything resembling a firearm in my house unless you have a badge. But right now that is a Choice I make, not a condition imposed upon me. And it should be a condition imposed on me. I should not have the right to own a firearm. But there is no enforcement. Such a system may discourage people from seeking help. And there is no funding for treatment or record keeping. And one of the arguments against health care reform was that it was a government intrusion on what should be a private matter. Many of the same people who oppose gun control also oppose health care reform.

          I would also say that mental health issues are never fully resolved. So that ban would have to be permanent. My depression will never be cured. So I live my life in such a way as to not make things worse. So I do not use alcohol, or recreational drugs. I watch my diet. But I can not afford the copays for regular therapy. $30.00/visit weekly I just can not afford. I see my psychiatrist 4 times a year for meds. The side effects can be bad and make things worse until you find a med that works. And just because a med works today does not mean it will still work 6 months from now. It is easier to take guns off the street than it is to treat the mentally ill with any kind of safe cure rate.

          So I am willing to give up part of my private life to keep people like me from getting guns. But that alone will not solve the problem. And getting prohibitions passed that only address the mentally ill may also require a constitutional amendment. Banning me from owning a weapon when i have never committed a crime probably violates my 14th amendment rights of equal protection. Which is probably why the laws on the mentally ill are not stronger. So we are back at square one.

          •  This is the crime that no one wants to face! (0+ / 0-)
            But I can not afford the copays for regular therapy. $30.00/visit weekly I just can not afford. I see my psychiatrist 4 times a year for meds.
            They want to blame some object and then say it's not the fault of Republicanism over the past 30 yrs.

            As for this:

            Banning me from owning a weapon when i have never committed a crime probably violates my 14th amendment rights of equal protection
            Agreed.  But we do mandate doctors, school teachers, etc into reporting suspected child abuse.  Why can't they be mandated in reporting someone whom is a danger to themselves or others?

            Why can't they be mandated to report the prescriptions they sign off on into the NICS system? How hard or expensive would that really be? Punching in the numbers into a computer? Maybe doctors would actually think twice before drugging people.

            States still can regulate arms. Here in New York you cannot get a permit if someone in your home is a criminal. We're routinely denied that right without due process and forced to pay the price for someone else's actions.

            The line has already been crossed.  What makes medical privacy so special?  

            Maybe when emotions have settled down we can talk about fully funded public mental health services.

            That will help so many and stop so much violence and it will be completely constitutional.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 10:53:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Your last sentence is a lie. If it wasn't hard, it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      would have been done by now.

      And I'm skeptical the current majority in the federal House would allow this, or states like Wyoming or Alabama would approve it.

      Feel free to try again.

      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

      by glorificus on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 12:43:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, you just cannot accept that the (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans have controlled the political discourse in this nation for over 30 yrs, pushing the Overton Window to the point where Democrats now act like republicans of old.

        We have two-sides of the same coin.  Where were our Democrats when the Republicans defunded our social safety nets? Oh, that's right the Democrats agreed with them!

        Hold them accountable for these disasters anyone with half a brain cell could have told would happen when you stop helping people.  

        http://www.thenation.com/...

        But while welfare reform may have initially reduced poverty, it left those still living at that income level worse off than they were before, reaching fewer of them and giving those it did reach less. And our poverty rates didn’t stay low. When they began to rise again, the program couldn’t offer them the support it used to. The recession has been a crystal clear, and incredibly painful, demonstration of this fact.
        As for this:
        And I'm skeptical the current majority in the federal House would allow this,
        If you think we'll ever regain the House or keep control of the Senate, keep dreaming.  Push for gun control and we will lose, period.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 03:50:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site