Skip to main content

The Washington Post's editorial board calls for watered-down compromise:
The working group is right to think big, yet it must be cognizant that legislation will face stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association. In today’s polarized environment, an omnibus bill might offer everyone something to oppose. It would be a mistake to ask Congress for a package so big that it sinks. [...] [T]he White House can show leadership on the related issues of mental health and of violence in entertainment and video games. But the urgency of action, and the deep polarization of our politics, means the administration should choose its legislative priorities carefully, aiming for those with broad public support and a reasonable chance of approval. As Mr. Biden vowed the other day, “We are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing. It’s critically important that we act.”
In other words, let polls and NRA opposition drive policy. The editors support a new assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity clips, increased background checks and greater penalties for drug trafficking. But addressing the epidemic of gun violence in this country requires a whole lot more, and the president and vice-president should put for a bold, life-saving package -- regardless of what Republicans and NRA supporters in Congress have to say about it. Start big, sell it to the American people, and let the people pressure Congress to step up the plate. Calling for the administration to sink its vision down to the level of the most despised institution in the country is the wrong call. Every victim of gun violence, their families, and their communities deserve much better.

The editors at The Denver Post have the right idea. They say Gov. John Hickenlooper's call for universal background checks and increased mental health funding is a good start, but a bigger, bolder plan is needed:

Hickenlooper's take on ways to prevent violence includes a call to change the state's standards for committing people with mental problems to make it easier to get them help. His proposal would bolster funding for the mental health care system by $18.5 million. Laudable ideas, to be sure. [...] With both chambers of the legislature controlled by Democrats, it's all but a lock those measures will pass, and the state will be better for them. Taken cumulatively, Hickenlooper's address was a reserved exercise that touched upon business and energy themes that appeal to Republicans and other issues and causes that have been supported by his fellow Democrats for some years. As such, he could have taken a bolder stance on gun control while maintaining his reputation as pragmatist.
Don't miss Aaron Blake's rundown of vice-president Biden's relationship with the NRA.

The Los Angeles Times editors look at the surge of gun sales:

The reason for all this gun mania, of course, is fear — not fear of victimization, but fear that the government will impose limits on gun ownership. President Obama is the focus of this fear, as he has been since 2008, despite the fact that he has neither proposed nor signed anti-gun legislation. [...] Congress, meanwhile, is dusting off old bills to reinstate an expired federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines (a movement with notably more enthusiasm among Democrats than Republicans). Such weapons are already banned in California.

In fact, there is almost zero chance that the federal government will adopt restrictions tougher than what California already has on the books, making the reaction in Ontario [by those who rushed to purchase guns] a little puzzling. That doesn't render Washington's efforts worthless — California has the strictest gun laws of any state, and the country would be safer if such limits were imposed nationwide. Meanwhile, some California lawmakers are proposing state bills that would impose even stricter rules here.

To gun owners and prospective buyers, we can only say: Don't panic. Any legislative changes will be, for the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners, unnoticeable. Obama's not going to break into your house wearing a ski mask and take your guns away.

Switching gears to Afghanistan, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon at Reuters looks at the debate about troop levels:
[T]alking about the mission – the “good war” whose eventual goal became “good enough” – is what most of Washington has avoided. By not discussing in depth the war and its objectives, the administration has allowed the American public to believe there is nothing to salvage in Afghanistan after a decade of battle.

This idea of Afghanistan as hopeless, says the celebrated diplomatic workhorse Ryan Crocker, who most recently served as ambassador to Afghanistan, should be questioned. Leaving Afghanistan with little financial, civilian or military support, he said, is a lethal recipe for history to repeat.[...] Crocker and others say the bill for supporting the Afghan military is far more affordable than another war.

“We will wind up paying about $2.5 billion a year as our share of support for Afghan security forces totaling 230,000,” Crocker said. “That sounds like a lot of money ‑ until you consider that we’re paying about $110 billion a year now. So this is pretty cheap insurance.” Whether that insurance will be sufficient to help Afghans protect their nation and avoid a descent into civil war remains in doubt. But as Obama and Karzai meet in Washington, the call for clarity on U.S. objectives and commitments has grown ever louder.

Ryan Cooper at The Washington Monthly on the debt ceiling debate:
[President Obama] should absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility of negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. Normalizing the idea of holding the economy hostage to extract unrelated policy concessions is a terrible development, and habit needs to be broken. [...]  if the president can’t acknowledge the validity of the coin option, what is the point of working through the logistics and generally talking about it so much? The real danger of the coin option is the ignorance of the national media. As we’ve been finding out, many members of the press have primitive, pre-Enlightenment beliefs about money. They think the government is like a household, and don’t consider the implications of fiat currency. Running the government on platinum seigniorage, even temporarily, would sound deeply strange, and you can bet Republicans would be howling bloody murder. The coverage would be key. If only we had panicked reports from the likes of Judson Berger blaming the president entirely for the situation, gabbling incoherently about hyperinflation and default, then we’d likely see a big backlash and possibly impeachment.

Therefore, hashing out the debate now is critical, to give the president the confidence he needs that the platinum option is a viable one and he won’t be crucified for exercising it, so he can absolutely refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling. I’d say Team Coin has done quite well in this task so far.

Susan Milligan at US News & World Report writes that the bailout lawsuit should be laughed out of court:
The audacity behind [ex-AIG CEO] Greenberg's reasoning is stunning. His sense of entitlement dwarfs anything we have heard from the Siegels. AIG took bad risks and lost. That's the nature of business and capitalism. The federal government took on a troubled company, helped it get back on its feet, and was rewarded with a profit—money that goes into general revenue. The Treasury Department staff didn't get spa vacations or big bonuses. They did their job, and did it better than Greenberg and his fellow executives did. And Greenberg thinks that's unfair? That's a remarkable perspective from any businessperson, particularly one from a business like insurance, which is rooted in risk assessment. The suit should be laughed out of court. And Greenberg should take some of his leftover compensation and buy a paper bag to put over his face
Nathan Lewis at Forbes urges lawmakers to think outside the box when it comes to strengthening Social Security and Medicate and urges a "clean sheet" approach:
If you look at the two main entitlement programs today – Social Security and Medicare – you see immediately that they are extremely inefficient and costly ways of solving the problem of senior income insurance and healthcare. Social Security, for example, pays the most money to the people who need it least – those who had the highest incomes during their lifetime, and have often accumulated substantial assets on top of private-sector pension benefits. Often, those who need it most – those who had the lowest incomes during their lifetime – get benefits so small that they don’t really solve the basic problem of debilitating poverty.

Rather than jiggering the existing Social Security program with tweaks like “means testing,” I suggest a clean-sheet-of-paper solution. It would be more like our existing welfare programs. If you qualify, you would get a flat-rate contribution that would be the same for everyone, no matter what their income was. This would likely be much less expensive than the existing Social Security program, which means that taxes to fund it could be much lower. It would be better to roll the program into the general budget and not have separate earmarked taxes, like any other welfare program. This would potentially allow the complete elimination of payroll taxes.[...] This is just one idea. I’m sure someone could make a better one. The important thing is that someone introduces some new ideas, rather than just cutting benefits within the existing framework, for example by raising retirement ages.

Over at The Financial Times (free sign-up required), Jacob Weisberg writes about how "the president's cower has turned to swagger":
On a range of other issues, such as gun control, the president’s new tone suggests that he prefers going it alone to beating his head against a wall of ultraconservative opposition. This means either proceeding unilaterally with more limited executive orders or forcing the Republicans to stand up and be counted in opposition. There is probably some political strategy here. The GOP continues to control the House only because turnout in midterm elections is smaller, older, and whiter than in presidential years. Picking fights on social issues is probably the best way for Mr Obama to turn out the Democratic base in 2014.
Writing in The New York Times, Raymond A. Smith argues that presidents should rely more on their cabinet and lays out some ways a stronger relationship between the president and the cabinet can result in stronger policy:
Over the past half-century, however, the expansion of the White House staff has centralized deliberation and decision making increasingly within the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. This reliance on professional staffers, political advisers and media spinmeisters within a constrictive White House “security bubble” deprives presidents not only of the deep substantive policy expertise of top civil servants but also of the political judgment of cabinet members who are often successful politicians. A strengthened cabinet could promote frank and creative deliberation, help coordinate policy across government and make sure all members are delivering the same political message. All of this could go far in staving off the inertia and drift so common in presidential second terms.

Cabinet secretaries given a more prominent role would also enjoy a higher profile, enhancing their effectiveness in Washington and beyond, and enabling them to serve as more effective proxies for the president. Here are four ideas to maximize the reach and impact of the next cabinet...

Anson Kaye at US News & World Report takes a hilarious look at the tragicomedy of modern House politics:
... I have come up with the following modest proposal for House reform: replace the Speaker with a Coracias garrulus. That's right. For lack of a more delicate term, it's the vomit bird. You see, when Coracias garrulus senses danger the little darlings throw up all over themselves. Usually, it makes them a less delectable treat for predators, but put one up on the dais and it's hard to imagine a more accurate physical manifestation of how many of us are feeling about the goings on in the House these days. Just imagine: the Honorable Jim Jordan of Ohio rises to offer an amendment and ... Speaker Coracias garrulus shares his lunch.
Howard Kurtz at CNN examines Andrew Sullivan's approach to blogger self-funding through the context of journalists and personal brands:
We are seeing the rise of hybrid journalists, like Ezra Klein, who blogs for The Washington Post, is an MSNBC contributor and writes a column for Bloomberg News. Or Andrew Ross Sorkin, who writes a column for The New York Times, runs its DealBook blog and co-hosts CNBC's Squawk Box.

But below the level of the brightest stars, there is a survival strategy at work. Newspapers and magazines are shrinking. I've lost count of the number of reporters, columnists and critics who have been laid off or taken buyouts, only to launch blogs, join websites, churn out e-books or otherwise seek a foothold in the digital economy.
News organizations used to frown on this sort of thing; now they have bookers to get their folks on TV and social media editors to push their stars on Facebook and Twitter. The Times once discouraged its people from going on television; now, like most newspapers, it has its own studio.

If there was once a line that stopped journalists from engaging in blatant self-promotion, it long ago vanished. But here's why that's not a bad thing. Most print journalists were once viewed as remote figures engaged in one-way communication. Now they've been forced to engage in a dialogue with their readers, responding to tweets, posting pictures, sharing more of themselves with those who consume the news. The walls of the fortress have been breached.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I swear if I hear 1 more pro gun asshole blame (9+ / 0-)

    video games, I'm going to turn on my Xbox 360, throw in COD, and start shooting mother fuckers dead!!! Until they rejuvenate & come back to life, only to kill them again!!! Then I'll go outside for some fresh air.

    Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

    by Guile Of The Gods on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:40:32 AM PST

  •  Dear PBO..whatever you come up with on gun control (12+ / 0-)

    the republicans will be against it....Notice how this works yet?

    •  No... the jury is still out on the overwhelming (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skillet, Melanie in IA

      consistency with which the repubes have stonewalled and/or sought the demise of PBO.

      He refuses to see this and still has his hand out in friendship.

      This weekend, he is going to go live with wolves in Yellowstone, spending the weekend hugging them.

      Few know of his passion for saving pytons and monitor lizards. He likes to hug them too.

      Once he got bit right on the Presidential Ass by a monitor lizard. "That monitor lizard... he's such a kidder" PBO was overheard remarking.....

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:13:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If I was a hopeless cynic... (6+ / 0-)

    ...I'd suggest that the WaPo Editorial Board got a personal visit from this guy right here just before they put fingers to keypad. (h/t to Triple-B, Vyan and at least 2 other diarists who bought this to our collective attention)

    But that would be irresponsible speculation on my part.

    Oops.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:48:05 AM PST

    •  The GOP base has spoken....listening to them call (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, bear83

      in to the wingnut shows...they all sound the same.

    •  Nah, they're just trying to be "balanced." (4+ / 0-)

      Dems want no school shootings, Repubs want many school shootings, so the truth must be somewhere in the middle.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:13:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  if Repubes cave on gun control, who will the NRA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83

        fund?

        I am certain the MAIN issue for the repubes is not dead kids - they hate americans - it's loss of donations from a wealthy organization.

        But the NRA would be in the same boat as me, sorta - I want marijuana legalized and the Dems are the more open party. It is insane to be anticipating repubs to ACTUALLY relegalize, so I am a democrat.

        Likewise, if the GOP does cave on increased gun regs, who does the NRA have to go to?

        Nobody. GOP should call their bluff. I think the NRA will relent and continue to fund them, although in a bitchier fashion....

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:53:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Court-ordered corporate socialism. (7+ / 0-)
    The Treasury Department staff didn't get spa vacations or big bonuses. They did their job, and did it better than Greenberg and his fellow executives did. And Greenberg thinks that's unfair? That's a remarkable perspective from any businessperson, particularly one from a business like insurance, which is rooted in risk assessment. The suit should be laughed out of court. And Greenberg should take some of his leftover compensation and buy a paper bag to put over his face
    Waah waaah waaaah. We didn't all get the exact same amount of spoils. Boo hoo hoo.

    I think by definition AIG management failed, got bailed. And they still have jobs because ... ?

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:49:02 AM PST

  •  making a lot of assumptions here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2
    the president and vice-president should put for a bold, life-saving package -- regardless of what Republicans and NRA supporters in Congress have to say about it. Start big, sell it to the American people, and let the people pressure Congress to step up the plate.  
    you're assuming that the galvanizing would be in your favor.  some 47% of u.s. households have guns.  

    instead of pursuing something futile like the AWB, congress should do things that will actually help, like repeal the tiahrt language.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:52:17 AM PST

    •  58% of those polled want stricter gun control (5+ / 0-)

      up from 43% one year ago. And I'm betting that number 58% will go up as the population begins to learn just how many guns are in the country, how many firearms deaths and how many firearms injuries take place every year in the USA.

      http://news.yahoo.com/...

      So when WaPo says the population is divided, they should say how it's divided, the majority want more gun control.

      ❧To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:20:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the same kind of polling with tax deductions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn

        show that a larger percentage of the people want to eliminate loop holes and deductions.  This lasts until you start talking about specific deductions to eliminate at which point the support for eliminating them drops precipitously.

        It is way past time to drop the nonsense about an AWB and magazine limits, which are feel good measures that both past experience as well as every firearms expert I have seen will tell you will be absolutely ineffective.  These two measures will be fiercely opposed by the NRA and much of the gun community and tying any sort of progress to the passage of these items is only dooming it to failure.

        We need to keep the focus on the real goal of reducing crime and violence in society, identifying mass murderers before they commit their act (which they will do, with or without guns) and respecting the rights of responsible citizens.  Don't let the politicians with an agenda, and yes I mean the loud mouths from CA and NY, use you to further their agenda.

      •  "gun control" does not necessarily mean AWB (0+ / 0-)

        wouldn't keeping guns out of criminals' hands do a lot more?  the typs of guns addressed by an AWB account for 2% of gun violence, tops.

        how is it effective policy to ignore 98% of a problem?

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:43:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  32.3% - Univ of Chicago and UPI - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      you were going by the outliar Gallup .

      You gun people are in the minority.
      Only gun nuts oppose AWB and limiting magazine clips.
      Google is your friend: percent of US households with guns will give you links.

      Lol at gun people clinging to Gallup .

    •  Futile AWB? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      belle1

      The powerful opposition to Health Care reform lost. Those opposing the repeal of DADT lost. Those opposing the restructuring of the US auto industry lost. The powerful lobby opposing the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lost. The all-powerful Grover Norquist and his tax pledge opposing tax increases on the wealthy also lost. And those opposing immigration reform have already grudgingly accepted defeat. And although they don't know it yet, the NRA and those opposing responsible gun laws are about to lose.

      If we listened to the naysayers, none of the above would have been possible.

      This is change. Good change. Change you can believe in kind of change.

  •  The unrecognized fear of the gun nuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    is that people will no longer be afraid of their guns.

     The left has already learned their lesson on this because we know our history. Back in the day, not that long ago; the striking coal miners fielded an army of over 10,000 armed men. And lost.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:58:35 AM PST

    •  The worst thing they don't want to accept (6+ / 0-)

      that no matter how many guns and how much ammo they stockpile, they are NOT going to fend off the US government.

      Morons.
      The FEDs will blow your house up.

      It is fundamental insanity to believe you and your beer-buddies are going to hold off the FEDS.

      Preposterous.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:17:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  More often the fed waits until the guy steps out (0+ / 0-)

        for Starbucks. The "house-blow-up" gets a lot of attention but isn't all that common.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:26:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  SHit - if they are remotely Middle-eastern lookin (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, thomask

          the FBI grooms them for terror, sets them p with everything they need right up to pushing the buttn on the fake bomb and getting arrested and the FBI engages in another round of high-5s for having - actually - accomplished nothing.

          No... guns and gun violence don't concern the federal government NEARLY as much as ...... well, you know.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:28:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  They don't need to hold off the feds. They will (0+ / 0-)

        become martyrs and the second American Civil war will be upon us.  Every major conflict in world history started with something that was a pretty insignificant event, but at the time, in the right conditions, sparked a major conflict.  For example, John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

        Large numbers of people, and a growing number of states, as well as members of the legislature are saying that some of the provisions that the Obama administration is pursuing go too far.  We need to back away from the rhetoric and look at real solutions.

    •  Yes, it's a personal fear for some of them (0+ / 0-)

      I've been arguing in our local Facebook political forum for several weeks, and I have experienced several threats of implied violence from some of these people that wouldn't have anything to say if they couldn't talk tough while holding a gun.

      They thrive on the dominance it gives them over people that would never think of using a gun against someone over their political affiliations. People are scared of guns, and by extension, of people with guns. Take away the guns, and you take away their power.

      Atlas shrugged. Jesus wept.

      by trevzb on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:55:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Our only hope (5+ / 0-)

    Nothing has changed in our political discourse since the shooting. Politicians and lawmakers are still beholden to the gun lobby and its stash of campaign cash. In fact, we have heard even more disturbing and extreme responses from pro-gun nuts in the wake of Newtown, suggesting all sorts of insane theories to back up their deadly obsession with assault weapons. The only hope for saving kids like those in Connecticut rests with the people of America. We have changed. We see the need for common sense regulations in this country. We know madmen able to buy military guns and 100-round ammo clips at Walmart cannot be tolerated.    -  progressive

    •  What has changed is that there is a more clearly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, bear83, ratcityreprobate

      delineated boundary between the NRA and the whacky-doodle dandy gunwhacks and everyone else who doesn't believe there is a threat to our "2nd amendment rights" of individual gun ownership and are willing to see some common sense regulations that will reduce the level of violence.
      It's pretty apparent in the media recently that there is not much of a "squishy" middle anymore and it comes across as much more pathetic.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:12:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Madmen can't military guns and 100-round clips (0+ / 0-)

      at walmart.  Military guns are regulated out the wazoo.  To obtain them requires special permits, approval by law enforcement, and paying the taxes and registration.  This is due to a thing called the NFA

      The guns that are available to citizens only resemble military style weapons in cosmetic features, not functionality.  There is no point in imposing bans on them as they are no more powerful than the typical hunting rifle.  Not to mention even if you prohibit lawful citizens from having them, the criminals still will.  Legislation is not magic.

  •  Don't care what the NRA says anymore. (8+ / 0-)

    After Sandy Hook, they're irrelevant.  We knew they were lunatics and liars, but when they came out of that with their same old song and dance, it's no longer worth listening to them or taking anything they say seriously.  Fuck them.  Time to start completely ignoring and ostracizing the NRA.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:06:50 AM PST

  •  Exactly how much more harsh and stupid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, tb mare

    do politicians think drug trafficking laws need to be?

    It's a clear sign of Stupid that this would even be discussed near an issue like gun control. Asinine complete stupidity.

    Drooling morons.

    Public service messages/awareness-raising PSA and INCREASED FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH.

    Maybe something like a series of PSAs suggesting that guns and violence MIGHT not be the best answer to life's problems......

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:09:56 AM PST

  •  WaPo: You'll never get guns, so go for video games (5+ / 0-)

    Does anybody think that would stop even one shooting?

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:11:26 AM PST

    •  Probably a lot of people. (3+ / 0-)

      Some amazingly stupid ideas are being floated right now.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:18:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Im not sure what they could do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83

      for movies and video games even. Freedman v. Maryland established the government cannot operate a rating board with the power to block movies.

      •  We have a problem with a depraved and violent (5+ / 0-)

        popular culture. I don't think government censorship would help that, but we do need a discussion about it.
        Just the gunwhacks' idea that there is a scenario short of total collapse of civilization in which large caches of arms are going to be a solution to the problem is rooted in the culture.

        We saw this year that just standing up and going out to vote changed our country (saved civilization and American democracy in my opinion) and we need to keep reinforcing the idea that civilized, responsible effort makes a difference in the real world, even if it makes for a very boring video game.

        This is basically the pivot point in this debate.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:39:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hammer meets nail (4+ / 0-)

          It is a CULTURAL thing.

          that's why if and when guns are banned the black market will be so robust. One is simply fooling oneself if one thinks a rule is going to prevent serious gun culture members to give up those guns. Mr Killing People's army isn't likely to be turning in their guns when the government says so.

          A top-down approach would be a series of PSA's and vastly increased mental health funding to greatly increase people's ability to access counseling (not that a lot of people will do this).

          And some people - like Mr. Killing People, are just going to be a problem and there is NOTHING you can do about them except take them down one way or another. (arrested by the secret service would be ideal).

          But this is a cultural issue, much like bigfoot - so many people believe in it, deeply. As fact.

          They will take some convincing....

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:44:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think they will make the mistake of trying (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Heart of the Rockies

            to "round up" all the assault weapons.
            However, they will enforce laws on sales and when they run into illegal weapons in the context of responding to other crimes like drug trafficking, they'll take them out of circulation, as they currently do.
            When I was a kid, I virtually played with guns every day.
            Cowboys or army. I had a bb gun, and later a 22 (at that point I was an NRA member and aware of the dangers of guns, and full of responsibility in how I handled the gun, and when I loaded it and cautious about where I pointed it, etc. How the NRA has changed.) We also played 'Tarzan' a lot, having a great tree house and rope swings, etc. As Tarzan would say, "Guns bad".
            I assumed I would go into the military and be a war hero. Then when I was 14 I started thinking seriously about the Vietnam war and war in general. I saw the monks self-immolate in Vietnam and saw the other horrors on the news and my attitudes started to change.

            I think it's natural for boys to "play with guns (toy guns)".
            We are not doing a very good job in this country of making the move from young boy to man in terms of responsibility.
            I think as our veterans continue to return home, we will replace our current crop of immature kid heroes (sports stars) to some degree with war-weary, enlightened former soldiers, as we did after WWII.
            We should.
            Beyond video games, movies,etc. that promote pueris eternis, we simply have had a failure of the male gender to take on its responsibility for the next generation.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:22:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually I believe some of the penalties that are (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David54

            already in place for convictions of other crimes will cause most responsible gun owners to comply. While I'm not a fan of those penalties they are already used on a daily basis. If a person is convicted of violating a firearms law then you could just make one of the penalties that they can never possess a firearm legally. We do that now for felons, people convicted of domestic violence and some other things. So a guy who actually does like to hunt runs the risk of losing that ability forever if he gets caught with an automatic weapon (or whatever the law is). Hunters know that game wardens frequently check to see that hunters are in compliance. Same for people who want to "carry". Another thing that is standard for people who are convicted and are placed on probation and parole is that for the term of their suspended sentence they are subject to warrantless searches for contraband. It seems to me that these two very normal provisions would keep people who love to have their guns accessible and useful..and who love their personal freedoms, from breaking gun laws. Would everyone comply?  Of course not. But those that decide to break the law would be taking some great risks.  If that causes them to bury their semi-automatic weapons so no one can ever see them or find them then we are all a lot safer from them than we are now. I agree, guns by themselves don't kill.  So if the laws are draconian enough at least the violators will be making sure those guns can't get into anyone else's hand who might use them to kill. I suspect that had Lanza's mother thought she could lose all rights to keep any gun and that she would be subject to warrantless searches if convicted, she would have kept her guns in a place it was unlikely her mentally ill son could get to them. She may have still been willing to break the law by keeping the guns, but she wouldn't have been willing to risk getting caught by being negligent with them.

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:48:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your absolutely right. And this is why I keep (0+ / 0-)

            saying, lets keep the focus on things that will actually work.  Lets focus on the cultural problems.  Lets focus on the poverty that creates ghetto environments, lets focus on support systems for parents and teachers, lets work on education campaigns to raise awareness and encourage gun owners to be responsible, lets work to ensure that background checks are performed and that law enforcement has the tools and resources they need to go after those that break the laws.

    •  Why not go after stupid editorial boards? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gritsngumbo

      "Lock them up!"

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:31:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's Bugs Bunny's fault (0+ / 0-)

      Duck Season!

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:52:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're going to have to go state by state (0+ / 0-)

    I'd say its highly unlikely we get anything major done on a federal level for gun control. Where we can win though is at the state level. Maryland is likely to ban assault weapons & high capacity magazines this legislative session. Cuomo wants it in New York, Malloy is sure to get something through in Connecticut. I just dont see much progress happening on a federal level except maybe a little funding for mental health programs to states

    •  Those laws will be challenged ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratcityreprobate

      .....and the current Supreme Court will knock them down, just like they knocked down the Chicago law.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:26:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It has to happen on a federal level. That's a (5+ / 0-)

      major reason Bloomberg started "Mayors against".
      Criminals in NY are using straw purchases from VA or TX.

      We will see restrictions on assault rifles, high capacity magazines, improvements in reporting to the national database, and closing of gun show and other sales loopholes.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:45:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No matter what regulations at the state (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83

      level are passed, without federal regulations state reg's are easily circumvented.  It's too easy to get guns and ammo across state lines, and perfectly innocent gun owners will have one helluva time understanding the differences among laws from one state to the next.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:51:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  State by state is highly ineffective (0+ / 0-)

      as long as we have open borders and Amazon.

      Look at the problem NY has with out of state cigarrettes. Only federal regs would be effective.

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:56:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good news: prospects for tax "reform" dim (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites

    Reform in D.C. meaning, breaks for the wealthy and corporations.  And continuing wide gap between rate on earned an unearned income.

    http://www.politico.com/...

    •  Yay! n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:26:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Politico carrying McConnell's water again. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratcityreprobate

      We'll have to wait until they get their asses kicked on the debt ceiling fight, and then go after the carried interest loophole and a transaction tax on Wall Street.
      For starters.
      I noticed Monsanto's out with a new ad campaign for America's farmers.
      Reminds me of those old Coke commercials.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:58:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the Republicans will even engage (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David54

        in a debt limit fight if the president keeps his word and refuses to engage.  They may decide to raise the debt ceiling a few billion every month and continue to argue (with themselves) about it, but the country will grow really sick of that really quickly, and they'll pay the price.

        No, they'll save their obstruction for the tax reform battles and hostage-taking of the continuing resolution.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:15:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The NRA (3+ / 0-)

    Doesn't 'debate', just like many orgs like them and seem to be on that side of the politics including those they hire to represent them in All political hiring's, and when faced with actually being responsible adults, and not paranoid sheep, discussing anything that moves a society forward they are totally confused and off message so they stay on those constantly parroted messages they consistent use and surprisingly some equally irresponsible adults fully support their positions no matter how dangerous or damaging to the communities they exist in!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:19:03 AM PST

    •  NRA/ALEC/GOP (5+ / 0-)

      Not interested in debate or conversation.

      Interested ONLY in implementing their agenda and nothing else.

      They will lie to the baby Jesus™ to implement this hateful Banana Republic agenda they have.

      They have way too much power and influence.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:20:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA (0+ / 0-)

      is a lobbying organization.  They are not a PR firm.  They are funded by the gun industry and the gun owners and focus on persuading politicians to further the interests of those who they represent.  

      The over the top proposals that Obama, Biden, DiFi, Schumer, Bloomberg, are causing people to support them in dramatic numbers.  If you want real solutions to real problems, these guys do not have the answer.  It is also interesting how they and all the other anti-gun zealots come from the same three or four states, all of which have the most draconian gun laws and the highest levels of gun violence.

  •  Far leftist Joe Scarborough Show must have NRA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, Vote4Obamain2012, belle1

    appaled today, pointing out Republican Party could be on the road to extinction if they follow NRA orders and oppose even background checks. I think Joe is panicky over continuing his close association with the Whig Party.

    Delenda est filibuster!

    by TofG on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:19:26 AM PST

    •  Well, it's just part of the process. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      belle1

      The gop for decades has been going further and further out on the right wing limb, pandering to the evangelicals and the gun obsessed, seeing how far they could get out there before the limb broke.
      For a long time it was a good strategy to pick up large swaths of guaranteed likely voters, whose membership overlaps. (The religious right has a big stake in 2nd amendment intimidation).
      As they moved further and further to the right, they left room in the middle, middle-right, into which Dems have moved.
      Obama has done this very expertly, pushing the gop leadership further and further to the right.
      Gop are finally waking up to this. I think. Christie and Scarborough and some others are trying to reclaim some of the middle ground.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:06:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Women voters: (5+ / 0-)

    The fact is that women voters, who gained big in the most recent election, will decide this issue.
    Women are more rational in their decision making, more focused on kitchen-table issues economically, and more focused on their kids' futures in general.
    This is just a statistical fact, not that there are not lots of men who are responsible parents, etc.
    The gop has done well with wedge issues that attacked reproductive rights and supported the NRA.
    This strategy is getting tired, isn't sustainable.
    I predict women will be much more engaged in 2014 than they were even in 2012 and will exert their will to see fewer guns and more teachers in schools.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:20:59 AM PST

  •  Sandy Relief II......rumblings from Politico.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83
  •  If you have flat SS benefits... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, tb mare, bear83

    ...you need flat contributions.

    I can live with that, if that's the proposal.

    Other idea:

    Tie it into immigration reform. Most immigrants skew younger. There must be some way to turn making them legal and taking them out of the black economy into a boom for the SS trust fund.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:23:35 AM PST

    •  That, and raising the cap on income (5+ / 0-)

      subject to the contribution, AND dropping the rate to 5% from employee and employer will make a big difference.  It shuts up employers since their payroll taxes drop, and it helps employees by keeping a little bit more in their paycheck.

      But, alas, these are easy and common sense solutions and will not ever be considered in Washington....

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:36:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Part of a solution must be... (3+ / 0-)

      ...to recognize that the FIRE Sector of the economy has exacerbated the plight of SS by destroying any impact of personal savings, including 401Ks. People who shouldn't be facing marginalized post-employment lives are because some "geniuses" figured out how to destroy for immense personal gain the Pension systems in both the Public and Private Sectors, and they have rendered alternate personal "tools" for retirement insufficient and ineffective for most people.

      The "solution" cannot be more personal responsibility. And it cannot be less assistance from government.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:10:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The calculation of social security benefits (0+ / 0-)

      is weighted toward low wage earners.  There is not a flat formula that favors high earners over low earners.  I believe all we need to do is raise the cap for earnings.  I think means testing social security benefits will make it just another welfare program that will be easily cut and eviserated.

    •  Social Security as welfare... (0+ / 0-)

      Bad idea, but at least Nathan Lewis is being honest about what he wants.

      The strength of SS is precisely that it is NOT a welfare program, but an entitlement, based on what we each have earned, though skewed somewhat to lower incomes. Once it becomes welfare, it is just something else for Grover Norquist to strangle or drown.

      That is inevitable.

  •  Sullivan (0+ / 0-)

    Andrew Sullivan had raised $440,000 by last weekend, after fundraising less than a week. Some people are paying the $19.99 and many are paying more than needed. They plan to go out on their own on Feb. 1.

  •  Oh, just the ticket. Make SS a welfare program (6+ / 0-)

    for the elderly poor so we can "end (another) welfare as we know it."  It's another scheme to eliminate SS, of course, and it will be interesting to see who takes it up as a "solution."  Always remembering that for some people, ending SS is a solution.

    Acceleration is a thrill, but velocity gets you there

    by CarolinNJ on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:28:48 AM PST

  •  Could I do this? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies, bear83

    Taft High School Shooting: Conversation Between Gunman, Teacher Allowed Other Students To Escape

    Ever since the Sandy Hook shooting, I've found myself glancing at the doors leading to the main corridor of the elementary school where I supervise lunch and wonder what is my move if some intruder decides to replicate that disaster at my school. Will I charge the shooter? Will I try to  shield the closest students? Will I attempt to run for my own life?

    I hope I never find out. But Taft HS teacher Ryan Heber gives me a behavior to aspire to.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:29:12 AM PST

    •  Lots of folks here will romanticize this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, bear83

      and overlook the sheer luck of the draw, so to speak.

      She just as easily could be among the departed.

      But its a feel good story and people like those.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:31:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you want to have a school under heavy security. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xxdr zombiexx

        ....it seems like metal detectors and lock-down doors and maybe monitored security cameras would be a better solution than armed guards.

        "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

        by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:52:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is my understanding that Lanza shot his way (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Heart of the Rockies

          into the school, that they had what was considered standard acceptable security.

          As always - I could be wrong but thats what I seem to remember reading.

          When people are in a car wreck, for months afterwards they rifle through the incident "why didn't I do this?" If only I had done that" Why weren't his lights on?".

          People want control over things there likely is little control over other than to try and be as safety conscious as possible.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:56:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh sure. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xxdr zombiexx

            I'm just saying there are better security methods than armed guards, if you're going to have security methods.

            You could have had heavy steel doors locked to people on the outside, for one.

            "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

            by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:59:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The logistics of that are still difficult (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Egalitare, a gilas girl

              to deal with. Students come to school late. Parents come to pick them up early for appointments. Parents come to volunteer or for lunch or parties. Kids leave the building for recess and to go to classroom trailers.

              Locking down schools sounds simple, but implementing it would be a nightmare.

              Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

              by bear83 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:10:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Schools in gang areas.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xxdr zombiexx

            ....deal with this stuff all the time.

            You have to do a risk assessment and I'm sure sandy hook's risk assessment would have said "not worth the extra expense for the 1 in 100 million change of some gun-loving rich lady's kid going nuts" but, if you are going to go nuts with security, armed guards aren't the best way to go.

            "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

            by Bush Bites on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:02:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes they do. (0+ / 0-)

              I had a meeting at an Elementary school several years ago in a harsh area down here - got out of my car to find an unspent 12 gauge shell laying right in the parking lot.

              I picked it up and took it in and early in the meeting I put it right out on the table, standing up.

              the moon-eyes were great.

              Very violent area I worked in.....

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:19:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  This: (0+ / 0-)
      Ever since the Sandy Hook shooting, I've found myself glancing at the doors leading to the main corridor of the elementary school where I supervise lunch and wonder what is my move if some intruder decides to replicate that disaster at my school.
      This is good!

      This is 'security thinking' and more people need to be good at this.

      I live in Atlanta and have for almost 25 years. It's a big crime-filled city and I have almost zero experiences with being a crime victim, mostly, I think, because I am wary of others.

      I strongly encourage people to study martial arts - thai boxing, Small Circle Jiujistu/BJJ - something.

      if you are going to "charge the shooter" you might want to have a working idea of what you intend to do once you manage to do so.

      When the shit hits the fan you will rise to the occasion.

      And then freak out later when you have the time to do it right.

      (That's how I do it).

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:40:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the roundup, Georgia! (3+ / 0-)

    It's fun trying to match the headlines with the newspapers.  I only was able to ID two--The WaPo and the NY Times.

    Re this statement:

    Obama's not going to break into your house wearing a ski mask and take your guns away.
    In four years he hasn't done it so why do the paranoid nutjobs think he's going to do so now?  I'd hate to be that crazy.

    Re Howard Kurtz' statement:

    Most print journalists were once viewed as remote figures engaged in one-way communication. Now they've been forced to engage in a dialogue with their readers, responding to tweets, posting pictures, sharing more of themselves with those who consume the news. The walls of the fortress have been breached.
    And a good thing, too.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:35:32 AM PST

    •  Re this: (0+ / 0-)
      In four years he hasn't done it so why do the paranoid nutjobs think he's going to do so now?  I'd hate to be that crazy.
      Because that is the foundation of their entire worldview, not simply that this singular Black POTUS, but the entire liberal establishment exists in order to eliminate them and all they hold dear from existence.

      While I agree it is paranoid, what it is first and foremost is narcissism on steroids: an inability to see the world from any place but inside your own shoes and then projecting that which you see from there out onto the rest of the world.   And the assumption that you are so important that the opposition must seek to annihilate you in ordert o go forward.

      I agree it's skewed, but the level of the skew and the reasons for it are remarkable different.  Of course it helps that there's an entire communications infrastructure dedicated to propagating this worldview.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:34:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Love the vomit bird. (4+ / 0-)

    It is an absolute and virtually divine perfection to know how to enjoy our being rightfully. - Michel de Montaigne

    by BlueRock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:36:23 AM PST

  •  I Worry! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, a gilas girl

    Congress is being asked to deal with both Gun Violence legislation and Sequester / Debt Limit legislation NOW, at the SAME TIME!  To further complicate matters, the Senate also has to deal with Filibuster Reform which has to be dealt with before anything else, and conformation of the Presidents new appointments which has to be done ASAP!

    Thanks to the Republicans, I don't see how this dysfunctional congress can even deal with one of these important items in a timely manner, let alone 2 or 4.  This Congress can't even walk, let alone chew gum, walk the dog and listen to their Ipod at the same time.

    So you see why I'm worried!

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:46:27 AM PST

  •  WaPo should be ashamed of itself (4+ / 0-)

    in civilized countries the press led the charge against guns. They ceretainly didn't pander to the pro gun interests that much is for certain.

    Pure cowardice.

    •  I tire of the Kossack gun nuts - those (4+ / 0-)

      who oppose AWB, limits on magazine clips, closing loopholes at gun shows, ... Those are common sense solutions . In my book, if a person opposes those measures, they are gun nuts. We have too many of them here. Why should we have a group on Daily Kos that parrots NRA talking points?

      •  40% of gun owners are democrats. There are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne

        plenty of people who are totally with you on most every political issue and point and yet you would dismiss them because they value their rights under the 2A?  How sad.

        •  You can hide behind (5+ / 0-)

          the 2nd all that you want but you must realize that ultimately this all comes down to your hobby vs innocent lives. The data is out there from other countries that have enforced gun restrictions - less people die. It really is that simple.

          •  It is not my hobby, it is my right....just as (0+ / 0-)

            valuable as my right to speak out on this forum or my right to vote or my right to have my own religion or none.  It is really that simple.

            Other countries do not have near the population that we do, they do not have a Constitutional right to bear arms and never did and do not have the amount of weapons within their borders that we do, nor did they have near as many private gun owners as we have.

             No data anywhere can prove that anything being proposed would stop even one mass murder here, much less decrease guns in this country.   Our country has a unique situation and any proposal must look to our own issues of protecting our constitutional rights all the while finding ways that would go after those who would commit mass murders....however they would choose to kill, regardless if it is a bomb to a building or a gun.

            •  It's your arm. Keep your arm. Like you promised. (0+ / 0-)

              If you don't keep it for whatever reason, why would that responsibility fall on me.

              Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

              by 88kathy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:52:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

                •  Is the shot gun owner in the recent school (0+ / 0-)

                  shooting going to be held criminally and civilly responsible.

                  No.

                  The responsibility for failure to KEEP fell on me (society).

                  Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

                  by 88kathy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:05:28 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The shop gun owner sold to a person who had every (0+ / 0-)

                    legal right to own a gun, thus he had no responsibility....he followed the laws as they pertained to him as a gun shop owner.

                     That gun was then stolen.  She is dead, and the gun was illegally taken and used.  We know very little about the situation at that house.  For all we know, he might have broken them out of a gun safe or pried off gun locks.

                    Perhaps you should direct your anger to the murderer and criminal who could have used any weapon of choice including a gun, a match or a home made bomb for that matter.  It was the responsibility of the murderer for the crimes that happen.  

        •  You value your rights, but not your responsibility (0+ / 0-)

          When you fail to keep your arms, you say oopsie and leave it to me to pick up the pieces.

          It's not your fault when your gun gets into the wrong hands.  REALLY.

          I can't control your gun, only you can control your gun.  You don't do it, then you are criminally and civilly liable, even if it was only your gun being a gun in the wrong hands.

          Why do I get the responsibility after you say oopsie.

          Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

          by 88kathy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:50:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well, fuck the NRA, but ... (0+ / 0-)
    In other words, let polls and NRA opposition drive policy.
    how often do people here complain when politicians don't pay attention to polls when making policy/legislation?  

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:25:09 AM PST

  •  Supreme Court ruling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, KayCeSF

    The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller:
     

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    Precedent has been set, and the door is wide open for responsible national gun laws.  
  •  Killing Off Social Security (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PJEvans, ratcityreprobate
    "It [i.e. Soc. Sec.] would be more like our existing welfare programs."
    Well, that sounds like a wonderful precedent!  The fact that Social Security "pays the most money to the people who need it least" is what you'd expect from a retirement plan.

    As far as "clean sheet" is concerned, I'll grant that the author's approach is a "sheet" but there's nothing "clean" about it.

  •  Breaking News! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratcityreprobate

    Howard Kurtz in favor of journalists self-promoting!

    At 11:

    Rain is wet.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:21:20 AM PST

  •  Hey, Nathan Lewis! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, ratcityreprobate, KayCeSF

    Social Security is NOT a "welfare program".

    You should know at least the basics of an issue before you spout off publicly.

    I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

    by Gentle Giant on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:35:22 AM PST

  •  Medicate? (0+ / 0-)
    ...Forbes urges lawmakers to think outside the box when it comes to strengthening Social Security and Medicate...
    Reading that in the diary -- I don't know if you mean Medicaid or Medicare.

    The Republicans are defunding, not defending, America.

    by DSPS owl on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:37:18 AM PST

  •  The greatest trick the NRA ever performed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratcityreprobate, Amber6541

    was convincing responsible gun owners that the very existence of the NRA was absolutely necessary for them to KEEP their guns.

  •  I can't control your gun. I can't. Only you can (0+ / 0-)

    control your gun.  And when you fail.  And when the bad guys take your gun. When your gun gets into the wrong hands.

    Hey don't come crying to me to pick up the pieces.

    You are criminally and civilly liable.

    It's not my job to control guns, it's the bearer's job.  And we better start making them do it.

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:42:59 AM PST

  •  I wish Greenberg and AIG (0+ / 0-)

    HAD sued us all. The theatrics of the response to that would have been far better than the trickle of outrage over something that almost happened.

    Son of a bitches.

    Atlas shrugged. Jesus wept.

    by trevzb on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:51:31 AM PST

  •  What a wonderful Pundit Round Up (0+ / 0-)

    This one really has a lot of scope and a wide geographical and subject range as well as really interesting quotes.  I always enjoy the Pundit Round Up but I especially like ones like this that engage in serious issues and look for fresh ideas.  I enjoy humor, but for me the humor is an add-on, not the main dish.

    I hope Georgia does more of these.

  •  Americans are ambivalent about guns (0+ / 0-)

    On one hand the wimps among them don't like their children being shot at, while "real" Americans yearn to shoot "bad guys with guns" in order to demonstrate their superior morality.  

  •  GUNS (0+ / 0-)

    I think all the NRA is out for is money. The way they talk you can till they are not to smart. Why else would they be talking. The ass holes

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site