Skip to main content

(Click to enlarge)

You know your country has gone off the deep end when a Surgeon General nominee encounters fierce political opposition because of this:

On the local level, the NRA has tried to bar pediatricians from counseling parents about the risks of keeping guns at home. The American Association of Pediatrics recommends that doctors begin to talk to parents about gun safety even before their baby is born and continue the conversation yearly, just as doctors talk to parents about the dangers of swimming pools and the importance of bicycle helmets. Florida passed a gag law in 2011; crafted by an NRA lobbyist, the bill forbids doctors from “making written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient.” A district court ruled the following year that the law restricted physicians’ rights to free speech and the case is now in the appeals process. Murthy’s opposition to pediatrician gag laws was one of the reasons cited by the NRA and Rand Paul in their attempt to disqualify him.
Follow Jen on Twitter and Facebook

Originally posted to Comics on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

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 was at the grocery store and just got in line (19+ / 0-)

    when the older woman at the cash register asked me to pick up a candy bar on the floor.

    I looked at it and looked at her and said "No. I am not on the clock".

    The look on her face was priceless and once I saw it I dropped to the floor to get that candy bar and put it where it belonged.

    She said softly "I'll shoot you".

    Ah.... Georgia.....

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:06:58 AM PDT

  •  Another day in America where we can have guns (16+ / 0-)

    but not weed.

    Stupid Lives.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:08:56 AM PDT

    •  How about both? (0+ / 0-)

      I see nothing contradictory about wanting to protect the liberties we have while seeking to expand liberties we don't.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:25:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cheer up. People can take their gunz into (0+ / 0-)

      bars now. So there's that . . .  :(

      "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

      by Lily O Lady on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:01:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Worthless since neither guns nor alcohol (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lily O Lady

        are worth 2 shits compared to the safe and superior buzz of mara-ju-wanna.

        And despite what the federal government says, mari-ju-wanna isn't "dangerous".

        Legal means good.

        Legal means "good".
        [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

        by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:08:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe not as good, but the combination (0+ / 0-)

          could make for some exciting reporting on the 11 O'clock news.

          I was hoping that the medical marijuana would pass. It had amazing support, but then that crazy legislator decided to attach her bill requiring insurance companies pay for treatment of autism for a child's first six years of life. It's a worthy cause, but it killed the medical marijuana bill. And why should treatment for autism end at age six anyway?

          A bill recognizing the benefits of marijuana would have been a big step forward.  

          "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

          by Lily O Lady on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:30:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  in your second sentence, short and (0+ / 0-)

      long "i" both serve your  point!

  •  The NRA would really love "open pointing" laws (10+ / 0-)

    Shopping in Florida would a gun in one hand and a handful of goodies in the other.

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:13:06 AM PDT

  •  15-20 years ago, when I taught Kindergarten, I (21+ / 0-)

    had a student whose situation just kind of raised some alarms for me.  There was never anything I could put my finger on.  No obvious bruises or signs of neglect.  

    But the things this five-year-old girl said were weird sometimes.  She expressed a definite fear of her mother and had a constant level of anxiety that was just not easily explained.  

    I went with my gut feeling and called CPS (then called CSD). They already had this family on their radar and thanked me for my report.  They told me that nothing would be done, however, because they couldn't find anything actionable.  

    I thought that the matter was closed, but continued to worry about my little student.

    I was surprised a month or two later when CPS Social Workers came to the school and removed this girl.  She was put in foster care and eventually adopted by another family after her mother's parental rights were terminated.  Her mother had been abusing her and punishing her horribly for normal bathroom issues, among other things. Emotionally and psychologically, the poor little thing was a wreck.  She has remained one of those kids I still think about and I hope she is OK now.  

    My point in bringing this up? Her abusive mother was not stopped because of my reporting. She wasn't stopped because of ANY reports to CPS.  She was stopped because a sheriff deputy just happened to notice something strange when he called at the house to respond to one of the mom's many, many complaints.  

    It turned out this mom had a freaking arsenal of hoarded weapons.  Guns and ammo of all sorts, just everywhere in the home.  Everywhere.

    That was what moved CPS to remove that child.  Not the psychological abuse that had been reported many times.  Not the punitive obsession with the child's bathroom habits.  The guns.  That overabundance and obsession with firearms led to a very thorough investigation and finally, the child was removed.  

    Could that investigation even happen if the NRA has their way?      

     

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey

    by koosah on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:26:44 AM PDT

  •  Well, two thoughts here. (11+ / 0-)

    First, as Jon Stewart said on his show, you can have a first amendment right to defend the second amendment, but not to suggest intelligent controls over gun ownership.

    The second is a thing that has become so commonplace it hardly registers. The "conservatives" who value small, non intrusive government nevertheless insist the government should tell doctors what they may say to their patients, and they force this stuff through without the least sense of shame or awareness of the irony.

    •  Strange about Libertarians like Rand Paul (6+ / 0-)

      They're all for minimal government and people having the freedom to make their own choices, but in this instance, it appears that Sen. Paul would deprive people of vital information needed to make the best choice based on their individual circumstances.

      You'd think a Libertarian would in favor of the facts. Unless there's something else at work here, but what could it possibly be???

    •  The 1st Amendment protects gun control speech (0+ / 0-)

      The 1st A doesn't protect people from the political consequences of their political statements

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kinda like the 2nd amendment doesn't protect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        people from being shot and killed...

        Do you support Murthy's nomination If not, why not?

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:46:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither does the 1st, 3rd, 4th Amendments. (0+ / 0-)

          That statement is absolute nonsense.

          I couldn't possibly give less of a damn about Murthy, who isn't even able to get a majority vote in a Senate that is Democratic majority.
          It is just another example of the political consequences of the the political loser of gun control.

          We warned you.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:54:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  More disingenuous bullshit... (4+ / 0-)

            Murthy can't get a "majority" vote in the Senate because he can't get a VOTE in the Senate... were his nomination allowed to proceed (and make no mistake, it's being blocked primarily by Republicans) he would easily be confirmed...

            You're simply not capable of an honest response, are you?

            Interesting how you managed to avoid actually answering the question, though, so I'll repeat it...

            Do YOU support the president's nominee for Surgeon General? If not, why not?

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:39:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Educate yourself. (0+ / 0-)
              CHRIS HAYES (3/17/2014): According to the New York Times, "opposition from the [NRA] has grown so intense, it has placed Democrats from conservative states, several of whom are up for re-election this year, in a difficult spot. ... As many as 10 Dems are believed to be considering a vote against Dr. Murthy" on those grounds.
              Link

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:05:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are simply not a fan of the truth... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Caittus, jqb, i saw an old tree today

                Here's what you said:

                Murthy, who isn't even able to get a majority vote in a Senate that is Democratic majority.
                Please post the results of his confirmation vote... I'll wait...

                And you STILL dodge the question... we both know why.. because you DON'T support Murthy's nomination, SOLELY because he dared to opine that gun violence should be viewed as a public health issue...

                Why are you afraid to simply state that? Why do you keep frantically dancing around the question? Rhetorical question, BTW... we both know the answer, don't we?

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:15:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Math: (0+ / 0-)

                  If there are 10 Democratic Senators that will vote against the nomination of Murthy, then he will lose.
                  That is why Reid isn't calling for the vote.
                  Again. Educate yourself.

                  And you STILL dodge the question
                  I did answer, but I'll do it again:
                  I don't give a fuck.
                  Murthy's already backed off on gun policy & Surgeon General isn't a position to do much about gun policy.
                  However, political nominees have to face the consequences of their political viewpoints & voting for his nomination would be a liability for the Democratic Senators that were going to vote against him.

                  Murthy missed the chance to be Surgeon General because he shares your politically toxic viewpoints.
                  Actions have consequences.

                  We warned you. Don't whine because you didn't heed it.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:31:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're retracting your initial statement? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Caittus, jqb
                    Murthy, who isn't even able to get a majority vote in a Senate that is Democratic majority.
                    Thanks for admitting to posting a bold-faced lie...

                    BTW, I didn't need your "warning" to realize the insidious reach of the NRA... nice of you to voice your full-throated support of same though...

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:44:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That statement is completely accurate. (0+ / 0-)

                      1) Murthy is unable to get a majority vote (which is why Reid isn't calling for a vote, not the 'vote being blocked' as you initially claimed)
                      2) The Senate is Democratic majority.

                      the insidious reach of the NRA.
                      ZOMG!!!! Are they in a volcano lair too? Mind Control devises?
                      If only we could hold elections for elected officials, to accurately gauge the will of the people, amirite?

                      Your viewpoint is an utter loser, particularly in places with higher gun ownership rates & thus less ignorance about guns.
                      Gun control relies on ignorance & fear mongering.
                      Those that aren't ignorant or scared resent the hell out of it, and it shows during elections.
                      We warned you.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:56:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your words, Frank... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        jqb, i saw an old tree today
                        Murthy, who isn't even able to get a majority vote in a Senate that is Democratic majority.
                        Murthy hasn't HAD a vote in the Senate... your statement was full of conjecture (amongst other things) but simply not factual... otherwise you'd be gleefully posting the results of that vote if your statement were, in fact, based on actual events...

                        You're just not a particularly honest man, are you?

                        You support the NRA's position on Murthy AND on preventing study of gun violence as a public health issue... why are you so unwilling to simply state that? Why do you continue to couch your position in concern trolling over elections? Are you seriously trying to peddle the notion that you'd change your position on guns if the special election in Colorado had gone differently? If the NRA weren't so successful in intimidating politicians of both parties to disregard common sense and their own consciences? You're not into elections, you're into guns...

                        Please...

                        Baby, where I come from...

                        by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:28:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes. It is accurate. (0+ / 0-)

                          And it was based on accurate knowledge (Reid isn't calling for the vote because he knows he doesn't have enough votes)....accurate knowledge you lacked.

                          You support the NRA's position on Murthy AND on preventing study of gun violence as a public health issue... why are you so unwilling to simply state that?
                          I've answered these questions numerous times:
                          1) I don't give a fuck about Murthy--a man that 10 Democratic Senators are unwilling to vote for.
                          2) I support studying gun violence; which is why I repeatedly quote & link to the CDC report. Quotes you have HR'd (lol)
                          Why do you continue to couch your position in concern trolling over elections?
                          "Concern trolling--A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold.".
                          I openly show & state my actual point of view.
                          Congratulations. You can't even insult correctly.
                          Are you seriously trying to peddle the notion that you'd change your position on guns if the special election in Colorado had gone differently?

                          I have adjusted my viewpoint since the Colorado elections.
                          I didn't think that a Democratic incumbent with a 6-to-1 spending advantage in a Democratic district that voted for Obama by 19 points could possibly lose--particularly with 20-30% of registered Democrats voting for the recall.
                          My initial estimations of the political implications were far too modest.
                          On the other hand, you have stood steadfast against reality, irrespective of the facts.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:54:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So prior to the Colorado recall you supported (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jqb, i saw an old tree today

                            the new laws in Colorado that precipitated the recalls?

                            You supported:

                            1. a ban on magazines holding more than fifteen rounds of ammunition
                            You supported:
                            2. a universal background check
                            You supported:
                            3. a requirement that buyers pay a fee for the background check
                            Seriously? And just like that, overnight you changed your position because it so aggrieved you to see a couple of state-level Democrats lose a recall election? THAT was your "come to Jesus" moment? THAT'S what turned you into the RealityBias of guns?

                            BTW as regards Murthy's nomination, would you say those Democrats who oppose him oppose him because they don't believe he's qualified or because of the NRA's intimidation?

                            Here's a quote from the New York Times for you to chew on:

                            The N.R.A. is a powerful political force in many of the states where Democrats face their greatest threats this year in efforts to keep control of the Senate — like Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana. The group has embarked on an aggressive campaign to rally its millions of members against Dr. Murthy. The latest effort came on Friday evening when the N.R.A. sent a “grass-roots alert” to millions of email subscribers, imploring them to “contact your senators and ask them to oppose confirmation of President Obama’s radically antigun nominee.”
                            So continue being a NRA cheerleader if you must, but please stop pretending you give a fuck about the Democratic Party... you don't...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:30:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. I didn't support those policies. (0+ / 0-)

                            Thus my statement "My initial estimations of the political implications were far too modest."
                            This conversation will be far more productive if you actually read what you are responding to.

                            but please stop pretending you give a fuck about the Democratic Party
                            I do give a fuck about the Democratic Party.
                            That's why I'm not the one insisting that the party support a political loser because of irrational fear based on ignorance.....
                            That would be you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:49:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually I did read what you wrote... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jqb, i saw an old tree today

                            all of what you wrote:

                            I have adjusted my viewpoint since the Colorado elections.
                            What was your "viewpoint" before the elections? You weren't bleating about the same shit you're bleating about now before the Colorado recall elections?

                            Please...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:04:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My viewpoint was that gun control was politically (0+ / 0-)

                            bad for the Democratic party, but the elections in Colorado showed me that my viewpoint on the "initial estimations of the political implications were far too modest.", as I've now had to repeat for you 3 times.

                            Read what you are responding to.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:09:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah, more wordplay... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jqb, i saw an old tree today

                            gotcha...

                            You're a bigger waste of time today than usual...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:40:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More irony. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've made my viewpoint clear, despite having to waste time explaining basic English statements to you.

                            This entire thread deals with your wordplay about my statements. Again, if you want to know my viewpoint, I specifically (and repeatedly, if need be) spell it out for you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:49:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, you've made your "viewpoint" clear... (3+ / 0-)

                            just not in the way you intended...

                            You pretend to care about elections and Democrats... you care about guns... period... that's the part you attempt to obscure, but that part is actually clearer than anything else you post... day in and day out...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:21:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do care about elections & Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

                            Judging by your repeated flogging of a proven election loser, it is clear that your pet issue is more important to you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:25:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My "pet issue" is people not getting shot... (3+ / 0-)

                            in the movie theatre for texting, walking home while black, listening to music at whatever volume they choose while black...

                            Your "pet issue" is guns and the unfettered proliferation of same...

                            Think about that...

                            You know, the funny thing is, I rarely gave the issue of gun control much thought until you and your RKBA cadre showed up here bufooning your way(s) thru each and every discussion on the subject, demeaning anyone who dared disagree with you and/or point out the Democratic Party's longstanding position on guns and gun control and how at odds yours is with it... astonishing how unaware you and your ilk are at just how very militant you've turned people like me in just a very short period of time...

                            Doing the right thing doesn't always result in immediate electoral victory... the argument you're making is the same argument the Dixiecrats made about desegregation... "it's an electoral loser"... yeah, the party lost the bigoted, racist south... we've managed without them for half a century now and we'll manage just fine without y'all...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:47:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Me too. That's why I support the charge of (0+ / 0-)

                            'murder'.

                            astonishing how unaware you and your ilk are at just how very militant you've turned people like me in just a very short period of time...
                            Not nearly as astonishing how unaware you and your ilk are of how much you are getting the party's ass kicked.
                            Don't worry. Judging by the dearth of candidates that even bother mentioning gun control on their websites, the SOTU speech consisting of a single throwaway paragraph & the ten Democratic Senators unwilling to vote for the President's nominee for Surgeon General the party has already re-learned this particular lesson.
                            Doing the right thing doesn't always result in immediate electoral victory
                            No. But doing the wrong thing sometimes results in immediate electoral losses.
                            Thanks for managing to illustrate that.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:55:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Funny how you turn one recall election into (3+ / 0-)
                            getting the party's ass kicked.
                            The whole party... everywhere... always and forever unless they adopt YOUR EXACT position... and a recall election in which the Democratic Party is almost certain to reclaim those seats in the next election no less...

                            You've not given a moment's thought to how many voters like me the Democratic Party would lose if they did adopt your point of view, have you? None of you have... point to single issue elections all you want, the reality is, you're vastly outnumbered in this party and amongst liberals in general... adopting your viewpoint would result in a significant exodus of far more voters from the Democratic Party than we stand to lose by standing our ground on guns (pun intended)... I've seen enough placating of a tyrannical minority with Republicans already... adopting their position on guns would do more to cement the "both sides are the same" argument that's REALLY damaging the Democrats... not this silly "guns are costing us elections" bullshit...

                            Again, you don't REALLY give a fuck about the Democratic Party, you just want to impose your gun aficionado mentality on the rest of us and pretend it's mainstream... it's not... well, not in this party it's not...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:22:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And 1994. And the SOTU. And the dearth of (0+ / 0-)

                            gun control even being mentioned on Democratic candidate's websites. And the failed nomination of the President's Surgeon General choice with a Democratic Senate.

                            But don't you worry.
                            November is coming.

                            You've not given a moment's thought to how many voters like me the Democratic Party would lose if they did adopt your point of view, have you?
                            1) That would explain all the recall elections of candidates that didn't support background checks, amirite?
                            2) The supporters of gun control don't seem to be worried about it seeing as how how few are even mentioning their support of gun control on their websites.
                            3) We will get to find out after November 4th. I'm not too worried....nor is anyone else with even a modicum of political knowledge.
                            not this silly "guns are costing us elections" bullshit...
                            If by 'silly' you mean 'factual' & by 'bullshit' you mean 'gun control bullshit'.
                            Again. We had elections. During a non-election year. In a Democratic district. With 20-30% of Dems voting for the recall of Democrats. While the Democrats had a 6-to-1 spending advantage.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:51:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ONE election... (3+ / 0-)

                            why do you keep using the plural? Oh yeah, because you're disingenuous to the last drop, that's why... so because candidates who won on a plethora of issues important to Democrats didn't "support" background checks (although most, if not all of them didn't oppose them either) that proves your point? No chance that they weren't recalled because their constituents agreed with them on the vast majority of OTHER issues? This may have been your biggest reach yet... and that's saying a lot...

                            So when the Democrats reclaim those seats WITHOUT adopting your exact gun policy, what will you bleat about then? What will you have to flog? Oh wait... I know...

                            I can already see Nov. 4th coming a mile away... ANY Democrat who doesn't have BANNING all guns as his/her TOP priority who wins will have done so by "skirting" the issue and ANY Democrat who loses who so much as mentions guns tangentially will have lost SOLEY because of guns... such a tired act... really...

                            This is how you roll... it's really a pathetic act to watch... but funny at the same time...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:09:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I can already see Nov 4th coming a mile away" (0+ / 0-)

                            Not soon enough.
                            The damage has already been done.

                            We warned you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:12:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So melodramatic... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today
                            The damage has already been done.
                            We warned you.
                            You've got quite the flair for this sort of thing, don't you?

                            Tell ya what, Frank... if the electoral doom and gloom you claim comes to fruition, you'll be the first person I seek out to say "you were right"

                            When it doesn't, will I be the first person you seek out to say "I was wrong"?

                            My money's on "fat fucking chance"... you'll just parry and pretend that somehow, even when your dire prediction falls flat on its ass, you'll still have been proven right...

                            THAT'S my prediction... we shall see, won't we?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:27:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We shall. (0+ / 0-)

                            Nov. 4th
                            It's all yours.

                            I foresee something more akin to your dismissal of the humiliating elections we have already had in Colorado & the excuses of gun controllers following the disaster of 1994:
                            Denial of reality from gun controllers & a distancing from them by the reality-based majority of the party......something we are already starting to see.

                            I'm looking forward to helping undo the damage in the aftermath of this debacle, just as I did in the aftermath of 1994, replete in the knowledge that gun and magazine bans have--once again--been thoroughly discredited.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:45:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ^^^ Broken. Record... ^^^ (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jqb, i saw an old tree today

                            Your "One Bleat Samba" is tiresome...

                            Neat trick how you claimed with a (presumably) straight face that the "majority" of Democrats side with your and RKBA's position on gun control ("effectively none") when all polling shows that to be either a colossal lie or a laughably ignorant statement... it's the vast "majority" of the other party that shares your view, my friend... and don't you ever forget it... I won't...

                            Next you'll try to tell me that the "majority" of Democrats are ProLife... this has got to be performance art... come on, man... where's your hat?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:31:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See: The twenty years after 1994. (0+ / 0-)

                            See: The 10 Democratic Senators prepared to vote against Murthy.
                            See: The lack of Democratic candidates willing to so much as mention gun control on their websites.

                            Look on the bright side: You gun controllers are well-practiced at irrelevancy.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:48:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Get some new material... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jqb, i saw an old tree today

                            You gun aficionados are quite the bunch of charmers, aren't you?

                            As I've said before, please proceed... you're making the case against yourself far more effectively than I ever could...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 12:03:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That would explain why your side can't even (0+ / 0-)

                            manage to win an election in the Democratic majority Senate or protect Democrats in Democratic districts.

                            You really got us now!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:40:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That you consider legislative obstructionism... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            to be somehow an endorsement of your point of view is no less surprising than it is despicable...

                            Keep digging... heckuva job, Rosie...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:46:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What 'obstructionism'? (0+ / 0-)

                            Reid can call for a vote whenever he wants. Nobody is stopping him.

                            Here's an idea: why don't you learn basic political phrases before hitting post.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:59:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for illustrating my point... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            you're as valuable a tool as their is in rebutting and refuting your own position... seriously, you "lead" by example...

                            The "obstructionism" of REPUBLICANS placing holds on Obama's nominees before they're even considered... but you knew that...

                            http://www.boston.com/...

                            And the NRA's "obstructionism"... intimidating Senators from both parties to scuttle Obama's nominees before they're even considered... but you knew that...

                            http://www.medscape.com/...

                            Here's an idea: why don't you try having an honest debate?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:35:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then let us look at the definition of the word: (0+ / 0-)
                            Obstructionism or policy of obstruction denotes the deliberate interference with the progress of a legislation by various means such as filibustering or slow walking which may depend on the respective parliamentary procedures.
                            The only one 'obstructing' the vote is Reid.
                            'Obstructionism' doesn't refer to a Senate Majority Leader refusing to call a vote because he knows he will lose.
                            The "obstructionism" of REPUBLICANS
                            And ten Democrats. A bipartisan 'nay' vote isn't 'obstructionism'.
                            you're as valuable a tool as their is
                            Using the wrong form of 'there' while arguing about the definition of a word & insulting someone else's intelligence by calling them a 'tool'.....
                            You are just perfect.
                            Do not change a thing!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:57:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Touche... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            Beats slipping up and using an anti-Democratic Party slur though, don't it? I guess I could claim "typo"...

                            You really enjoy molesting the language don't you? I didn't call you a "tool" in the colloquial sense... I meant it as an instrument and in that regard, the example you set here day in and day out undermines your position far more effectively than I ever could... so yes, you're a valuable tool in that sense... absolutely...  

                            Again, keep digging... heckuva job, Rosie...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:28:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. You could claim 'typo', primarily because (0+ / 0-)

                            that is exactly what the word 'typo' exists to fucking describe.

                            the example you set here day in and day out undermines your position far more effectively than I ever could...
                            Seeing as how you couldn't even protect Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts nor pass a Surgeon General in a Democratically held Senate that is an awfully low bar to clear.
                            Nevertheless, as a personal favor to you I will continue to do so.
                            You're welcome!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:48:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  And here I thought that the big problem with... (5+ / 0-)

    ...getting nominees was the filibuster.

    Silly me.

  •  Don't forget that it isn't (12+ / 0-)

    the NRA that are the problem, but the bought, paid for or just cowardly Senators who vote on this issue.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:44:31 AM PDT

    •  Can't have one without the other (3+ / 0-)

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Senators are held accountable by their (0+ / 0-)

      constituents.
      That is Democracy. Not cowardice.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:44:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ridiculous claim (5+ / 0-)

        Money flows into political coffers and the backers gain their favored legislative intents.

        The NRA is one of the most notorious political system abusers, marshaling ignorant and fear-based threats through their typically far-right membership against any politician who hopes to remain in office following a vote relating to weapons ownership issues.

        Claiming otherwise is part of your NRA stooge appearances, I realize, but it has worn thin enough to see through the fabric for some time, now.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:08:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "typically far-right membership" (0+ / 0-)

          Your thesis has a problem.
          Namely the 10 Democratic Senators that is against the nomination.

          You wanted this issue.
          You got it.
          Now you get to own the consequences.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:12:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the first time ever (6+ / 0-)

            I am going to tell another user that I think you are on the wrong site.

            You contribute zero to discussion other than to push a right wing, usually NRA approved agenda everytime that organization, or guns in general, are mentioned.

            You disrupt and deflect every conversation and I have reluctantly come to the view that you do it deliberately.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:19:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is nothing RW about my political viewpoint (0+ / 0-)

              I believe in liberal social laws, including on guns.

              You disrupt and deflect every conversation
              I focus on conversations about firearm policy & their political consequences.
              My viewpoint is contrary to yours....and has proven to be far more accurate.

              I will continue with the conversation twigg.
              It seems that you no longer want to have the conversation. I can't blame you; it hasn't been going well for you.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Typical reply (5+ / 0-)

                designed to do nothing more than inflame.

                I'm done with you now Frank.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:39:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What did you find 'inflammatory'? (0+ / 0-)

                  If you want to discourage any discussion that doesn't add to the echo-chamber of your viewpoint then come out & say-so.

                  We've been having this conversation for a long time now.
                  You were flat-out warned about the consequences.

                  If your response to accurate predictions about the political consequences of gun control is to take your ball & go home, go ahead & do it, but don't make bullshit accusations against me or anyone else....particularly when your accusations (I'm trying to distract from firearm policy? Really?) are completely divorced from reality.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:56:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  We are so accustomed to the unthinkable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, Lily O Lady

    We are sadly due for the next tragic mass shooting that will result in a brief burst of breathless breaking cable coverage with the  ritual of public  "thoughts and prayers" theatrics......

    which is then followed by inaction and forgetting.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:54:57 AM PDT

    •  We must learn to quickly forget or court madness, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today, wader

      the kind that gets into our own heads, not the money/power-driven kind of the NRA and their hollow-souled conduits in congress.
      We left the model of civilized man behind long ago.  The proud neanderthals have returned with guns instead of clubs and returned the few evolved humans to the land of the supreme death wish.
      As for what doctors get to say to patients, well, it's privileged, NRA, and in court it would be he said/she said unless the gunrabids start wearing wires.

      Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

      by judyms9 on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:27:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think we've forgotten (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight, a2nite, ThatSinger, wader

      Though it seems so. I think the children are historical. I think they have turned the tide, albeit a slow signal amid much mayhem.  

  •  The best way to use a gun to improve your safety (10+ / 0-)

    - is to get rid of it.

    The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

    by catwho on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:09:26 AM PDT

    •  You are free to make that decision. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catwho

      Lets ensure that everyone is free to make that same decision.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:46:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not anti-gun by any means (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caittus, Sven Boogie

        I'm pro gun-education, which is why this idea that we can't talk about firearm safety to children really irks me.  

        But by a pure statistical standpoint, you or a loved one are far more likely to be injured by a gun by a gun accident than you are via a purposeful or malicious act, hence my statement.

        Not having a gun in your home reduces your chances of a gun accident in your home to close to zero.  

        The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

        by catwho on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The chances of a gun accident in the home is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          catwho

          close to zero with a gun in the home.

          Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010 (Hoyert and Xu, 2012).
          An accidental death is over 100 times more likely from any other object in the home than from a firearm.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:01:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course. (0+ / 0-)

            Naturally you don't actually cite a source for the latter bullshit statistic, since that would mean it could actually be examined and called out for the bullshit it is.

            •  I did cite a source. Here is the link. (0+ / 0-)

              Link.

              The second sentence is elementary arithmetic.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:22:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hurr Durr Bang Bamg (0+ / 0-)

                Either you can't read, or refuse to.

                Here's a claim that is also 'elementary arithmetic,'

                "100 percent of accidental deaths are caused by firearms."

                It contains a percentage, which is elementary arithmetic, so it must be true, right?

                •  No. That claim isn't 'elementary arithmetic' (0+ / 0-)

                  Less than 1% of accidental deaths are caused by firearms. This is an irrefutable fact.

                  1% isn't equal to 100%.
                  I can't believe you need this pointed out to you.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:45:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                    I was obviously illustrating that simply citing a number and calling it true "because maths" is not proof.

                    I can't believe you need this pointed out to you.

                    I continue to await your evidence of your earlier claim. I have a feeling it will be a long wait.

                    •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                      "The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010"

                      An accidental death is over 100 times more likely from any other object in the home than from a firearm.

                      The latter claim does not follow from the former. No part of the text you quoted includes "in the home." No comparison is made in the text to other accidental deaths caused by "other object(s) in the home."
                    •  FFS. (0+ / 0-)

                      1 times (multiplied by) what equals 100?
                      (Quick hint: 1 x 100=100)

                      That answer is how many times more 100% is than 1%.
                      See how that works?

                      As " The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010", that means "accidental death by any other means is over 100 times more likely."

                      I would say that you are too smart by half, but I would rather not confuse you with such 'maths'.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:05:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        i saw an old tree today

                        Which, as I pointed out already above, does not support any of your claims about accidental death by firearm 'in the home' or in relation to 'other object(s) in the home.'

                        Keep twisting in the wind.

                        •  Suit yourself: (0+ / 0-)

                          "An accidental death is over 100 times more likely from any other object than from a firearm. "

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:21:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            Still doesn't follow from the text you cited. Nothing in that text has anything to do with comparing accidental deaths due to one object versus another. It is a blanket statistic about ALL reported accidental deaths by any cause. If you can't see why that is completely different, you are either willfully blind, or stunningly ignorant.

                          •  Oh? What accidental death are you envisioning? (0+ / 0-)

                            Be specific.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for the admission. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            No thanks. You've already clearly demonstrated you are willing to outright lie in order to support your backwards propaganda. As others have already pointed out, you're simply here to post hit and run one liner idiocy to make you feel like you're fighting for your gun lust somehow. It's a waste of time to debate someone who has no actual standard for truth.  

                          •  Didn't think so. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your ignorant fear-mongering wilts in the face of facts:

                            "Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010"
                            That's why I am quoting credible organizations & you are unable to mention a single example of your objection.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:44:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yawn. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            Must be dizzy from all that spinning in circles.

                            Your claim:

                            An accidental death is over 100 times more likely from any other object in the home than from a firearm.
                            your citation:

                            "...unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010"

                            One of these things is not like the other.

                          •  I restated for your benifit. (0+ / 0-)

                            Less than 1% Sven.

                            Deal with it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:54:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Whoa, whoa pie fight (0+ / 0-)

                        I think the part that Sven is questioning is "in the home."  The link you included to support doesn't mention anything about in the home or out of the home.  It's simply causes of accidental deaths with guns and without guns.  

                        Yes, you are probably more likely to have an accidental death outside of the home from, say, a car, than you are a gun.  

                        The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

                        by catwho on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:10:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly right == the lunatics (3+ / 0-)

    are running the asylum, and they are aided and abetted by Democratic Party Senators.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:09:56 AM PDT

  •  Reminded me of Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meinoregon

    Kill!! Killll!!!  Killlllllll!!!!

  •  What really astounds me is that the NRA was able (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, RightHeaded, Caittus, Lily O Lady

    to coerce these legislatures into creating and actually passing a law that dictates not what a patient has to answer, but what a doctor can even ask.

    What the actual fuck?  How did this even happen?

    Is the NRA actually that afraid of people putting two brain cells together when it comes to firearms and family safety? Apparently they are.

    This is almost as bad as the forced-birth crowd who now requires doctors to spew false medical information to their patients... at least the few who are still allowed to actually have patients.

    I'll bet the same crowd also waddles around with "Keep teh gubbimints outta mah healthcare!!!" signs.  Patriots my sagging white ass.

  •  This is unconscionable beyond ANYTHING that the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    NRA has so far concocted. Wayne La Pierre and his blatantly ignorant henchmen must be put in their places. And what might those places be? These fringe-dwellers are all US citizens who enjoy the same rights as ALL of us do - and they have the right to sanely and thoughtfully express their views, just like ALL of us. However, when their public philosophy grows so aberrant as to become irresponsible, risible and self-righteous, it is at that point that they need to STFU, purely and simply. This is an outrage and I hope the POTUS sees it as such and engages his cob web-draped bully pulpit!!

  •  Gun control (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    If our senate and congressional reps don't want to vote on gun control and risk their re-election then we need to get it on a national referendum so the public can vote on it

  •  Makes More Sense If... (0+ / 0-)

    Their concern makes more sense if you understand that "Health" has been used to subvert constitutional restrictions, and pass laws that otherwise couldn't be passed. Powers that were given to Health authorities, so they could act in cases of potential epidemics of transmissible disease, have been used in recent times to enact nanny-state-type laws.
    Whether you agree with these laws or not, (I don't - I'm a liberal), the concern of the gun lobby is legit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site