A defeat for Obama ?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-stinging-gun-bill-defeat-personal-polit...

I think the media is once again doing us a disfavor by charaterizing what happened yesterday as a "defeat for Obama". Not so much...this was a defeat for almost 90% of Americans who would like to see a safer society. If the media continues to phrase this as Obama's defeat there will be those who are so blinded by their intense hate for the man they will forget that they would like to see something as simple as back ground checks for future gun purchases. Maybe that is the intent ? The defeat was not Obama's...he is not running again. The defeat was in the faces of the families standing behind him yesterday. The defeat was for Gabby Giffords who took a bullet to the head and her fellow lawmakers care nothing about even attempting to make this less of a possibility in the future. About 7% of the country had a victory yesterday.
The issues deciding the votes of those against the back ground checks had nothing to do with self defense, hunting, gun sports or the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with the gun business. Money trumps children, women and who ever else gets in the way of their product.
What a shameful day !

In addition to another defeat for Obama, it was a victory for those who prefer Congress to stop wasting time trying to pass ineffective laws—and worse, laws that negatively affect law-abiding citizens but do nothing to make our society better. Even people in favor of this bill admitted it would not have prevented Newtown or other mass murders committed by the mentally disturbed.

That “90%” claim is a joke, too. How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything?

It was not a defeat for Obama. Again, it was a defeat for the parents of the kids from Sandy Hook, for Gabby Giffords and if you don't like the 90 percent , knock off a couple percentages...still a significant number.
How would this law negatively affected law abiding citizens ?

So what do we do about Newtown? The NRA and friends don't seem to have any solution beyond give everyone AR-15s and somehow only bad guys will get shot.

3. You know, it is not your intense desire to see Obama defeated that is most disconcerting, it is your total selfishness in thinking that people who think the same as you are the only one's who deserve to have their way. Compassion for the victims of gun violence doesn't enter the equation.....it may mean that concessions may have to be made and heaven knows just cause someone takes a bullet to the head doesn't mean we should try anything different.

4. Guess since it was their kids, it is their problem. That is pretty much what they have been told by the current Republican Party.

>3 faceinbook:
Maybe you are partially correct. US News & World Report described it as “a major defeat for Obama...”

Among other things, the bill would have required government approval for private transfers of firearms. We’d also have to pay for the privilege of this additional layer of federal bureaucracy. And what would it do to prevent gun crime? It was really just another attempt to chip away at the 2nd amendment. Chip, chip, chip, and eventually there’s nothing left. That’s the admitted method and goal of many anti-gun activists.

7
BS.......that is what that is. The 2 nd amendment has nothing to do with gun crime and attempts to try to stem some of it. The COST, as you put it, is very small compared to what some people pay for your right to feed into the propaganda of the NRA....nothing has been chipped from your right to buy, sell, carry almost any type of weapon you can find. When the heck has crimped your style ? In fact President Bush and many of the Right have been loosening gun laws for over a decade.

Sorry. Double posting.

Now, with the Internet, it's easier than ever to buy guns. See New York's Mayor Bloomberg's report:

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/...

It was a gun bought on Craigslist, by an 18 year old, that killed a 15 year old boy in November, last year, in a stupid 'prank'. This is despite Craigslist's official 'no firearms sales' policy. Why, in the U.S., do you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, but you can buy a gun at 18? Or can you buy one even younger than that?

http://news.ca.msn.com/ontario/oshawa/updated-former-oshawa-teen-shot-dead-by-fr...

>7 TrippB: It was really just another attempt to chip away at the 2nd amendment. Chip, chip, chip, and eventually there’s nothing left.

Are you sure that would be such a bad thing? Just repeal the damn thing already! It happened before, with the 18th Amendment (prohibition on alcohol). Your neighbours, Mexico and Canada, would thank you, too. Most illegal guns in Canada come from the U.S., and the cartels in Mexico do their weapons shopping in the U.S.

>10 madpoet:
I’m surprised that anything from Nanny Bloomberg is taken seriously. The 18th amendment is hardly an argument in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment. Few mistakes in U.S. history empowered criminals more than the fiasco of Prohibition, but repealing the 2nd would do even more to improve the lives of criminals who prey upon society.

Thank you for bringing up Canada, too. So-called “common sense” gun control measures there such as registration led right to confiscation. As for Mexico, there’s no way U.S. guns can be blamed for the out of control cartels. Except for the guns obtained during Fast & Furious, they prefer to buy and use weapons that are already illegal in the U.S.

Rather than being swayed by emotions or political expedients, I’ll side with a group that has real credibility on matters of gun control and crime:

PoliceOne.com Releases Survey of 15,000 Law Enforcement Professionals about U.S. Gun Control Policies

March 2013 survey of police officers covered proposed legislation and attitudes about arming citizens

SAN FRANCISCO – PoliceOne.com, the leading online resource for law enforcement, today released findings from a national survey of police professionals that provide insight into the opinions of American law enforcement regarding gun control policies and the root causes of and potential solutions to gun crime in the United States.

The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. Among the results:

86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety

Similarly, 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime

Demonstrating the opinion that the best way to combat gun crime is through harsher punishment, 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains. Likewise, 59 percent believe increasing punishment severity for unlicensed dealers would reduce crime

Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed

71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions

82 percent believe gun buyback or turn-in programs are ineffective in reducing the level of gun violence

91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable

Likewise, 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents

38 percent believe the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States is the “decline in parenting and family values”. This was trailed by “overly lax parole and short sentencing standards” at 15 percent and “pop culture influence” (eg. violent movies and video games) at 14 percent

The survey was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of individually-verified law enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey.

Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with more than 28% representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those who took the survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were former/retired law enforcement.

“This survey captures the perspective of an audience that has an intimate professional connection to gun policies in our country, yet is rarely heard from as a group in discussions on the issue,” said Alex Ford, CEO of the Praetorian Group, PoliceOne’s parent company. “Our standing as the leading online community in the law enforcement market enabled us to gather what we feel is the most meaningful sampling of police attitudes about gun control ever compiled. There is clearly a wide range of opinions regarding this issue nationwide and we believe it’s important for our audience’s voice to be heard.”

#12: Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed

So basically they disagreed on the question under discussion...

38 percent believe the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States is the “decline in parenting and family values”. This was trailed by “overly lax parole and short sentencing standards” at 15 percent and “pop culture influence” (eg. violent movies and video games) at 14 percent

and have no clue what's causing this; an unproven decline can't be the cause for something that's been steady over time, and neither of their other causes show much connection to the violence rate either.

The survey was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members,

And in any case there was no sampling here. It's a self-selected sample from police officers that chose to belong to a particular group.

EDIT: 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains.

Right.

One: let's see what happens when we get a cop arrested for misuse of a gun, let's see if they stand on "a stiff, mandatory sentence" then. It's a standard psychological principle; we always have an internal excuse for our bad behavior, but other people doing the same things we interpret as just being bad people. Zero tolerance is great for other people, because they wouldn't have done these things if they weren't bad people, but the judge is being unfair if they don't listen and understand that we had good reasons.

Two, "no plea bargains" is once again a basic failure to face reality. Plea bargains are about risk management; a lot of criminals might get set free if they had a jury trial. They're also about time management; our court system is not capable to handle all the cases that would occur sans plea bargains.

>11 TrippB: Thank you for bringing up Canada, too. So-called “common sense” gun control measures there such as registration led right to confiscation.

I had to turn to Google to figure out what you're talking about. Apparently, a 'Sun News' (the Canadian equivalent to Fox News, and about as reliable) anchor 'warned Americans' that 'registration means confiscation'. The only actually case of 'confiscation', that I am aware of, is when the RCMP (Canada's Feds) let a shipment of Chinese-made automatic weapons be imported, then realized their mistake and ordered the purchasers to hand them in to the police. For a full refund. The guns were converted to semiautomatic but easily converted back to fully automatic. Basically, under Canadian law, the guns should never have been imported in the first place.

This is a far cry from the government confiscating all weapons. Although it has stirred up some right-wing hysteria/paranoia.

See story below:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/17/guns-confiscation.html

>11 TrippB: As for Mexico, there’s no way U.S. guns can be blamed for the out of control cartels. Except for the guns obtained during Fast & Furious, they prefer to buy and use weapons that are already illegal in the U.S.

Actually, no, most guns the cartels get from the U.S. are bought legally there, then smuggled into Mexico. Other weapons are bought from corrupt Mexican police-- but these guns are also imported from the U.S.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-ar...

Hmm. The only instances of large scale confiscation of firearms that I actually know about were in the US: in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and after a tornado in Greensburg, Kansas. Both of them really were "the government confiscating all weapons" -- but it doesn't seem that the Canadian government is the one to worry about.

#16: Do you have a cite for those large scale confiscations? Hurricane Katrina is large and relatively hard to check, but Greensburg isn't, and Wikipedia doesn't mention anything confiscating weapons there, nor do I think it would have passed quietly.

One country I know to have confiscated firearms is Australia. They removed 630,000 guns from private hands in 1996. Gun victims have dropped 27%, from 354 in 1996 to 260 in 2010. "The age-standardised suicide rate (for persons) in 2005 was 1% lower than the corresponding rate for the previous year and 30% lower than in 1997." and "Suicide deaths using firearms have more than halved over the last ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005."*

* http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/952361A2A29BDBB4CA25729... , pages 4 and 5, respectively ; the rest from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract is from the British Journal of Criminology, and says that "AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced..." Note this bites both ways; the "poor" gun owners didn't suddenly find them defenseless against violent criminals when the guns were removed.

>16 Amtep:
this is such a useless arguement.....it seems that every one of those who are "clinging" to their guns feel themselves to be an organized milita of ONE. Each organized milita of ONE has the potential of being deadly for various unpredictable reasons....anger, fear, accidental, planned action, stupidity. Those who would see life as better without so many guns....for both the "bad guy" and the "good guy" (who is subject to the above mentioned emotions or situations just as much as the "bad guy") listen to this blather about the 2nd amendment which is clearly outdated, and realize the utter and profound ignorance of continuing to defend a life syle that no longer exists.

It will change....

#17:

I don't have any links because it was just info I picked up from the news when it happened, but I did some searching.

About Greensburg, here's an eyewitness report (search for "firearms"), and here is a statement from someone who testified to the state House on the matter. HB 2811 was passed in the aftermath, but it apparently died in committee.

About Katrina, the wikipedia has a section about it with citations.

In my worse moments I hope all those who want to loosen restrictions on guns loose a loved one to gun violence. But then I remember all the deaths I have seen from it, and I would not wish that on anyone. Too bad the Senate feels different.

>22 Arctic-Stranger:: I had an argument on Facebook yesterday with my brother over the open letter I wrote calling out every senator who voted to block background checks for their cowardice. Apparently, my brother has drunk the kool-aid and likes to parrot back the illogical and false insinuations made by the NRA -- the bill was the first step to confiscations, or guns are "tools" just like spoons (which we don't blame for fat people), etc.

He told me not to let emotion get in the way of "clear thinking" (I pointed out that his was the failure of clear thinking if he didn't understand the difference between a spoon and a gun, but there you go). I responded by telling him this:

Do you know why I get emotional about guns? Because on the afternoon of September 26, 2006, I spent several hours not knowing whether you {my brother} were alive or dead, because a man with a gun took over your school {Platte Canyon High School, in Bailey, CO -- the SWAT team that responded to it was the same that dealt with Columbine}. I didn't know whether my brother was still alive. That afternoon was one of the worst afternoons of my entire life. Maybe you should read again what I wrote about that day: http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/2006/09/de-dolendo-platte-canyon-high-sch...

And this just floated across Facebook:

*sigh*

OF all of the issues for the NRA to focus on, it has to be something that is completely reasonable and sensible that they adamantly oppose.

I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better...

>25 BruceCoulson:: "that they adamantly oppose."

In the late '90's after Columbine (the weapons for which *were* purchased at a gun show), they supported universal background checks.

Thank you for that link to your blog post, Mr Campbell.

I think that we may approach from the same starting place, but have diverging paths. I think that decisions about life and death are best made by the people involved. I can support and find ways to make whatever decision they make workable, but I'm not the one who can make the decision. But I appreciate that you've reached your conclusions in faith and thoughtfulness.

That was a very personal thing to share in such a contentious group. I applaud the bravery.

Here's where you can look up how your state ranks in gun violence:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/states-gun-violence_n_3091993.html?ncid...

And here's Gabby Giffords response to the defeat of the bill. Hint: she's not happy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?r...

She has no reason to be.

By the way the NRA is "God" didn't you know?...

#29

Sadly, I'm sure that some of the officials in the NRA feel that they are doing His work in opposing gun regulation.

The NRA used to help write gun regulations too; and support them afterwords.

Matthew 5:38-48:

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 26:50-52:

Jesus said to him, "Friend, why are you here?" Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

#21: In other words, in Greensburg they carelessly rounded up and secured weapons (no registration required) from an evacuated town and there was a problem with looting. In Katrina, there was a police chief (so apparently all police aren't in lockstep on this). In any case, I don't see why we can't object to that without objecting to registration.

Faceinbook:

The problem with your thinking is you think with emotion. We already have background checks and guess what criminals still get their guns. Law abiding citizens follow the rules but turns out Chicago, the city where Obamas hail from, has the highest crime and guess what, Chicago and NY have the toughest gun laws yet the highest violent gun rate. Again proves our point. Matter of fact, Lanza tried to buy a gun but was refused because his background checks found him to be mentally unstable.

Again, you cry about background checks which we already have and it did work in the case you bring up Newtown. However, it is interesting how you continue to sidestep the real issue, all these shooting happen in gun free zones. Lets take the Newtown shooting since you bring it up all the time, if the principle and social worker who lunged at a armed criminal (criminal is a person who doesn't follow the laws opposite of law abiding citizen) had a gun instead, those 20 kids and 6 adults would have been home with their parents come Christmas.

Crazy liberal policies making more regulation with the sole purpose of making themselves feel good instead of coming with obvious common sense solutions to fix the problems in society. First of all, name me 1 liberal policy that worked? Yea, not one, but hopefully the liberals can break the great mind Albert Eistein called them, insane. People who do the same crap over and over expecting a different result is insanity.

NathianCampbell, using your childish arguments, I guess we should all ban vehicles and beer right? More people die from drunk driving, texting, careless driving then by a gun related crime. So basically we should all learn to walk, ride a bike/horses wherever we go.

Background checks work, Adam Lanza was turned down from buying a gun because he was deemed mentally unstable so this universal background check makes no sense. Just because an organization was for it years ago doesn't mean it is a good idea today.

Same thing with the Obamacare debate. Progressives been trying to push universal health care since the early 1900s but they want to play the race card because they don't have a logical and realistic argument to refute with. Just because a fringe group on either side was for something, doesn't mean it is gospel. If a bunch of people got so upset and walked off a bridge and killed themselves because their fake gun bill didn't get passed, does that mean you should walk off a bridge and kill yourself? Sometimes liberals get so childish with their accusations and emotional drama, they forget to realize when you make laws based on emotion, the problems you care to solve never get solved.

We seen liberal after liberal policies kill this great country. We used to be number 1 in education, thanks to liberal policies we are ranked 19 last time I checked. Since 1979, we doubled our teachers and spent 100 times more than before and we are ranked one of the worst in the world in education. Liberals thinks throwing money at the problem will fix it but the problem with that is the money goes to the fat cat union bosses, politician school boards and the teachers while our schools get neglected and they sure have trouble finding money to buy new school books for the students.

You know it is sad when liberals are ok with people protecting their money (banks) and politicians with armed guards yet neglect having arm guards protect our future (children in schools).

Remember the Chicago teacher strike months ago? Well, 33% of those teachers sends their own kids to private schools because not only are they getting paid very well for not doing their jobs (worst public school education in the country) but they know they are not doing their jobs, they are taking the generous paychecks they cheat off the taxpayers of Illinois and sending their kids to a higher education. Then the unions cry about school choice. Yea, less money coming into their coffers is the reason they get all upset, it is not about the children. If it was all about the children, they would be kind enough to leave some money for the schools to maintain their building and buy proper school materials for the children instead of asking the tax payers in referendums all the time for an increase of their taxes so they can spend more money which always ends up in the unions, politicians and teachers pockets, very little to where it was designated to go in the first place.

nathanielcambell, looks like you have a very smart brother who has his head on straight. I suggest to learn from his example.

#33: You hate liberals, I see. I can't say I see it particularly useful to discuss with someone who thinks that there are "obvious common sense solutions" to the world's problems, especially when they don't bring up one on the subject under discussion. Nor when they think no liberal policy works, when they live in a world shaped by the EPA, Civil Rights laws, welfare, food stamps and social security all keeping people alive, union laws keeping workers from being shot down in the streets, etc.

We seen liberal after liberal policies kill this great country. We used to be number 1 in education, thanks to liberal policies we are ranked 19 last time I checked.

Take a look at the nations that beat us some time. You want to blame "liberal" policies for putting us behind outright Socialist countries in the education market?

Welcome to LT, somehow I doubt you will ever add a book to your library.

keithh1981, please let Wayne LaPierre know that emotions have no place in the debate about gun safety. That guy gets pretty worked up and hysterical. Of course, a few years ago he backed background checks, so maybe he's one of the evil liberals.

It's so nice to blame everything you dislike on a single group, isn't it? No actual thinking required. Those child labor laws are the worst! And how outrageous is it to have to pay overtime when those shirking workers have only worked forty hours?

Please provide sources for the stuff you're tossing out there, and maybe even how your non-liberal policies would make life a paradise for all. Good job including everything in a single rant, though.

What I don't like about this group is that while all my adult life I have been far left of liberal I always have to support liberals here because the few true scattershot posters all seem carnivorously conservative.

Re gun control: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10763947

Another mass killing. It seems true to me that watered down bills would not make much difference. And if that last bill passed it would have been the last legislation for two decades most likely. The time has come to take a much deeper, thoughtful, radical approach to the problem that includes such obvious measures as limiting the firepower and forcing background checks, but also confiscation, and a good hard look into disparity of income.

>39 RickHarsch:
"because the few true scattershot posters all seem carnivorously conservative."

These are the individuals who are actually running the country by not allowing anything to be done. At this point in time they have the loudest voice in the Conservative party and sadly, they have a lot of power right now. They have taken the Constitution and the by laws of law making and turned our government into a laughable play ground for obstructive behaviors

Saw Salmen Rushdie the other night on Bill Maher....he said there is NO OTHER country operating under Democratic principles that doesn't recognize that the number 51 is a majority. Only American changed it's math to make 60 a majority. He also said that no other civilized country is so INSANE about weapons and guns. Rushdie is a very smart man.

Would love to come back in 50 years time and see how history deals with these bafoons of politics.

>34 keithh1981:: "NathianCampbell, using your childish arguments, I guess we should all ban vehicles and beer right? More people die from drunk driving, texting, careless driving then by a gun related crime. So basically we should all learn to walk, ride a bike/horses wherever we go."

How many times do I have to knock down this stupidly illogical comparison before it sticks?

The primary purpose of a gun, the thing for which it is made, is to send a hunk of metal speeding through the air so that whatever it comes into contact with is shredded, harmed, damaged, injured, and (if it be alive), killed.

The primary purpose of a car, the thing for which it is made, is to transport people and goods from one place to another.

When properly used, a gun is suppposed to do damage and to kill. When properly used, a car is not. Drunk or careless driving is an abuse of a vehicle, using it for the wrong purpose to do to the wrong thing with it. Shooting someone is the correct use of a gun, using it for its intended purpose to do the intended thing with it.

When a person dies from a gunshot, they are dying because the person who shot them used a gun for the purpose it was invented and designed for: hurling the hot metal into hot flesh, and letting the blood flow out. When a person dies from a car accident, they are dying because there was an accident: the car was used improperly, and failed to achieve its intended purpose of transporting goods and humans from one place to another.

Gunshot victim dies: gun succeeded. Car accident victim dies: car failed.

In other words: you are comparing the correct and primary usage of one thing (a gun) with the incorrect and accidental usage of another thing (a car), and declaring them in the same category. It's apples to oranges, as they say.

(For someone who declares that we need to stop letting emotions get the better of us, you seem to do a poor job of employing clear-headed logic.)

How many times do I have to knock down this stupidly illogical comparison before it sticks?

A bazillion? A googleplex? Somewhere around there. And that's not counting the arguments that substitute mayonnaise or hammers for cars.

Incidentally, that argument won't work much longer. Maybe they're getting it in as often as possible before it's obsolete?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-f...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1...

> 41 I worked long hours into the wee morn or however it goes working on an essay more or less attacking Rushdie for comments suggesting the superiority of Indian writing in English over Indian writing in regional languages.
As for his intelligence, he's truly smart but has to get over a large hump of ego to be tolerable.

> 42 Your point is taken, Nathaniel, but there is a great history of corruption that has led to the extremely excessive use of the auto especially in the US, which has shameful national passenger transport. The number killed each year is hideously high, and based on that alone good government would invest heavily in rail transport. But that would be to deny a good half of the oligarchy their desires, so...

Rushdie can also kiss my minority ass regarding minorities. In parliamentary democracy the winner of an election by votes can lose power by not being able to form a majority coalition. I have no idea what led to the 60 vote rule, but we all know that a majority is not always a good thing. Maybe if I liked the constitution and thought the nation had great promise I would raise the number to 75. I'm sure a little research could turn up plenty of horrid legislation that did not pass because the number was stuck between 50 and 60. The place to seek blame is not in that rule, but, probably, in the system that allows lunatics with enough money to influence politicians.

46
The rule wasn't used much until,the Obama administration. I would argue that it is not being used by the Right because they have better ideas but merely because they do not want Obama to do anything.
Most rules are put into place for a good reason, however, since there is a tendency to twist the rules , it is often a good thing to check to see if they are being abused.

So you do not like Rushdie I take it ?

> 47 I used to love Rushdie. I bought Midnight's Children because I liked the cover and read it twice quite quickly. I read and loved Shame. I read his first, Grimus, and found that a word I had invented in my early fiction, sepulchritude, he had already published. It made me like him more than ever. Satanic Verses was flawed in a sense in that it was too nearly a series of novellas, but most of it was brilliant, especially the offending passages.
I began liking him less when he began appearing on news shows and such. But that meant little to me. I think I liked The Moor's Last Sigh pretty well.

But: I had never Gunther Grass, who Rushdie adores openly in an early essay. When I read The Tin Drum I was shocked to find Rushdie in it. Several things that I thought were Rushdian were taken directly from Grass. This in itself is not necessarily so bad, just making Rushdie less innovative. But I found at least two passages that bordered on plagiarism. I think Rushdie himself must not realize how much he took from Grass, or he was awkwardly paying homage. Anyway, there's the story.

I think his defamation, so to speak, of Indian literature in Indian languages is bizarre, and a self-serving motive could be assigned, but I really don't know.

I'm glad nobody killed him and that the fatwa was called off.

He can't possibly be worse than V.S. Naipaul.

A Bend in the River is a great book. Naipaul should never have travelled.

I don't know, Rick. His book about the American South was very good. It always hurts my brain to try to figure out how someone could write with such beauty and compassion and yet be such a dickhead.

I think I've effectively derailed this thread.

Obama suffered a major defeat when he tried to push a useless gun control bill through Congress—a bill which enough lawmakers recognized as something that does not have the support of most Americans. It was bad legislation that would have only impacted law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to effectively address the problem of violent crime (especially violent crime committed by the mentally ill).

There. Back on the rails....but probably not going anywhere.

#52: Obama suffered a major defeat when he tried to push a useless gun control bill through Congress—a bill which enough lawmakers recognized as something that does not have the support of most Americans.

False.

"Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/usa-today-poll-finds-supp...

False? Where I come from, 49% isn't considered most. Maybe those lawmakers listened to what their constituents were telling them.

I clicked all around on that USA Today poll story, but couldn't find the real details on their poll. How was the question posed, and who were the respondents? Without that context, I don't give it much credibility. It might be a little dated, but USA Today isn't exactly impartial, as reported in The Bias Against Guns, by John Lott Jr., Ph.D.

The book reports that in one year, USA Today ran 5,660 words on gun crimes and a whopping zero words on defensive gun uses (and there are examples they could have used every day).

#54: I do not interpret "something that does not have the support of most Americans" as "there is not a super-majority supporting it". Now, and more so when the poll was held, the majority of Americans with an opinion on the matter wanted the bill.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010... gives us in 2010 11,078 deaths to homicides by firearms, and 19,392 suicides by firearms. According to that, between 5-64 years of age, homicide by firearm is the most likely cause of death by homicide (with 65+ having no listed numbers for homicide); from 15 on up, it's the most likely cause of death by suicide. The USA Today is running roughly one word per six deaths.

Next time I read 'law-abiding citizens' I will vomit.

>56 RickHarsch:
With you on that ! Isn't everyone a "law abiding" citizen until the day they are not ?

>52 TrippB:
"law abiding citizens" ?? I got a speeding ticket about 8 years ago....guess I don't qualify for the "group" ?

The problem is that "law abiding" means squat when the person with the gun becomes the laws. When the next door neighbor to an underage drinking party decides that the penalty for stumbling on to his porch by mistake warrents the dealth penalty. No charges filed....a law abiding citizen.
Or someone like George Zimmerman decides that some one looks suspicious and CHASES with his gun. Perhaps gets roughed up...why not ? The kid was fighting for his life...and lost. We have yet to find out who the law abiding citizen is in this case but at this point in time it is too late for the kid. (who I don't believe broke any laws what so ever in this case)
The person with the gun makes their own law. That is the thrill after all....is it not ?

>56 RickHarsch:
Sorry Rick...you just lost breakfast and perhaps last nights supper as well !

>52 TrippB:: "a bill which enough lawmakers recognized as something that does not have the support of most Americans"

Every single poll I've seen on this says that universal background checks are supported by somewhere between 75% and 90% of Americans.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-gifford...
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/veterans-gun-background-checks-poll-89930....
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/91-percent-americans-support-gun-background-c...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/04/90-percent-of-am...

And that's just from the first page of Google results...

>54 TrippB:: "The Bias Against Guns"

You want to know why I'm biased against guns? Because they are designed to propel a hunk of hot metal through the air at incredible speed, so that whatever it comes into contact with is shredded, torn apart, harmed, injured, destroyed.

A bias against the destruction of human life seems a pretty good one to me (where I come from, it's called being "pro-life")...

We get you Nat, but repeating the same thing doesn't help. The problem seems to be the disparity between Senate votes and popular opinion: Gee, C. Wright Mills, what do you make of that?

>61 RickHarsch:: Actually, @TrippB seemed to be operating under the patently false assumption that the Senate vote actually reflected the lack of popular support for universal background checks. I was aiming to correct that misguided assumption.

#58: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori is the specific case; a Japanese teen weighing 130 pounds knocked on the door of a house in Louisiana, thinking this was where the Halloween party was. On getting no answer, he walked away, to which the 6'2 home owner opened the door and decided to shoot Yoshihiro. The police decided not to charge him; when the governor and Japanese consul objected, they charged him, and the court found him not guilty.

And that case was still a big deal in Japan ten years later. It's how much of the world sees us; as trigger-happy and reactive.

>62 nathanielcampbell:
You’re missing a major part of the point. I referred to the legislation as, “a bill which enough lawmakers recognized as something that does not have the support of most Americans.” I’m not disputing that most people would like to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. Who wouldn’t? But if you look further back in this thread, you’ll see that I also said, “...it was a victory for those who prefer Congress to stop wasting time trying to pass ineffective laws...”

What many of us want to know is why Congress seems intent on arguing over absolutely useless bills while avoiding the real problems in the U.S., such as unprecedented national debt, high unemployment, a culture of dependency (thank you Baroness Thatcher) that’s dragging down the entire country, a failed immigration policy, and the absence of any indication that members of Congress have any grasp of how to fix our issues. The gun control bill was a political smokescreen and complete waste of everyone’s time. It would not have stopped a single hunk of hot metal propelled through the air at incredible speed.

"It would not have stopped a single hunk of hot metal propelled through the air at incredible speed."

Patently false statements undermine your rhetoric.

#65: I referred to the legislation as, “a bill which enough lawmakers recognized as something that does not have the support of most Americans.”

And dodged any evidence that that was simply not true, that at the least a majority of Americans supported the bill.

why Congress seems intent on arguing over absolutely useless bills

The Gun Lobby seems absolutely resistant to any bill on the subject.

a culture of dependency

And yet everyone gets their knickers in a bunch when we discuss the inheritance tax. The rich being dependent on someone else's money to live exorbitant lifestyles is amusing, but the poor being dependent on someone else's money to not starve or to have a roof over their head is appalling. The poor being able to freely contract their labor out (i.e. right to freely contract, not "right to work") also seems to be something that gets people's knickers in a bunch; don't take money from the government, but expect the laws to be bent against you if you want to sell your labor.

The gun control bill was a political smokescreen and complete waste of everyone’s time.

People would like not to be randomly shot. They would like not to have to hit the floor worrying about flying bullets when the guy in front of them goes to buy a Snapple and Starburst and someone else decides to stand their ground. When I'm on the bus, and some belligerent jerk is downstairs yelling at the guy coming upstairs, I'd rather not be told by the guy coming upstairs that the only thing stopping the jerk from being shot is that he doesn't have time to deal with it today.

If your gun lobby would like to suggest better ways of handling things, they have the ears of senators. To proclaim that fighting the NRA is a complete waste of everyone's time indicates the NRA has a disproportional amount of power.

f it were an absolutely useless bill. the NRA would support it.

The bill was a waste of time because it would have done nothing to achieve its purported goal of preventing mass murders. That's why Obama surrounded himself with Newtown victims while petulantly scolding those who didn't give him what he wanted. The background check bill was a solution to a problem that really isn't much of a problem. Firearms purchases from dealers, even at gun shows, already require a background check. Tell me how many mass shootings would have been stopped if this proposed law would have been in effect years ago.

However, if someone wanted to pass on his great grandfather's WWI sidearm to his only child, that bequest would require government permission. What a waste of federal resources that would be.

Regarding the growing culture of dependency in the U.S., while those on the dole may whine about economic inequities or debate Marxist philosophy, the future rich are busy working to make their own success. If they want to leave their earnings to their heirs, that's no issue of mine. No wealthy person has ever forcefully taken my money--I've given it willingly for products and services of my choosing. Only governments and criminals take assets by threat of force.

69
Well that was a load of you-know-what !

Keep telling yourself what ever you want but gun laws will change. Unless someone figures out a way to bring back the little house on the prairie or buffalo roaming the range, you are going to find yourself on the wrong side of history.

#69: The bill was a waste of time because it would have done nothing to achieve its purported goal of preventing mass murders.

Then propose a better bill.

However, if someone wanted to pass on his great grandfather's WWI sidearm to his only child, that bequest would require government permission. What a waste of federal resources that would be.

Nice strawman. Because giving a gun to your child automatically means that they have none of the problems that a background check would bring up, and only WWI sidearms are inherited.

while those on the dole may whine about economic inequities or debate Marxist philosophy

Exactly. If the poor are restricted by the government from making themselves richer, their response is a whine; if the rich are so restricted, they have a legitimate beef. The violation of the freedom to contract of those who would form a union is obviously not important to you.

the future rich are busy working to make their own success.

Statistically speaking, in the US, the future rich are the current rich. Let's drop the illusion that you're advocating for hard workers instead of those lucky enough to be born into a family rich enough to spot them money to start their business. How did Bill Gates get where he was? He started by being born to millionaire parents with connections; by belonging to a private school rich enough to lease time on a computer in 1968 and being rich enough to get into Harvard and then drop out without worrying about losing his scholarships and chance to go to college.

Only governments and criminals take assets by threat of force.

Only criminals try and take things and refuse to pay for them. You use government owned roads, government services, sign contracts protected by the power of the government, and then refuse to pay up. I'm pretty sure most businesses will use force when you use their services and don't pay up. If you don't like the bundling, go buy from some other provider.

That is the cool thing about bring a libertarian. You can really bitch about the system while enjoying all the benefits of what you condemn.

I mean its not like you are going to drive on your own damn roads!!

However, if someone wanted to pass on his great grandfather's WWI sidearm to his only child, that bequest would require government permission. What a waste of federal resources that would be.

so you think punishing a grandfather for giving one of these fine gentlemen a gun would be a waste of time?

http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases13/pr20130405c.html

The blanket disparagement of 'big government' runs counter to a simple economic principal: the more jobs the more taxes. Jobs are good. Government jobs are good. People having disposable income is good. Register guns? Why not? Cars are registered. The NRA could probably supply some of the work force to the government. Does the WWI weapon still work? You friendly NRA/government gun registry worker will know how to classify the gun and help you fill in the forms...

>69 TrippB:: "The bill was a waste of time because it would have done nothing to achieve its purported goal of preventing mass murders."

But that's not what the purported goal of the bill was. The goal of the bill was to close a loophole in current laws so that criminals who are already barred from owning firearms could not acquire them background-check free at gun shows or the Internet.

Guns are "necessary" for police, armies, hunters and certainly the movies(!) but what intrigues me is the concept that "ordinary" folk can "defend" themselves against some sort of government tyranny with the weapons they keep "at home" a la Lexington and Concord I guess.

The image of the US as say Syria seems far fetched, even paranoid, but then I know someone who waits (patiently, for so many years now!) to be hustled off to some secret camp in the Alaskan tundra or among its myriad islands and while he has something like his father's old .22 I can hardly think it wouldn't be "over" quickly should the black ops people FINALLY break his door and ascend his stairway?

When Nixon queried Al Haig (THE man to ask indeed) about his "options" once the house committee had voted an impeachment the ever direct general replied "You always have the army." (That response has been more "chilling" to me than Hal Holbrook as "Deep Throat" rasping out to Bob Redford "Follow the money" in the iconic film.)

But the point is that EVEN NIXON didn't "bite" -- which is precisely why Haig "offered" him such. What the general meant of course is that "you" have no "option."

True, if Curt LeMay had yet been "around" who knows but while "the system" can be "strained" it still "works" hmm...

Heeeeeyyyyy, mellow out! Gun deaths are unimportant, because there are lots more deaths from car accidents!

In 2010, there were 14,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States.

But we have 30 thousand - 40 thousand deaths a year from car crashes, and yet liberals keep complaining about gun homicide!!!

Who cares about gun deaths, what with all the car deaths? That’s what’s important!

I took my car out hunting the other day and never hit a thing! I think either the headlights are off kilter, or it wasn't' loaded.

You have to use a giant powerful flashlight.

Ahhhh. Someone tried to tell me that cars were useful for something other than ramming into people are animals, but I refuse to believe them. Unlike guns, cars have only one purpose.

Were you DRINKING while you were driving around hunting ??? You may have missed your prey if you were a bit off kilter. There is a strict law about being behind the wheel while drunk ! You may want to consider using a GUN .... you can be drunk as a skunk and fling a gun around.

Ahhhh. Someone tried to tell me that cars were useful for something other than ramming into people are animals, but I refuse to believe them. Unlike guns, cars have only one purpose.

On cars and guns (and pillows)