Skip to main content

The New York Times Editorial Board has, for the second time in two months, called for an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan in Big Decision on Afghanistan:

One only has to read the Pentagon’s progress report on the Afghanistan war effort released last Monday to understand how pointless it is to keep 68,000 American troops there any longer. The mounting evidence makes it clear that they should be pulled out as soon as it can be done safely, instead of waiting until the end of 2014, the date set by the United States and NATO.
Paul Krugman at The New York Times had to repeat his long-standing lecture because some people just don't get it in That Terrible Trillion:
We do indeed have a big budget deficit, and other things equal it would be better if the deficit were a lot smaller. But other things aren’t equal; the deficit is a side-effect of an economic depression, and the first order of business should be to end that depression — which means, among other things, leaving the deficit alone for now.

And you should recognize all the hyped-up talk about the deficit for what it is: yet another disingenuous attempt to scare and bully the body politic into abandoning programs that shield both poor and middle-class Americans from harm.

Chemi Shalev at Haaretz ponders The American malignancy and the slaughter of the innocents in Connecticut:
Perhaps, when President Barack Obama was shedding a tear, he grieved not only as a parent who thinks of his own children but also as a president who cries for his beloved country. These unthinkable but nonetheless recurring bloodbaths by shooting are peculiarly, if not exclusively, American, a stain on its image that gets brutally bigger as time goes by.
It is this combustible mix of angry American young men, often disturbed and usually white, spurred on by the pervasive and always growing presence of limitless violence in popular American culture, together with the easy-access, open market of guns and ammo, which together produce these shooting slaughters with such sickening regularity.
Ruth Whippman at The Independent writes Even the slaughter of six year olds won't alter the twisted logic of the US gun lobby:
To non-Americans it seems incomprehensible that the murder of 20 first-graders wouldn’t be enough of an emotional jolt to propel a radical change of the gun laws. I fear however, that not even the slaughter of six-year-olds makes it more likely to happen.
The problem is that here in the US the issue of gun control is not a symmetrical debate between two opposing points of view. Politics is about telling the right stories, and, somehow, the gun lobby has taken firm ownership of the narrative of what it means to be an American.
George Skelton at the Los Angeles Times says It's time to target gun violence:
What I don't get is anyone's need for—or obsession to possess—a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Neither do I get the objection to registering guns or licensing owners. Or requiring a license to buy ammunition, for that matter—not when a slight inconvenience could save lives.
Does anyone still think that the Nazis or Commies are going to march into America, grab the documents, seize all our weapons and occupy us? If so, these warped people really should not be allowed to own guns.
Richard Aborn at the New York Daily News demands  Ban killer weapons and do it right now:
Newtown. Oak Creek temple. Aurora. Tucson. Fort Hood. Virginia Tech. Columbine. The Long Island Rail Road. The list goes on like the names of battlefields from far-off wars.

But it is the war at home. Mass shootings, year in, year out. Doubt that we are at war? More Americans have been killed in our country within in the last year by guns than all U.S. soldiers killed in all of the years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Everyone must express their outrage in every manner known. Ignore the nonsense that says there is nothing we can do. When to act? Tomorrow morning. How? For starters, the President can state that he will sign the ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Congress — embarrassed into action by the public, which is who they work for — can feel a pang of responsibility and reinstate the ban.

The Hartford Courant Editorial Board writes 'We Have To Change' — It's About Time:
To get guns under control, we start with laws. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen.-elect Chris Murphy acknowledged Sunday that "people want us to do something." Correct. The Connecticut delegation should introduce a bill to go after the relatively obvious and reasonable steps: assault weapons ban, universal background checks, no high-capacity magazines. The National Rifle Association leaders will object. To hell with them. The right to public safety trumps the right to own an arsenal.
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board writes Stricter gun laws could be effective, if Congress would pass them:
When it comes to gun control, though, that brings up two profound questions: Are there really laws that would stem mass shootings—which seem to have reached epidemic proportions in the United States—and is there any chance of getting them approved at the federal level? The answer to the first question is, probably yes. To the second, probably no.
The Baltimore Sun Editorial Board writes in The death of innocence:
Before these victims are forgotten, before the last young innocent is lowered into his or her grave, America needs to examine, as one sportscaster so infamously said during a recent Kansas City Chiefs football game, its "gun culture." It's time our elected leaders found the guts to challenge the National Rifle Association and the political status quo on this important issue.
Joseph A. Califano Jr., at the Washington Post writes about Gun control lessons from Lyndon Johnson:
If ever there were a moment for President Obama to learn from history, it is now, in the wake of Friday’s shootings at the elementary school at Newtown, Conn. The timely lesson for Obama, drawn from the experience of Lyndon B. Johnson — the last president to aggressively fight for comprehensive gun control — is this: Demand action on comprehensive gun control immediately from this Congress or lose the opportunity during your presidency.

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

  •  Great selection today (13+ / 0-)

    I recognize that this might cause some people here some problems. I can't wait to hear the rebuttals, but I'll be happier if these ideas are supported here.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:36:21 AM PST

  •  I can't afford that life-saving medicine, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

    I have to save my money for my old age.

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

    by PowWowPollock on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:37:54 AM PST

  •  Chemi Shalev is wrong... (14+ / 0-)

    It does happen elsewhere, but it only has a high body count when the perpetrator has access to modern firearms or explosives.  Case in point, an attack on a school happened in China just the other day, but the Chinese people aren't weaponized.  The guy had a knife.  Twenty-two children were hurt - none died.  The violent crime rate for some urban areas in Britain exceeds that of New York City, yet the murder rate in those areas is still small.  Why?  The British people aren't weaponized.

    American entertainment is no more violent than Japanese or Chinese entertainment, yet the murder rate is a fraction of what it is here.

    They're humans.  We're humans.  News reports from China and Japan reveal a fair amount of violence in those cultures.  What's the difference?

    It's the guns, it's just the guns.  Control them and the dying stops.

    Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

    by rbird on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:47:15 AM PST

    •  There are shootings that happen from time to time (7+ / 0-)

      in Europe. It is difficult to get a gun legally, but if you're motivated and don't run into a police sting operation first, it can be done. But the point is that they are so rare compared to America that when one happens, they clamp down even tighter on guns.

      I lived in Southern France for a time, and would walk the streets at all hours of the day and night alone with no fear of having a gun pulled on me. I can't say the same here in DC where people are shot in broad daylight over a pair of shoes.

      •  "[Firearms] are so rare that when [a shooting] (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DRo

        happens, they clamp down even tighter on guns"
        Keep this in mind when a 2nd Amendment supporter uses a 'slippery slope' argument.
        I know I do.

        •  Well I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare

          individuals the right to have guns in their homes unless they are part of a government recognized militia. Not Grandpa Joe's Patriots.

          •  The Second Amendment was written (5+ / 0-)

            when flintlocks were being used.  Not Bushmaster .223 assault rifles.

            It's high time we amend the Second Amendment.

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:41:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The first Amendment was written (0+ / 0-)

              When newspapers were being used. Not the internet.
              Is it high time to amend the First Amendment?

              •  Newspapers are STILL being used (3+ / 0-)

                and frankly the comparison is fucking lame.  The internet is just another form of print media.  

                Nobody in their right mind will say that a semi automatic assault rifle is even fucking remotely similar to a flintlock.  For starters I highly doubt Adam Lanza would have had the time to squeeze off 20 rounds while using a flintlock let along fucking gun down TWENTY CHILDREN or shoot his way into the building.

                This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                by DisNoir36 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:59:18 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Flintlocks are still being used (0+ / 0-)

                  A semi-automatic is just another form of firearm.

                  Nobody in their right mind will say that the internet is remotely similar to a newpaper.

                  My question stands. Does Constitutional Rights have to be amended everytime a new technology is introduced?

                  •  Perhaps only when they refer (0+ / 0-)

                    to an armed "militia", which in this day of a standing Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the National Guard, and the Coast Guard, just isn't really necessary anymore.

                    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                    by skohayes on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:15:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Free Speech isn't 'necessary' nor is Freedom of (0+ / 0-)

                      Religion.

                      •  Well, the Amendment talks about a well-regulated (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        skohayes

                        militia, none of which are apparent today.
                        I think its time to highlight the "well-regulated" part of the  Amendment.

                        If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy ( inaugural address, January 20, 1961)

                        by Outraged Mom on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:51:29 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sorry, s/b "neither of which"...... eom (0+ / 0-)

                          If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy ( inaugural address, January 20, 1961)

                          by Outraged Mom on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:51:57 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  It does say that. (0+ / 0-)

                          It says "A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
                          IE Because a milita is necessary, therefor the Right to OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
                          Nowhere does it say that 'the people' must be a part of a 'well regulated milita' in order to have that Right (after all, if one did, it would cease to be a Right).
                          ....And don't worry about such minor typos, my typos are sometimes so bad they had may as well be writen in ancient Arabic. I didn't even notice yours, until you pointed it out. ;)
                          (sorry about the ALL CAPS....I'm not shouting, its just that bolding  is not an option for me right now)

                  •  Just shut up (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DSPS owl

                    Stop it.  Take your love of guns elsewhere.  Your analogies are stupid, illogical, and nonsensical.

                    Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

                    by Miss Blue on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:16:07 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  For the love of god (0+ / 0-)

                    God are you fucking dense.  Maybe someone should go into your community and fucking gun down 20 innocent kids.

                    Get back to me when someone walks into a school and kills 20 kids with a flintlock.  

                    EVERYONE would say the internet is remotely similar to a newspaper except stupid gun nuts trying to find some bullshit false equivalency.  In fact if the two were NOT remotely similar news print would be doing fine and dandy.  It's not because the internet is replacing it.  The internet is a natural evolution of print media.  

                    A machine gun is also another form of firearm.  How about we fucking make those legal and mount one on top of every fucking school?

                    Fact is the founding fathers did not ever envision that we would have these deadly weapons and I highly doubt they intended the second amendment to give everyone the right to possess them.  

                    Our constitution has been amended before to reflect the changing times and it's high time this outdated amendment be amended as well.  So to answer your question, my answer is a resounding YES.  

                    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                    by DisNoir36 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:48:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Which well regulated militia do you belong to? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Outraged Mom

                    Because that is a caveat of having the right to keep and bear arms

              •  If the internet were directly responsible (6+ / 0-)

                for 10,000 deaths a year in this country and mass carnage on the scale we are forced to live with, I would be in favor of amending the First Amendment as well.  But it isn't.  Only the Second Amendment - and the SCOTUS's interpretation of the scope of freedom it provides - is a threat to our lives.

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

                by SueDe on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:02:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  surely you are joking? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tb mare
          •  That would mean that the 2nd Amendment (0+ / 0-)

            was written to protect the ability of the US government to arm their soldiers.
            That is an absurdity.

            •  Not at a time when states had standing militias (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skohayes, eXtina

              A lot has changed since the 2nd Amendment has written. Or are you still afraid of Indian raids on the frontier in Kentucky?

              •  It is an absurdity that an Amendment was (0+ / 0-)

                Writen to protect the govt's right to arm its soldiers.
                Or are you suggesting that without the 2nd Amenment the US military would have no ability to arm itself?

                •  State militias (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tb mare

                  Not the US military. How can you claim to support the second amendment without reading the entire thing?

                  •  It doesnt say 'state milita' (0+ / 0-)

                    It says 'a free state'. In this context it is refering to the 'nation-state' of the USA. Thus in the US Constitution.
                    But why argue, here is the text in full "A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
                    Next time you make such an arrogent & rude comment, you may want to "read the thing" first.

                    •  where else is there a reference to the US (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Outraged Mom

                      as a "State" in the Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep the federal government from having too much power over the states.

                      And I'll stand by my question above. Which well-regulated militia are you part of?

                      •  Have it your way. (0+ / 0-)

                        Which specific state does "A free STATE" refer to?
                        Do be specific.
                        "Which milita are you a part of"
                        None. However, Because a 'well-regulated milita is necessiary to a free state', 'The American Peoples Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.
                        I am an American person. Therefor, I have that Right.
                        No where does it say that "the right of the people' needs to be a part of a milita, in order to have that Right.
                        If one did, it would no longer be a 'Right'.

                        •  So every American has a god given right to a gun? (0+ / 0-)

                          Every mentally unbalanced, violent fucker in America has the right to a gun on demand whenever they want?

                          And that is what the Framer's intended?

                          You're ridiculous.

    •  All these cultures play the same video games as (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      murrayewv

      Americans. They all have the same proportion of "nutcases" that can go and harm innocent people.

      In places like China, lives aren't "worth" much. A lot of innocent deaths happen from other means but there isn't such a strong attitude to change it. An example would be a driver ran over a toddler with a vehicle. Rather than stopping the vehicle before hitting her, the driver ran over her once, and backed up the vehicle to run over her again to make sure she's dead, and drove away. Some people in China do that because the civil penalty of seriously injuries is higher than death.

      In the US, lives are supposed to worth much more, especially kids. However the major exception is gun violence. The gun lobby would say there's nothing they could do about it, or that everyone should be packing instead.

       

    •  Yes but we are avoiding the 'c' word these days (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541

      perhaps in favor of  another 'r' word, 'responsibility.'

      If we keep the focus there, on our shared responsibilities, maybe we can avoid the knife-fight about 'control' while accomplishing our desired ends.

      "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

      by jakewaters on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:21:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Someone explain to me why... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    ...weapons registration isn't one of those DC Village Punditry "Solomonesque" positions.

    I fully understand that it is at best a woefully inadequate "solution", but it does otherwise fit the bill of being one of those "Common Sense Grand Compromises" arrived at over the 2nd aperitif by Very Serious People at their exclusive, well protected gatherings.

    Please note: I already suspect most of the real answer.

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

    by Egalitare on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:48:35 AM PST

  •  Come out wherever you are congresscritters...time (9+ / 0-)

    to man-up.

  •  Silence of the gun nuts (12+ / 0-)

    It is telling that almost every major pro-gun group and pro-gun lawmaker in Washington has remained totally and overwhelmingly silent on the issue since that awful day in Connecticut. Not one word in defense of their supposedly rock-solid and constitutionally-based "principles." These blood-soaked conservatives understand the consequences of their chap and politically motivated obstinacy in blocking reasonable and common sense regulation that may have prevented such an unthinkable tragedy. Now is the time to seize on their disarray and listen to the calls of a vast majority of Americans for a real change in our despicable gun culture.    -  progressive

  •  Where's Joe Lieberman? (5+ / 0-)

    This point is a tiny footnote amidst the important issues blasting out of Newtown, CT. But where is Joe Lieberman? The Connecticut senator consistently got an "F" from the NRA for voting with Democrats on gun issues. All of which was inadequate to prevent the Newtown massacre, or the others that have regularly preceded it.

    I saw his fellow CT senator Blumenthal on TV talking right, and we heard from his replacement Murphy in this news roundup. Lieberman was out there somewhere this weekend, no doubt screwing us on some "fiscal cliff" negotiation or another in his literal last days in power. His media seeking career makes this missed camera opportunity seem bizarre.

    With his retirement ends his "Connecticut for Lieberman Party". Maybe if Connecticut is for someone or something else, like for Connecticut, it will get some real use out of its other Senate seat.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 04:53:32 AM PST

  •  Skelton asks the question: (9+ / 0-)
    Does anyone still think that the Nazis or Commies are going to march into America, grab the documents, seize all our weapons and occupy us?
    No, BUT they DO believe that the black socialist in the WH is going to.

    And yes, they  ARE sick!!

    •  Always easier when you hate. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phil S 33
    •  The President is coming for your ammo! (0+ / 0-)

      That rumor led to a boomlet for gun dealers.  Before the gun worshippers had the decency to go dark on my Facebook page yesterday,  one of them just had to invoke old Adolph.  If the Commander in Chief of the biggest, best armed military in the world wanted his weapons, does he and his band of minute men really think they could hold the U.S. government at bay with their pitiful little arsenal?  

      Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

      by arlene on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:25:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The 5 Deadliest Guns You Can Buy Online (9+ / 0-)
    Background checks are required at gun stores. But did you know that in most states you can buy a gun online legally without a background check? That’s right folks, anyone can legally buy a gun on the Internet without a background check. The online loophole is one of the most outrageous and dangerous in our society. A convicted murderer can log on and load up.

    Unlicensed private sellers, who conduct their business in the online market, account for 40 percent of U.S. gun sales. And a New York City investigation found that 62 percent of private dealers sold guns over the Internet to buyers who would not have passed a background check.

    Here are the five deadliest weapons you can buy online — legally:

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/...

    The Glock 23 and the Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine are both available. Personally I'm holding out for a M82 50-Caliber Sniper Rifle, with a range of 5 miles and able to bring down helicopters. Sweet.

  •  weapons economics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    One Opinion

    In the economics of gun ownership, it is the weapons of the haves and have mores that fire these bullets, which are as innocent as the victims themselves. It is not the scrounger on the street with a knife, nor is it the drifter with the 2x4 packed with nails.
    We don't have to worry about the "slippery slope" of gun laws because there is the 2nd amendement. We just need actual and actionable laws and regulations on these assault weapons, which are not innocent at all.

  •  Thank You George Skelton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    That is perfect !

    I also like that MB started with bringing home the men & women from Afghanistan first.

    I am Proud of Out President, I sure Hope he gets it done.

  •  The difficulty in any gun control legislation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, skohayes, Amber6541

    is that one of the conservative justices will have to either retire or kick the bucket before any of it will stick. Ban high capacity magazines and semi-automatic assault rifles or try to restrict the number of guns that can be purchased, and we'll be back where we started in a year or two once scalia starts pontificating.

    •  Speed of action by congress is important here. (6+ / 0-)

      Pass some legislation, and let the NRA and gun manufacturers go to court.  Then let the courst, all the way up, give the signal to the next would-be massacre madman.  Let the courts look crazy; I'm tired of our citizens' rep as idolators of the Wild West icons.

      Obama should take a hard look at Lyndon Johnson's wisdom in acting swiftly after the Kennedy assassination.  I'm sure the multiple threats on Obama's own life, perhaps even those threats that may have been made against his family by the unhinged, have to loom in his mind alongside the deaths of those in Newtown.  I'm sure written legislation has been teed up and ready for years.  Time to drive it home, Mr. President.  

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

      by judyms9 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:18:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And if congress doesn't act and bogs down in BS (0+ / 0-)

        could the President provoke some unilateral disarmament with a signing statement that instituted a meaningful assault weapon ban?  

        Of course this would assume that congress ever passes anything again...

        "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

        by jakewaters on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:30:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well a signing statement isn't enforceable (0+ / 0-)

          It's not actually part of the law, and if he attempted to unilaterally enforce an assault weapons ban, he wouldn't be president much longer.

        •  He could issue executive orders (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure what he could accomplish, but at least we can start the dialog from there.

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:22:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •   This (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jakewaters, DSPS owl
        I'm tired of our citizens' rep as idolators of the Wild West icon
        The way to prevent gun massacres isn't a shootout at the OK Corral. It's opening access to mental health services and getting guns off the streets.
        •  Neither of these would have helped (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DRo, Amber6541

          in stopping the Newtown massacre.  The mother of the shooter knew her son was mentally disturbed and had the assets to get him all the mental health services he needed.  The guns he used to perpitrate the carnage were hers, kept in her home.  

          Besides stationing a law enforcement officer more heavily armed than the shooter at the door of the schoolhouse, I don't know of any way this outrage could have been avoided.  And I doubt that any parent wants their 6- or 7-year-old to have to march past an armor-plated guard holding a bazooka on their way to first grade classes, even though it may come to that.

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

          by SueDe on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:22:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  What about the ones that are already out there? (0+ / 0-)
      high capacity magazines and semi-automatic assault rifles
      I have the impression there are a lot of those type of weapons already in circulation.

      Any laws would have to specifically target the ammo for those and/or allow them to be confiscated by law enforcement.  

      Mother Teresa: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

      by Amber6541 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:48:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My daughter is studying in the UK now. She (13+ / 0-)

    reports that folks there think we are nuts. Nuts. The police in her small town of Norwich don't carry guns.

    Imagine that.

    "Say little, do much" (Pirkei Avot 1:15)

    by hester on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:07:41 AM PST

  •  A typical next step of the oppponents of Gun regs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, KibbutzAmiad, tb mare

    is a patronizing "Let's not be hasty"

       A quick head count of those still in congress;both houses; who voted for the 10 phone books worth of the Patriot Act; and the other 5 phone books to fix the screw-ups in the 1st 10 phone book ; without reading it first would be in order.

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:16:07 AM PST

  •  If we can't ban them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakewaters

    we should tax the hell of a lot on them. I think there ought to be a gun violence victim compensation funds that would come from taxes on guns and ammunition. Small amount of weapon for hunting and self defense would be exempt, but all those assault weapons would be very high.

    If these deaths are the price that we pay so that some people have access to higher power weapons, then they collectively ought to be paying something for it. Of course no amount of money is going to heal the wounds that victims' families would have to face.

    •  Or requiring them to be insured out the wazzoo. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue

      Kept the murder weapon in the house before you went postal/ did your drama queendance/ exercised your tortured version of religious freedom/decided no more mondays?

      Your homeowners policy should be paying out to your victims.

      Drove with the gun in your car to the post office, temple, movie theatre or school that you shot up?

      Your auto insurance policy is going to be paying too.

      Let the invisible (left) hand of free market man work in a way that will decrease the supply of armed wingnuts.  God knows it far exceeds the demand.

      Want to decrease the costs of responsible gun ownership?
      Store your gun in your well regulated militia's armory and your homeowners insurance rate will go down because you aren't offering a murder weapon like a breath mint to anyone who passes through or breaks in to your castle. Don't drive to work/play/school/prayer while brandishing? Your car ins rate will go down too.

      Think that message might resonate in Connecticut, of all places?

      "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

      by jakewaters on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:48:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did Scarborough say anything about handguns? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, One Opinion

    I haven't caught the whole show, but it sounds like talk all about 'the Bushmaster' and 'assault weapons'.  I seem to be having trouble uploading images, but a chart by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that gun fatalities in the US (chart here) are mostly committed with handguns, which none of these proposed actions against 'assault weapons' or 'high round magaizines' will do ANYTHING about.

    New control laws about 'assault weapons' will stop some deaths, but unless they also address gun fatalities with handguns, they're not doing enough.

  •  There is one thing I'll say against the new... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and welcome push for gun control: it's no substitute for our individual and community power to shame and sanction people.  It's legal to be a drunkard or (hmm, thinking ahead to everyone's workplace filtering) to be addicted to certain adult graphic content.  But nobody who's like that can expect much good feeling from those around them, assuming of course that their predilictions are known, nor can they expect much professional success.  They're decisions within the law that rightly carry a lot of costs, and those costs should exist tenfold for people who keep guns in excess of what they genuinely use for hunting, and even those if they're not totally secured.  People who love guns more than people need some individualized consequence from the people who are most at-risk from that perverted priority.  

    Gun control would, of course, mean controlling guns for everyone, including people we might have full confidence in as individuals.  How can we advocate in good conscience for gun control if we give gun fetishism a free pass in our friends and relatives?

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:35:00 AM PST

  •  If we can't ban guns then ban bullets. (0+ / 0-)

    Make only rubber bullets legal for civilian use.  At least until sane Justices can be found.

    "Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic. " Bill Clinton

    by Amayupta yo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:46:55 AM PST

  •  Well said... (0+ / 0-)

    "The right to public safety trumps the right to own an arsenal."

    Enough said.

  •  The Haaretz article (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, DSPS owl

    was behind a paywall, but I hardly think an Israeli newspaper should be preaching to us about the deaths of innocents.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:39:40 AM PST

  •  The second amendment wasn't about foreign invaders (0+ / 0-)

    So much as domestic ones.  The United States has had a remarkable record of stability as a democracy, in a tumultuous 200+ years when too many others have fallen to would-be dictators and coups d'etat.  But the founders at the time couldn't know how effectively civilians would control the military, so they put in a way to ensure that if someone tried to play dictator the people would be able to resist them.

    That said, these days the weapons you violently overthrow governments with - IEDs, AK-47s and whatnot - are illegal anyway.

  •  We should start using gun regulation instead of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alrdouglas

    gun control in these discussions. Control makes many cringe.

    The second amendment says "well regulated militia" so we should change the dialogue from control to regulation. Control has so much baggage to it. Control sounds like the controlee is losing power to someone else. Regulation  simply means that the country has a right to regulate what you are doing so as to not give you more power then the rest of us.

    I have shotguns and a pistols because of a six month long assault on my home by a young man who was stalking me. He left the house alone when my hubby was there but did stuff that was really sick when I was a lone with my baby. He stole 4 puppies from my dog in the garage... he returned them in pieces except the one that he pulled it intestines out and spelled Hi. For nearly 6 months I slept on the couch facing the front door, the back door and the hall with my baby tucked in next to me and a gun propped on my knees. One night he managed to break through the back door lock. I called out "I have a gun and I will use it" He left as i followed gun in hand to watch him go over the fence.

    I am perfectly willing to follow any regulations if it means that the loons have less power to use thier weapons to intimidate or eliminate any they object to. Like the men who shot Gabby or the people in the theater or those children or.......... so many over the years...

    So anyway, I think we should start calling our search for answers ... well regulation and tie it to the second amendment

    Fear is the Mind Killer...

    by boophus on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:59:36 PM PST

  •  I know Richard Aborn personally and just (0+ / 0-)

    now noticed his op ed in the APR today.  He helped draft the Brady Bill and ran for Manhattan DA when Morganthau finally retired AND SHOULD HAVE WON.  Instead we got Cyrus Vance, Jr., because of name recognition. A real shame!  He's worked on this issue day in and day out for absolutely years.  We cannot let them get away with silencing us any longer.  Write your Senators; write your representative.  Shame all those who try to obfuscate and delay.  Together, we can make this happen.

    "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." -- Patti Smith

    by followyourbliss on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 03:06:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site