Skip to main content

Last night, Jon Stewart tore into the NRA and exposed the hypocrisy of the pro-gun senators who are helping the NRA block Obama's surgeon general nominee, the extremely well-qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy.

So what were Dr. Murthy's comments about guns?
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER, R-TN (2/4/2014): In your tweets of October 16, 2012, "tired of politicians who are scared of the NRA".  Those are some of the words.  And I would hope you would know that Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment.
"Yes, Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment. Apparently, you don't have a First Amendment right to have a different opinion from that. Everyone knows the First Amedment only applies to saying positive things about the Second Amendment. That's all.  Says in there, you have the First Amendment right unless you don't have anything positive to say about the Second Amendment. Then you have to shut the fuck up. You have to shut the fuck up, is what I'm saying."

Not to mention that in addition to that tweet, Murthy also supports majority-popular ideas like background checks and an assault weapons ban. In other words, stop him!!

Full transcript below the fold.


Now before our break, President Barack Obama was about to get some rare good news.  Congress was actually going to allow him to appoint his preferred candidate to a high-profile position.
MICHAELA PEREIRA (11/15/2013): President Obama set to make his pick for the next Surgeon General, the White House announcing he intends to nominate Dr. Vivek Murthy for the job.

BILL HEMMER (3/19/2014): The first Indian-American Surgeon General.

KRYSTAL BALL (3/22/2014): A Harvard Medical School instructor and tech entrepreneur.

Hold on there, Indian-Americans!  You can have your Ivy League doctor, or you can have your tech genius.  You cannot have both!  But he seems eminently qualified, looks like smooth sailing for the good ship Murthy.
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER, R-TN (2/4/2014): The second concern I have, along the same line, is about your comments about guns.
Iceberg!!

Someone said the word "gun", which of course means it's time for our new segment, American Stands Its Ground.  So what were Dr. Murthy's comments about guns?

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER, R-TN (2/4/2014): In your tweets of October 16, 2012, "tired of politicians who are scared of the NRA".  Those are some of the words.  And I would hope you would know that Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment.
"Yes, Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment.  Apparently, you don't have a First Amendment right to have a different opinion from that.  Everyone knows the First Amendment only applies to saying positive things about the Second Amendment.  That's all.  Says in there, you have the First Amendment right unless you don't have anything positive to say about the Second Amendment.  Then you have to shut the fuck up.  You have to shut the fuck up, is what I'm saying."

Not to mention that in addition to that tweet, Murthy also supports majority-popular ideas like background checks and an assault weapons ban.  In other words, stop him!!

CHRIS HAYES (3/17/2014): The NRA and Rand Paul have managed to whip up quite a frenzy over Murthy.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, R-WY (3/10/2014): The Surgeon General of the United States ought to be focused on the major health issues of our country — heart disease, cancer, stroke.  Those are the killers.

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY (2/27/2014): Being against smoking.  Being against obesity.  Things that are bad for your health.

(surprised audience laughter)

You know bullets... (audience laughter) are not generally considered superfoods.  They are, as we have learned, low on omega-3 fatty acids and relatively high in lead.

But even if Murthy was anti-gun, he's just the Surgeon General.  He's the nation's official scold.  The worst thing he could do is put a warning label on bullets.  That's not gonna do anything.

(audience laughter)

And you know what?  It doesn't matter anyway, Republicans.  The new Senate rules say you can't filibuster nominees anymore.  All the President needs is a simple majority, and he's got more than enough Democrats to do that.

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.
Well, I guess that'll teach Dr. Murthy to make wild accusations about politicians being scared of the NRA.  (audience laughter)  Is nobody in America able to take a common sense approach to guns?
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (3/5/2014): A fifth grader in Ohio is suspended from school for three days after pointing his finger like a gun. ... The principal says there is a zero tolerance policy, and students have been warned about pretend gun play multiple times this year.
Oh, for fuck's sake!  I said common sense!  Come on, that's obviously a self-defense finger gun.  It's not like he's got one of them high-capacity magazine finger guns.

(audience laughter and applause)

It's just a regular old finger gun!  It's not an assault finger gun.  (Either I'm hungry, or those look a lot like stacked donuts.)

So let me get this straight.  Real weapons are OK, great, completely imaginary weapons are intolerable.  What about something in between there?

JOSH ELLIOTT, GMA (3/24/2014): A big toy manufacturer, making weapons now for girls.
Toy weapons for girls.  Must've taken a long time to figure out how to take a boy's weapon, and adopt it for a girl's....

Oh I see, oh OK, well, that makes more sense.  Tell me about these gentler, more feminine weapons.

MARA SCHIAVOCAMPO, GMA (3/24/2014): This is 8-year-old Grace Maher's favorite toy. ... The Nerf Rebelle heartbreaker, a pink and sparkly bow and arrow. ... But some wonder if teaching little girls to play war games could be sending the wrong message, not promoting empowerment, but violence.
(GMA video shows girl shooting toy arrow at boy, and hitting him with it)

(wild audience laughter)

She totally nailed that dude!  And you know what?  I'm actually OK with that.  I got kids, and I can tell you something.  That kid had it coming.  (audience laughter)  I don't know what he did, but he knows.  We'll be right back.

Okay, for some reason, Comedy Central just completely re-did their website, changing everything up, and now all the links are different, and the embed codes no longer work on this site. Grrr. Anyway, I've provided the links to all the clips so you can at least watch them over on Comedy Central's website, though now you have to deal with a new 30-second commercial for every single one of them.  :-\

Both Jon and Stephen also mocked the media coverage of the missing Malaysian Flight 370.



Stephen also did another Better Know a District segment, this time about NC-01 with Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D).

Jon had on Arianna Huffington, and Stephen had on actor Bryan Cranston.

Originally posted to Electronic America: Progressives Film, music & Arts Group on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:30 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

  •  It is up on Hulu, though that doesn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw, MartyM

    help much for imbeds. ;(

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:45:36 AM PDT

  •  Has our local RKBA contingent taken a stand... (11+ / 0-)

    ... on this nominee?

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:16:54 AM PDT

    •  How about this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      1) Is he qualified?
      2) Is he capable of being objective on contentious issues (this one and any other), regardless of whinging by either party?

      If the answer to both questions is "yes", why should anyone have a problem with him? If the answer to either question is "no", why would anyone support him?

      The only thing left to answer is whether "objective" in question 2 means "agrees with what you already believe".

      Personally, I find the Senate antics amusing. Since the filibuster is no longer in place, Democrats can't blame Republicans for blocking the nomination (since they have more than the 51 Dems needed). This means if it fails, it fails because several Democratic Senators opposed it (that and no Republicans supporting it, but that's par for the course right now). Given DC kabuki, rather than deal with the embarrassment of a failed vote there would probably not even be a vote on it, if Reid can't do sufficient backroom arm-twisting to guarantee the desired outcome.

      I'm going to guess the Democrats in opposition would be a) from more gun-friendly states b) up for election in 2014 and c) in a competitive race. Which would make the "most likely" Democratic opposition states be the following:

      Alaska - Begich(D)
      Arkansas - Pryor(D)
      Louisiana - Landrieu(D)
      Montana - Walsh(D)
      North Carolina - Hagan(D)
      South Dakota - Johnson(D)
      West Virginia - Rockefeller(D)*
      *retiring

      None of the above were on the Senate Judiciary Committee that forwarded the nomination to the full Senate.

      •  So do you support or oppose the nominee? (7+ / 0-)

        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

        by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:19:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You tell me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          Pretend Dr. Shamash has been nominated to head the Department of Transportation. Dr. Shamash comes from a well-to-do family from a culture in which very few people own cars and his family has never had any need for them, this sort of thing being handled by those lower on the socio-economic ladder (Dr. Shamash's family comes from a historically privileged class). Dr. Shamash goes into a professional career in which he sees thousands of direct and indirect victims of auto violence. Lacerations, punctures, shattered bones, ruptured internal organs, amputations, disfigurement, greiving families, the works. Dr. Shamash has publicly advocated for the complete ban on new sales of any car that can go more than 20mph and advocates for limits on the amount of gasoline that a person can buy for their existing cars.

          So, you tell me. Is Dr. Shamash going to be a) objective on the issue of private car ownership, or b) is his cultural upbringing (via his parents), total lack of experience with cars and a career that constantly shows him only the worst (yet most statistically unlikely) consequences of car ownership going to make him incapable of holding an informed and objective viewpoint on the subject?

          Now, note that none of this would make Dr. Shamash a bad person or an incompetent doctor. We're merely looking at whether or not his views make him a less-than-ideal candidate for heading the Department of Transportation, regardless of whether or not the "auto lobby" is talking trash about him.

          If your answer is a), then there is a Nigerian prince who really wants to get in touch with you. If your answer is b), then Dr. Shamash fails question 2 in my previous comment.

          •  "Auto violence?" Why don't you simply answer the (8+ / 0-)

            ... question?

            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

            by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:42:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ^says the man after failing to answer mine (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              We Shall Overcome

              And I'm outta here. I would say I'm giving Bob the final substantive say on the matter, but he and "substantive" had a messy breakup sometime in early 2003 and have not been on speaking terms since.

              •  So I take it you would opt to block the nominee? (11+ / 0-)

                I have to laugh at you RKBA guys and your Liberal Gun Club.

                As I have noted many times, your motto should be:

                               

                                   More liberal than the NRA.
                                    On everything except guns.

                "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:36:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So I take it you would opt to block the nominee? (3+ / 0-)

                I really have to laugh at you RKBA guys and your Liberal Gun Club.

                As I've noted many times, your slogan should be:

                                    More liberal than the NRA.
                                     On everything except guns.

                "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:39:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The opinions of 'RKBA guys' are irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

                  The opinions of ten Democratic Senators (and their constituents) are not.

                  Thus far your issue has cost seats & nominations in humiliating manners.
                  Now that you are starting to get an idea about the cost of such policies, do you still support those policies?
                  If so, at what cost are you willing to have the party pay in order to pursue these policies?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:46:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Frank, you're still here? (8+ / 0-)

                    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                    by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:48:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  26 kids murdered in their elementary school (9+ / 0-)

                    classroom - that's the cost you're willing to pay.

                    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                    by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:31:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually. (9+ / 0-)

                      Correction: It's the cost he's willing to have someone else pay.

                    •  That is called 'murder' (0+ / 0-)

                      Neither I nor the other 300,000,000 citizens whose liberties you are willing to take committed that act.

                      Do you think that we need to have warrantless wiretaps, or is 3000 dead Americans the price you are willing to pay for reasonable search and seizure?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:08:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "History will have to record that the greatest (5+ / 0-)

                        tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

                        http://mlkday.gov/...

                        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                        by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:11:44 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's unfortunate when good people are too (0+ / 0-)

                          silent when the ignorantly frightened seek to infringe on the rights & liberties of innocent Americans.

                          I agree.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:19:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Good people are silenced by gun violence (4+ / 0-)

                            everyday in America - 80 people will die by guns, taking away every single right afforded to them in the Constitution.

                            Without life, there are no rights.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:27:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is called 'murder'. (0+ / 0-)

                            Taking the rights of innocent people in response to the actions of the guilty is neither effective nor just.
                            That is the same justification given for torture, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and stop-and-frisk.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:32:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, many women are murdered by their boyfriends/ (6+ / 0-)

                            husbands who have histories of domestic abuse and who if they had their access to guns restricted would not have been able to murder.

                            Background checks work, save lives and extend all of the rights enshrined in the U.S. constitution who are able to dodge a bullet thanks to strong gun violence prevention policies.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:41:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  1) B/Cs are already required of FFL dealers (0+ / 0-)

                            2) Murder happens because of power differentials and intent. That is why bare hands & knives are responsible for over twice & 6 times more murders per year respectively than rifles are.

                            But never mind that for now.
                            You want B/Cs?
                            Do so without simultaneously pushing for a gun/magazine ban.
                            Somehow people doubt assurances that one isn't seeking to ban guns while they are pushing for a gun ban.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:54:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Imagine of those bare hands had a gun or those (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus

                            hands had gun instead of a knife - thankfully background checks prevent a lot of hands from getting a gun in them.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:57:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then their murder victims would be.......what? (0+ / 0-)

                            More dead?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:59:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More murder victims - guns are more effective (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus

                            killers than hands, that's why the military has them.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:02:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again. (0+ / 0-)

                            Bare hands are responsible for twice as many murders as rifles are.
                            Knives are responsible for six times as many murders as rifles.

                            Both knives and bare hands are used on significantly more murder victims than rifles are.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:06:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cherry picking data and the NY and Conn, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus

                            Fed district court disagrees with you and rules public safety trumps 2A rights - you are making a moot point.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:40:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That isn't cherry picking. (0+ / 0-)

                            Rifles are used in significantly less murders than either bare hands or knives.

                            Fed district court disagrees with you
                            And the constituents of Morse, Giron & Hudak disagrees with you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:42:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Proud to say, yes, I disgree with those gun (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus

                            extremists, many of which also are christianists, anti-abortion, pro-personhood, anti-marriage equality - that's some company you keep.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:35:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And many of which were registered Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

                            20-30% of the registered Democrats that came to vote in Giron's district (in a district that voted by Obama by 19 points).

                            You, along with anti-choice & anti-same sex marriage, seek to take rights away from others.
                            Society's support for the rights & liberties of innocent Americans has been expanding on all three of these issues for decades.
                            Enjoy spending time with your fellow political dinosaurs. You're going to be sharing that particular tar pit with them for a looooong time.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:48:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wishful thinking - 90% support UBC, 50-60% supprt (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greengemini, Caittus

                            AWB/ban on high cap mags.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:10:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And gun control has less support than it did (0+ / 0-)

                            twenty years ago.

                            The poll results that matter happened in Morse, Giron & Hudak's districts & more will be held on November 4th.
                            I look forward to discussing those meaningful polls with you on November 5th.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I look forward to that as well and expect you'll (0+ / 0-)

                            stick to you're propaganda that guns have somehow become the No. 1 issue in the mind of every voter in Colorado.

                            In reality, voters in Colorado are not supporting the most ardent pro-gun candidate for governor - Brophy - because guns aren't their most important issue.

                            And the Colorado GOP is trying to keep the gun nuts out of their primary process - for obvious reasons, ie, when the gun nuts run in general elections, the GOP loses.

                            But don't let those facts get in the way of a good propaganda yarn.

                            You might also be interested in what's going on in Castle Rock, Colorado (a conservative town that went 60% for Romney in 2012), where the Colorado gun lobby is trying to take over the city council - the mayor is a card carrying member of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and has graciously invited them to his gun range to plot how to overturn Colorado's 2013 gun reform. Of course, that has prompted city residents to try to change they way their mayor is selected (currently by the city council) so they can vote him out. Also keep an eye on city council elections where the gun nuts who have infected the city's politics are facing multiple candidates who are against their pro open carry votes of just a month ago.

                            You can stick to your exaggerated gun propaganda that attempts to inflate the issue of guns over that of jobs/economy, marriage equality, pro choice, et al - but it's just that, propaganda.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:53:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Unintentional irony. My favorite kind. (0+ / 0-)
                            ie, when the gun nuts run in general elections, the GOP loses.

                            But don't let those facts get in the way of a good propaganda yarn.

                            Not even in Democratic districts in elections during non-election years while outspending the GOP 6-to-1.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:02:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, Colorado Springs and Westminster (0+ / 0-)

                            - those are some "Democratic districts" you got there. Clearly you don't know Colorado ... and in an off year, stand alone, special election that restricted mail in voting 15 days before the vote - in other words, the gun lobby and the GOP gamed the vote.

                            You shouldn't delude yourself into thinking those elections were representative of the mood of the entire state. Those were the ONLY three districts out of 35 senate districts and 65 house districts where the gun lobby thought it could win - I'll do the math for you, that's 3% of the entire state that the gun lobby thought it had a chance to win recalls (and in Colorado Springs, the recall only succeeded by 400 votes or so), and in those elections turnout was 50% or less.

                            So, you're entire "theory" that advancing the pro gun agenda issue has somehow become the number 1 issue for Colorado voters is based on about .1% of voters.

                            That's beyond laughable - it's insane.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:14:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Voted for Obama by 19 points & had more (0+ / 0-)

                            registered Democrats than GOPers show up....where 20-30% of those registered Democrats voted for the recall.
                            .....odd how you forgot that.

                            The other two districts had Democratic Senators, up until they lost their jobs.

                            But, hey....those 'gun nuts' sure can't win elections, amirite?
                            Just keep giving reality the finger.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:21:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The GOPer who replaced Morse says the Aurora (0+ / 0-)

                            shooter was lucky to have a 100 round drum because it jammed ... after 65 shots - he's up for election this November. I'm looking forward to that one.

                            In the other district, the Dems still hold the seat and the GOP is trying to keep the gun nuts out of the primary process because they know if the gun nut (who also is  christianist anti-choice, anti-equality) win the primary, they will lose the general, which is exactly what happened in 2008 that allowed the Dems to take that very seat — a gun nut split the vote, which allowed the Dems to control the Senate and vote for gun reform.

                            So, yes, the gun nuts do know how to win elections and pass gun reform ... for Democrats.

                            In yet another "Colorado Gun Nut Hall of Fame" story - a GOPer state rep is withdrawing from his re-election campaign, just a month after he brought a loaded gun in a gym bag to the state capitol for a meeting with legislators and constituents about concealed carry - this "responsible gun owner" forgot about his gym bag (and the loaded "concealed" gun) after the meeting adjourned and left it behind in the room.

                            You have a warped and deluded sense of how the pro-gun agenda plays in Colorado politics based on how 0.1% of the electorate voted in off year, stand alone, special elections.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:36:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If only that pesky reality would bug off of you. (0+ / 0-)

                            3 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in unprecedented & humiliating fashion because you decided that you distrusted & feared your fellow Coloradans.

                            25% of the registered Democrats that showed up to the polls voted for the GOPer
                            You managed to create a 40-60 point swing in registered Democrats in the course of less than a year.
                            Hick, who was untouchable prior to this nonsense now has a race on his hands.

                            These are irrefutable facts.
                            Your willful ignorance doesn't change reality.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:28:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And the SPAM begins - you've already made that (0+ / 0-)

                            point - here's a refresher on the conversation we've already had on this topic:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:18:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Once you acknowledge reality, I can cease (0+ / 0-)

                            reminding you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:21:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reality has been acknowledge, explained and (0+ / 0-)

                            put into context.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:32:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What about handguns? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus

                            In 2011, handguns killed 6 times more people than knives, and about 20 times more people than rifles.

                            Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                            by skohayes on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:23:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Correct. (0+ / 0-)

                            Handguns are also subject to more stringent requirements to buy & are less powerful than a rifle.
                            This is because murder is about opportunism, not the power of the weapon.

                            That is why the AWB & mag bans are particularly wrong-headed.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:35:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can't shoot if you have to reload. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus, i saw an old tree today

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:37:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't have to reload with a knife. (0+ / 0-)

                            Or with bare hands.
                            Or with a club.

                            All 3 of the above methods being used more often than all rifles combined.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:40:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, that's why many knife attacks end in injury (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus, i saw an old tree today

                            but not death - because guns are the ultimate killer.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:41:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And six times more murders than all rifles (0+ / 0-)

                            combined.

                            It would seem that your "ultimate killer boogeyman" is just that--a boogeyman.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:44:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, that's why the military insists that soilders (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Caittus, i saw an old tree today

                            use their bare hands.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:09:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What the military has its soldiers carry is (0+ / 0-)

                            irrelevant in a discussion of objects used to commit murder.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:26:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  a question for the both of you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            you each seem exceedingly informed regarding your stance on this issue.

                            i am unsure which way i ultimately fall. (i'll explain my background after my question, for those interested).

                            my question is predicated on my understanding that firearm manufacturers and users are protected from civil actions regardless of how the firearm is used. If that is the case, then: Would it serve your side's interest, and the nation, if the automatic exemption were removed and the manufacturer and/or the user were capable of being sued for negligence or other causes?

                            I would think this would put firearms back into the same category as automobiles (and knives and barefists) without touching the constitutional issue of the 2d A.

                            For those interested in my background; retired Army, own no weapons (have a loaner shotgun that came in handy when I was out of town and my wife had a late night meth-head visitor driving in the backpasture. it took the county police 20 minutes to arrive and they hurried), have killed one living mammal (put down a very old, sick dog with the owner's pistol). live where 9 out of 10 of the people i know have more than 2 firearms and i've picked up errant arrows shot by stupid hunters that landed in our pastures.

                            thanks for your considered responses in advance, and if i'm wrong about the liability insulation for manufacturers and users, then thanks for kindly correcting me.

                          •  I'm all for making gun manufactures liable for (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greengemini, Pale Jenova, Caittus

                            their products, as well as gun owners being held liable for what their gun does.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:12:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thnx for the reply (0+ / 0-)

                            what do you think would be the longterm ramifications on firearms-caused-death and injury if this were enacted? would it get the country to where you think it should be or would it fail to achieve that objective?

                          •  I believe he's talking about the PLCAA, not (0+ / 0-)

                            liability for manufacturing defect (which gun manufacturers have).

                            Unless you think that Ford should be liable for a drunk driver, you're going to have a hard time defending that viewpoint.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:29:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gun manufacturers can be sued for mechanical (0+ / 0-)

                            failure resulting in injury/death, but cannot be sued for misuse or criminal actions, just like with automobiles.

                            The law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was written to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation --lawsuits with little chance of being successful but designed to bankrupt & intimidate from having to defend against them.
                            The law is analogous to Ford not being liable for a drunk driver.

                            Whether one is for more gun control or more gun rights, the PLCAA is a fair law & it doesn't give gun manufacturers anymore protection than any other manufacturer has.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:27:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thnx for the clarification (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            i think i would like to make my perfect world hold motor vehicle manufacturers liable for enabling the drunk to drive (i.e. "force" the installation of devices that detect impairment), but guess that'll wait until i'm elected king.

                            so Frank, what path do you see as acceptable to providing the country with some sort of security from a perpetual "gunfail" column? because i worry about the amount of deer hunters who miss the four legged critters in my area, since the trees are perpetually being thinned, thus reducing my cover from poorly aimed projectiles

                          •  Deaths from gun accidents are extraordinarily rare (0+ / 0-)

                            and has been consistently falling for a century.
                            From the CDC report commissioned by Pres. Obama

                            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

                            For comparison's sake
                            Accidental deaths per year:
                            Motor Vehicles: 42,000
                            Poisoning: 39,000
                            Falls: 25,000
                            Fire: 2,700
                            Choking: 2,500
                            Drowning: 2,000
                            Bicycles: 800
                            Firearms: 600

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:59:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How many Sandy Hooks were committed barehanded? (2+ / 0-)

                            Maybe we don't care about people murdering each other. That's always going to happen, regardless of gun laws.
                            Maybe we care about people murdering lots and lots of kids at all once. Maybe every single person in the USA has to give up the pleasure of owning a high-cap assault rifle (like my beloved Mini-14) so that we don't have any more Sandy Hooks.
                            I think that's a deal worth making. How about you?

                          •  "How many 911s were committed without planning by (0+ / 0-)

                            phone?"
                            That is the argument used to justify warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo & torture.
                            I didn't buy that argument then & I don't buy it now.
                            I don't think it is good policy to base rights on rare & tragic events.

                            Maybe every single person in the USA has to give up the pleasure of owning a high-cap assault rifle (like my beloved Mini-14) so that we don't have any more Sandy Hooks.
                            Columbine happened during AWB1 & the largest mass murder in US history was committed with a gallon of gasoline.
                            Forcing innocent people to give up their liberties & rights doesn't protect anybody.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:39:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  rifles (2+ / 0-)

                            I am confused, you keep saying "rifles" but most people think of "guns"  meaning all guns, rifles and hand guns. I get the impression you are dodging the main issue - gun control for ALL types of guns not just rifles.

                          •  1) The AWB bans rifles. (0+ / 0-)

                            2) The discussion we were in at the time revolved around 'potency vs convenience' in regards to tools used for murder. A rifle is more potent than handguns, knives, clubs or bare hands yet all of those objects are used in more murders than rifles are (which is one of the things that makes the AWB & mag bans so infuriatingly foolish).

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:26:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Semi-auto + high cap mag = weapon of mass (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            destruction. Scalia agrees in Heller that dangerous and unusual weapons are and can be banned. Assault weapons fit that description. The terror and devastation they can inflict make them dangerous and unusual. That is why Federal courts have upheld AWBs in NY and Connecticut - public safety trumps common use in those rulings.

                            Semi-autos + high cap mags have proven themselves to be on par with explosive devices that have been deemed weapons of mass destruction.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:49:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Factually wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            A 'weapon of mass destruction' is a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon.
                            Let's stick to the actual meanings of words, shall we?

                            There is nothing 'unusual' about a semi-auto weapon, but no matter.
                            It still has to be made law & judging by the spectacular failure of AWB2 on the national stage & the aftermath of a toothless mag ban in Colorado, such a ban isn't passing the electorate.

                            "Federal courts have upheld...."
                            They have upheld warrantless wiretaps & stop-and-frisk as well.
                            I can only assume you support those issues as well in your frantic & wrong-headed search for 'public safety'.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:16:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Semi-auto + high cap mags have killed more people (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            than explosive devices in scores of mass shootings, for example, there were only two fatalities due to the two explosive devices used in the Boston bombing where as a semi-auto + high cap mag killed 26 in Newtown, 12 in Aurora, 32 at Virginia Tech, 8 in Tucson and so on.

                            That's dangerous and unusual.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:12:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Factually wrong: (0+ / 0-)

                            Oklahoma City bombing: 168 deaths 680 injuries.
                            Happy land fire: 87 deaths.
                            Bath School Disaster: 45 deaths.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, Newtown 26; Virginia Tech: 32; Aurora: 12/56 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            ... they fit right in among the examples you cite and are very good examples of dangerous and unusual weapons.  

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:29:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And all have significantly less deaths than (0+ / 0-)

                            a gallon of gasoline caused in the Happy Land Fire.
                            Looks like you have an awful lot of banning to do.
                            Conversely you can educate yourself & rid yourself of such ignorant fear.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:36:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tell that to Justice "Dangerous and Unusual" (0+ / 0-)

                            Scalia - he agrees that dangerous and unusual weapons can and should be banned:

                            We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms” —“prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:45:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And gasoline has proven to be more dangerous. (0+ / 0-)

                            Now all you have to do is convince the electorate.

                            Why not?
                            Trying to ban gas couldn't go much worse.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:53:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's an absurd arguement, but good luck with it. (0+ / 0-)

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh? Strange as you are citing death tolls (0+ / 0-)

                            from mass murder as your justification and the Happy Land Fire had a higher death toll.

                            But you are right about one thing; banning a legal object from innocent people because of the actions of a murderer is an absurd argument.
                            Glad you are starting to catch on.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:31:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Mumbo Jumbo - might as well type that in your (0+ / 0-)

                            comments over and over, that's about all you and the pro gunners have left to say:

                            Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Like I said, you're argument is absurd - guns and gasoline are not one in the same, just ask Justice "Dangerous and Unusual" Scalia who supports gun bans, but not gasoline bans.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:45:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

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

                        I own one gun. Don't put me in with the likes of you.

                        I'm nothing like the gun nut idiots. Which I think you are.

                  •  I support (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    greengemini

                    I support gun safety policies.

          •  How about this: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bob Johnson, TwoSolitudes

            Let's pretend that the lobbying arm of American weapons manufacturers weighs in on the confirmation of an individual that could ultimately be responsible for advising legislators on issues relating to health and medicine, and successfully eliminates that individual from consideration, simply because the advise of the individual might have a negative effect on the continued profitability of the manufacturers the lobbyist represents, and not based on the qualifications of this particular individual.

            That'd be pretty fucked up, wouldn't it.

            We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.

            by EighteenCharacters on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:09:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's a completely ludicrous argument (3+ / 0-)

            It would make more sense if you said, "Dr. Shamash is from a country where gun violence is viewed as horrific instead of merely normal. In other words, a civilized country, like Australia."
            Go look up John Oliver's 3-part segments on gun control in Australia. As a former American gun owner living in Australia, I can say a) I don't miss them all that much, and b) if I did, I know almost as many people here who own guns as I did in the USA.
            A total gun ban like Australia has still means farmers with guns and gun ranges and sport shooting. It just means it's a bit more expensive and you can't have assault rifles or pistols. I think what you get for giving that up is worth it, but YMMV, I guess.

          •  A gun is a weapon. It's for killing. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caittus, i saw an old tree today

            A car is a tool. It's for driving.

            48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

            by slouching on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 12:12:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm wondering what they're afraid of (8+ / 0-)

        This guy's nomination is for Surgeon General, who makes no policy decisions regarding the Second Amendment, or guns in general.
        And the doctor is correct- guns are a health issue, they cause terrible injury to thousands of people every year. As a doctor, that kind of concern is probably on the same level as smoking or over prescription of addicting drugs.
        What is the NRA afraid of, I wonder?

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:20:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just another illustration of the political (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angryallen

      consequences of gun control.

      We warned you.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:18:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, Senator, focus on the health states that lead (6+ / 0-)

    to death of Americans.

    From the CDC:

    Heart disease: 597,689
    Cancer: 574,743
    Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
    Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
    Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
    Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
    Diabetes: 69,071
    Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
    Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
    Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

    #5 and #10 look like bullets could be involved

    Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance. Kurt Vonnegut

    by ToKnowWhy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:00:03 AM PDT

    •  From the CDC report ordered by Pres Obama: (0+ / 0-)
      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). Despite this progress, more than 600 people in the United States died as a result of an unintentional discharge of a firearm in 2010 (Hoyert and Xu, 2012).
      Less than 1%

      Regarding #10, rope, alcohol, aspirin & high buildings are also involved; However those objects aren't involved in a recent political discussion that involves prohibition.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:30:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Silly frankie. (8+ / 0-)

        There is no political discussion involving prohibition in this story. Of course, it's a lot easier to feel right when you pretend there is some effort to ban all guns than to actually discuss reality.

        •  Assault Weapons BAN (0+ / 0-)

          A ban is a prohibition.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:03:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Durr. (6+ / 0-)

            Clearly all guns are already prohibited, since I am banned from owning a nuclear weapon.

            •  ...... (0+ / 0-)

              You support the prohibition of legal objects.
              The AWB bans guns. It even says so in the title in order to clear up any confusion.

              But do continue with your debate with the English language. It is truly captivating.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:36:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  me shoot things gud u no take gun (3+ / 0-)
                "You support the prohibition of legal objects."
                You certainly provided lots of proof for this claim.

                I suppose with all the empty space available in it's place, it makes sense your mind is an echo chamber.

                •  Oh? So you don't support the AWB? (0+ / 0-)

                  Glad to hear that.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:55:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Weren't assault weapons formerly illegal to buy? (3+ / 0-)

                    And wasn't it because of NRA lobbying that the ban was not continued? Has not our nation had a long tradition of gun restrictions?

                    I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to hunters and sportsmen/women, but I can't help but notice that your argument here is disingenuous. And from what I've observed thus far here, it seems that for much of the RKBA contingent, there exists no reasonable middle ground.

                    What the RKBA folks here and elsewhere think about the NRA meddling in the nomination of a Surgeon General whose opinions merely reflect those of a great many other medical professionals on gun control is certainly relevant, as you folks are the same people who form the membership of the NRA, and who nevertheless wield some influence on the NRA even when not active members.

                    What, all Presidential nominees must pass the scrutiny of the NRA, regardless if they lack any real power to enact legislation or regulations that run counter to NRA aims? What's next, they must withstand scrutiny from the Chamber of Commerce?  ALEC?

                    •  Yes. No. Kind of. (0+ / 0-)

                      Yes. Assault Weapons were formerly illegal to buy.
                      The only effect it had was to usher in the Republican Revolution & lead to Gore losing his home state (and thus the Presidency) to GWBush.

                      No. It wasn't because of NRA lobbying. It was due to sunset & because of the above issues, there wasn't any push to renew it.

                      Kind of. There is the NFA of 1934 & the GCA of 1968. But by and large the RKBA has remained fairly consistent.

                      but I can't help but notice that your argument here is disingenuous.
                      How so?
                      for much of the RKBA contingent, there exists no reasonable middle ground.
                      How so? What middle ground is it that you are envisioning?
                      NRA meddling in the nomination of a Surgeon General
                      It has more to do with the constituents of the 10 Democratic Senators that won't vote for his nomination.
                      What, all Presidential nominees must pass the scrutiny of the NRA
                      No. All Presidential nominees must pass the scrutiny of the Senate....and when the Senate's majority party is the same party of the President, it's not that high of a bar. That Murthy can't clear that very low bar should be a hint about how much of a loser gun control is.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:06:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's entirely about the nra idiots. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Caittus

                        Are one of them?

                      •  Right, so your argument was disingenuous. (3+ / 0-)
                        Yes. Assault Weapons were formerly illegal to buy.
                        It is naïve to think the NRA isn't in large part responsible for not getting the ban renewed and for the pressure being put on Senators not to confirm this Surgeon General nominee. I don't think you're that naïve. What does that leave?

                        Funny how you turn that around. What is the RKBA group's idea of reasonable middle ground? Because I have yet to see any sign of it. In fact, I see little flexibility, only rigidity.

                        It's interesting how RBKA proponents here are ducking the question about if they support the NRA stance on this Surgeon General nominee, while refusing to acknowledge their own complicity.

                        •  "What does that leave?" (0+ / 0-)

                          Their constituents. The NRA was vastly outspent in Colorado, yet Democratic Senators in districts that voted for Obama by 19 points, less than a year prior lost with 20-30% of registered Democrats voting for their recall.
                          Then it happened twice more....all in a state that had never had so much as a successful recall petition in their 134 year history.

                          What is the RKBA group's idea of reasonable middle ground?
                          1) I'm not a member
                          2) "Middle ground" means you give something in order to get something. Generally I've found that gun controllers version of 'middle ground' is taking slightly less while continuing to offer jackshit.
                          It's interesting how RBKA proponents here are ducking the question about if they support the NRA stance on this Surgeon General nominee
                          You mean the stance supported by 10 Democratic Senators?

                          Gun Controllers wanted this mess.
                          They got it.
                          Now they get to take responsibility for it.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:19:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Lots of smoke, little honesty. (2+ / 0-)

                            Sorry, I'm not buying that you're that naïve. And I'm not that naïve it can't be perceived that you are arguing here from the standard RKBA Democrat angle, whether you are a card-carrying member or not.

                            What actually happened in Colorado has been explored here and elsewhere at some length, and I'm not buying simplistic explanations, nor do I think wasting a bunch of time and space here to rehash that canard is appropriate.

                            Middle ground means just what it says. I see people wanting to repeal the 2nd open to compromise, I see plenty of us already in the middle, and then you have the RKBA camp sitting in a fixed position, unwilling to budge.

                          •  I am describing actual events & actual elections. (0+ / 0-)

                            You are offering nothing but opinion-barf with big chunks of 'naive'.
                            The elections in Colorado were anything but 'simplistic': they involved numerous firsts: 1st,2nd & 3rd successful recall petitions in Colorado history. First time an incumbent lost an election in a district that went for the same party by 19 points the year before. First time an incumbent lost with a 6-to-1 spending advantage. First time 20-30% of a party switched parties in a year.
                            Your ignoring of these unprecedented & humiliating elections is willful ignorance.

                            standard RKBA Democrat angle,
                            I don't even know what you are referring to. Care to explain?
                            Middle ground means just what it says. I see people wanting to repeal the 2nd open to compromise, I see plenty of us already in the middle,
                            Oh? Then what is it that you are willing to give? I am honestly unaware.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:06:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who's behind making the SG nominee's views on gun (0+ / 0-)

                            control, views that are widely shared in the medical community, an issue? Most constituents could care less about who the SG is as long as they are qualified to do the job. Should this mean that only nominees that are staunchly on the RKBA side, regardless of better qualified candidates that may be available, should be nominated? Or that nominees can't be candid in their confirmation hearings? Since when does the S.G. enact gun control legislation? Since when has the S.G. ever had any real influence on enacting gun control legislation?

                            You're ignoring that Democrats could vote for the nominee while insulating themselves from the gun control issue, which is irrelevant to the candidate's qualifications to perform the duties of the position, which is the only thing the confirmation process should be about. Why not bring in the abortion issue while we're at it? The ACA? Women's contraceptives? The list goes on and on, and there is a whole grab bag of traps that could be laid out by conservatives for any potential candidate that doesn't toe their line. You're being willfully ignorant of how the NRA is corrupting our democracy. By your twisted logic, any nominee that isn't conservative enough in their views is going to cost these Dems their seat. What this is really all about is just another ploy for the NRA to advance their narrow agenda, by silencing critical voices. And you're certainly attempting to do your part to assist.

                            You're also trying to be slick by turning things around again. What is the RKBA side willing to concede? Besides, using the middle to bargain against is just a disingenuous way of moving the goal posts closer to the RKBA side of the field.

                          •  You are actually arguing that the electorate is (0+ / 0-)

                            TOO informed?!

                            If a candidate made tweets that were anti-abortion & Planned Parenthood pointed it out, would that be a 'corruption of democracy'?

                            By your twisted logic, any nominee that isn't conservative enough in their views is going to cost these Dems their seat.
                            1) I am arguing for liberal gun laws.
                            2) Again. Ten. Democratic. Senators.
                            What this is really all about is just another ploy for the NRA to advance their narrow agenda, by silencing critical voices.
                            By utilizing Democracy.
                            Those bastards.
                            You're also trying to be slick by turning things around again.
                            1) No. I'm trying to find out what gun controllers are willing to offer. Don't call it the 'middle ground' if you're not willing to give something.
                            2) We don't have to concede anything. Gun Controllers are so politically toxic they can't even protect Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts from elections during non-election years. Hell, they can't even manage to get a Surgeon General nominated in a Democratic held Senate.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:38:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Non-responsive to the arguments. (0+ / 0-)

                            As I said:

                            By your twisted logic, any nominee that isn't conservative enough in their views is going to cost these Dems their seat.
                            The same twisted argument you're using for voicing a liberal position on gun control could be used for the nominee voicing a liberal opinion on another conservative issue. The answers you give have nothing to do with that argument. The civil rights nominee wasn't blocked because of his views on gun control, but because he was unjustly maligned by conservatives for ably representing a former client.
                            Since when does the S.G. enact gun control legislation? Since when has the S.G. ever had any real influence on enacting gun control legislation?
                            You're ignoring that Democrats could vote for the nominee while insulating themselves from the gun control issue, which is irrelevant to the candidate's qualifications to perform the duties of the position, which is the only thing the confirmation process should be about.
                            You provide no response to these arguments. Is Planned Parenthood or its supporters going to seek to block a Republican President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury because they are pro-life? Very doubtful. Is the ACLU and its supporters going seek to block a Republican President's Secretary of the Interior nominee because they support the death penalty? Again, very doubtful. The argument isn't about people being informed or democracy, as is being deviously and tortuously misrepresented, it was about corrupting democracy to advance the NRA's narrow agenda.
                            I'm trying to find out what gun controllers are willing to offer. Don't call it the 'middle ground' if you're not willing to give something.
                            We don't have to concede anything.
                            Yeah, still trying to be slick. The middle ground it the ground between two opposing camps. The NRA represents one extreme, the side wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment represents the other extreme. The majority wanting to enact common sense gun controls represents the middle ground. You have continually refused to answer what concessions the NRA is willing to offer. In fact, your words confirm here what I have been asserting all along, and which you have been tacitly arguing against, which is that the NRA position is rigid and not open to compromise. What compromises those wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment are willing to make is irrelevant when there is no corresponding willingness from the other side.
                          •  Way to respond to yourself. (0+ / 0-)

                            Top notch.

                            "compromise"
                            Compromise means that both sides are willing to give something up.
                            What is something gun controllers are willing to give in order to get what they want?
                            I am honestly unaware. Spell it out for me.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:11:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  It is this kind of crap which makes it clear that (2+ / 0-)

            the gun fetishists should not have a seat at the table when we eventually confront the gun violence problem at the national level.

            •  So long as there are free elections, you don't (0+ / 0-)

              get to make that choice.

              But there are 3 Democratic Senators from Colorado whom no longer have jobs & a prospective Surgeon General whom won't even get to start thanks to your viewpoint.
              Great job with that, BTW.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:02:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It's still winter here, but I see that cherry (7+ / 0-)

        picking season is in full wherever you live.

        Bottom line: more than half of all suicides in the US involve firearms.  Almost 70% of the homicides in this country are due to gun violence.  Those are clearly national level health issues, and it would be great to see a progressive surgeon general out in front of this just as C Everett Koop did with AIDS almost 30 years ago.

      •  Is there actually a CDC report? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        The only thing I have ever seen is a large document with a proposed methodology that describes some figures as at a high level in anticipation of an actual study - is appears on their website. I am not aware that an actual report was ever completed.

        •  Here's the link (0+ / 0-)

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:43:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is still not a report (0+ / 0-)

            It is only a description of what should be researched and references some discussion and past thoughts on the topic. The name itself is 'Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm Related Violence'

            See sentence example below.

            'The committee identified potential research topics by conducting a survey of previous relevant research, considering input received during the workshop, and using its expert judgment.'

            I do not believe the actual study was ever completed.

  •  And yet many legislators from the same party were (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, laurnj

    absolutely incensed when a former Surgeon General suggested masturbation.

    Yet another case where they want it both ways.

     

  •  Better Know A District (0+ / 0-)

    ...is one of my favorite things in existence.

    Forward thinking!

    by TheC on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:10:17 PM PDT

  •  Well, telling the truth gets you nowhere quick. (7+ / 0-)
    Well, I guess that'll teach Dr. Murthy to make wild accusations about politicians being scared of the NRA.
    These guys' irony meters must be busted.

    "I guess you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff." -Sora, Hollow Bastion, KH2

    by SphericalXS on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:40:58 PM PDT

  •  His other crime... (12+ / 0-)

    was to call for the end of the ban for CDC research on gun violence (which the NRA put in place).

    Sign the petition to confirm Dr. Murthy.

  •  Rand Paul's and Barasso's comments in that clip (4+ / 0-)

    could have been pulled from one of the RKBA diaries on this site with minimal paraphrasing.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:32:25 PM PDT

  •  So... (4+ / 0-)

    ...do we now look to lobbyists to educate our representatives on issues of health and medicine?

    Are they in a better position to advise our representatives than someone with an actual medical degree and experience in the field?

    Is a contrary opinion so terrifying to this lobbyist that they can't bear to even allow a discussion on of the product their clients produce? Does the evidence in favor of their product not withstand scrutiny? Is that evidence not strong enough to stand on its own?

    Do we fear the perceived bias of this individual while simultaneously embracing the bias evident by the actions of this particular lobbyist?

    Do we want a special interest group -- any special interest group -- manipulating our system of government? Should this interference be rewarded?

    We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.

    by EighteenCharacters on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:10:02 PM PDT

  •  DailyKoz Webmaster. (0+ / 0-)

    Hey, ARE YOU EIGHT YEARS OLD?!?!
    who else would embed 6 (That's right SIX videos that ALL OPEN AT ONCE, unleashing a cacophony of music, voices and applause. Completely unintelligible.
    Jeez. How many a unique hits had this article received today, and each one is assaulted by a wall of noise.
    Congratulations, you made your page look like a middle-school IT project.

  •  You can have my finger gun when you pry it (0+ / 0-)

    from my . . . no wait, that won't feel very good at all. :(

    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 10:14:40 PM PDT

  •  Murthy is about more than guns (0+ / 0-)

    Speaking as a gun owner and member of the NRA, it seems to me that Dr. Murthy's professional credentials indicate he would be a good Surgeon General. He's a practicing physician and an innovator in the medical field; he had top marks in school and would seem to know his way around the health issues that would be his responsibility.

    I don't agree with his stand on guns, but he's not being nominated for "Gun General." I would prefer that he focused on more gun safety education, which can be productive, and less on gun politics, which generally isn't.

    I've known doctors that liked guns and doctors that didn't like them. The one thing they had in common is that they were all good doctors. That's why I was happy to be their patient.

    I hope the Senate will ultimately confirm Dr. Murthy.

  •  NRA... (0+ / 0-)

    "NRA=National Rifle Administration=Not Responsible Americans..."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site