Sunday, January 13, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Gun control
Gun control.
Why is this so hard? Because of a lot of Congress just quakes in its shoes when dealing with or discussing the National Rifle Association (NRA). It is truly a shame, but a lot of our Congress is thoroughly beholden to special interests, be they the pharmaceutical industry, the oil companies, the banks, whatever. Wherever there is big money, there is big influence. But the NRA seems to hold special sway over Congress and much of the public.
Someone made the point the other day that people possessing or using grenades or machine guns is no longer an issue. They used to be legal. They were outlawed, and the laws stuck. The same could be done with assault rifles.
Perhaps the reason the assault weapons ban didn't work so well the last time around is that the law was not very strong and allowed for loopholes and workarounds. Shortly after the assault weapons ban was put in place, some gun manufacturers made slight adjustments in their assault weapons to get around the rules. A tough assault weapons ban could be, and ought to be, put in place.
And to issue the usual disclaimer: Neither I, nor any Democrat I know, wants to outright BAN all firearms. NO one is coming for your guns, so just fucking chill out. That's just a scare tactic used by the NRA and others. Quite effectively, I might add. The level of hysteria reaches absurd heights when people talk about guns and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Witness Alex Jones.
Barring an outright assault weapons ban, such as the Bushmaster AR-15 pictured here, we should at least ban high-capacity magazine clips. No hunter needs to have 30 rounds available at the squeeze of the trigger. No one defending their home will need to fire off 10-30 rounds to ward off intruders.
What should be easiest to do would be to extend background checks to ALL weapons purchases, even private transactions between individuals. Even a majority of the NRA membership agrees with that position. Yes, if even private transactions are subject to a rigorous background check, there still will be black market selling without a license or background check. We will NEVER wipe out all of the black markets. That's just human nature.
33 states in the U.S. require no background checks at all for many purchases. Remember the 2nd Amendment's language about a "well-regulated militia". At this time, only FEDERALLY-licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks. That means that most of these localized gun shows require no check at all, so any felon, criminal or thug can waltz into one of several gun shows and waltz out loaded for bear with no background check at all. That's the so-called "gun show loophole." Why should this be tolerated? How is this "well-regulated"?
There are 30 deaths by gunshot per day in the country. 30 per day. Haven't we had enough of this mindless mayhem yet? Why is it that other nations that also allow possession of firearms have much, much MUCH lower rates of homicide than we do. Canada, for example. Or Japan. If anyone can explain it, please do.
It's time to get past the hysteria and special interests and pass some common-sense laws to protect our citizens.
I hope for your sake you never end up in a position like these people.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Is GOP ignorant?
About the previous post I made "CUT SPENDING!", could it be that the GOP is not always LYING but could in fact be simply IGNORANT?
Of course that's a possibility. Just because someone is elected to an office does not mean they are an intelligent, aware person. Big duh on that one. (Plus, they all seem to be Religionistas, so, double duh!)
But, maybe they are not always LYING. Maybe they are in fact IGNORANT. We don't need LIARS OR IGNORANT elected officials. Which would be worse? See below.
 |
| http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/ |
by Steve Benen
I continue to believe one of the more troubling aspects of the debt-ceiling crisis is the fact that those who've instigated the crisis don't seem to know what the debt ceiling is. It's difficult enough to reach a sound remedy to the looming calamity; it's worse when some policymakers do not yet grasp the basic details of the debate.
Last week, for example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested debt-ceiling increases empowers the White House to "spend taxpayer dollars without any limit," though this simply doesn't make sense. Yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added this gem:
Those who followed the 2011 Republican debt-ceiling crisis might recall that the "blank check" talking point was a GOP favorite, repeated ad nauseum, so it shouldn't come as too big a surprise to see it make a comeback.
But as a substantive matter, it's still gibberish. We're not talking about writing checks, blank or otherwise; we're talking about borrowing money to pay for things Congress has already bought. A debt-ceiling increase wouldn't give President Obama any funds or resources; a debt-ceiling increase would allow the administration to finance money that Congress has already authorized to be spent.
As we discussed last week, it's really not that complicated. Congress approves federal spending, the executive branch follows through accordingly. When the legislative branch spends more than it takes in, the executive branch has to borrow the difference.
Who's asking for a "blank check"? What does that even mean?
The next question is whether Lindsey Graham is being cynically dishonest or shockingly ignorant. I don't know the senator personally, and I obviously can't read his mind, but the man has been in Congress for nearly two decades. He's voted for many debt-ceiling increases and he's twice positioned himself as a leading proponent of holding the debt ceiling hostage to advance a far-right agenda.
In other words, Graham has had plenty of time to familiarize himself with the basics of the policy. If, after 18 years on Capitol Hill, the senator still doesn't know what the debt ceiling is, perhaps Graham is in the wrong line of work and he should stop playing with weapons he doesn't understand.
It's more likely that the Republican understands quite well that the "blank check" talking point is nonsense, but he's repeating it anyway in the hopes Americans will be confused by nonsense.
Original.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Cut Spending!
The GOP's big refrain, but only since Obama became President, is to CUT SPENDING!! They keep hammering on and on and on that spending is out of control! The debt is out of control!!
This bullshit is all so transparent to anyone who does not exclusively watch FOX NEWS or listen to Rush Limbaugh.
First, if we have a spending problem at all, we have a MILITARY spending problem. Our military budget is larger than the next 15 nations COMBINED.
Second, look at the chart. This graph was compiled by Forbes magazine, not exactly a left-leaning organization.
It is quite obvious that it's the REPUBLICANS who spend like drunken sailors, and it's the DEMOCRATS who tend to curtail spending. I wish for ONCE the GOP would quit LYING about everything.
Oh, yeah, third, we didn't hear a PEEP out of the CUT SPENDING crowd while George W. Bush gave HUGE tax cuts, started two wars and put them on the U.S. credit card, and passed the Medicare Rx drug fix. He kept the costs of the wars OFF OF THE BOOKS!! And all those "supplementals" were likewise not even listed in any budget!
So, when Obama comes into office, he puts all those costs on the books where they belong, and LO AND BEHOLD, suddenly we have a SPENDING PROBLEM!!
It is obvious to just about anyone that this cry of CUT SPENDING is a ruse to cut back on entitlements, or as some call them, EARNED BENEFITS.
For a long time, the GOP has been trying to "shrink the size of the government so that it could be drowned in a bathtub." They have, by and large, been successful at starving the federal government. And what happens when you shrink government revenues? Well, government program start to be cut or you do go deep into debt. And one of the first places the GOP wants to cut is social programs. Can't EVER cut the military. Oh, no no no!
For the life of me, I don't know why the GOP and Republicans in general seem to HATE THE POOR so much. Do they just hate anyone who is not rich? They seem jealous of anyone getting ANYTHING from the government, unless, of course, it's THEIR friends who are getting government contracts, or their rich friends getting more tax breaks.
The rich already have so much. Why do they resent the less-well-off getting a leg up now and then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
remember
deja vu
indeed
Delete Fox "News"
Probably
