Bill Moyers: “Why Have We Stopped Talking About Guns?”
The murders of George Tiller, Holocaust Museum security guard Stephen T. Johns, and Little Rock army recruiter William Long have generated much talk about hate talk. But what about guns?
We’re arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.
[...]
The fact is, neither party will stand up to the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants. In Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Holocaust Museum, this week’s Democratic primary for governor was won by state legislator R. Creigh Deeds, a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month.
Moyer and Michael Winship conclude by pointing out that there are 200 million privately owned firearms in America 30,000 gun deaths a year, and 400,000 non-fatal gun-related assaults. They are correct when they say guns don’t kill people, people kill people – with guns.
Every gun is a homicide waiting to happen.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Every wacko out there is a homicide waiting to happen.
People like Rocky the “dictator” Liberal who hate freedom, would love to disarm all the innocent law abiding citizens of this county. That way only the criminals would have the guns. They are criminals because they don’t obey our laws. They will have even more power over the law abiding citizens Rocky.
How is banning guns going to help?
And Alan, why not put the stats of crimes that are twarthed because of lawful, law abiding gunowners? Does the fact that over 2,000,000 crimes a year are stopped by law abiding gun owners scare you? It surly puts a big hole in your gun ban argument.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
People like Daddio the Sockpuppet keep quoting all these wonderful statistics they make up out of whole cloth about all the millions and billions of crimes and criminals stopped by gun owners—when in fact the TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES IN 2007 WAS FEWER THAN 2 MILLION according to the FBI’s own statistics.
But, doubtless, you get your numbers from the subversives of the NRA, who will do anything to promote their agenda of gun violence and hate.
Face the facts. Criminals get the vast majority of their guns from so-called law-abiding citizens.
average james Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“People like Rocky the “dictator”Liberal who hate freedom….”—–Daddio
Willio,
How in the world do you know that Rocky and people like him hate freedom ?
This statement smacks of the loud right who regularly attribute motives to others.
Do you have telepathy ? Are you in our heads ? Are you advocating hate crimes legislation ?? You seem to be in command of a super power that enables you to read minds.
I stopped keeping track of how many times I’ve heard the loud right say things like;
Obama hates free enterprise–
Michelle hates america—
Rev. Wright hates america–
Liberals hate america—
Those for gun control hate freedom–
Etc…
I hear this kind of crap from the loud right, incessantly. Haters accusing others of the very thing that they are guilty of. A common playground trick.
I am not fooled and I implore all lefties and righties to not fall into it either.
We need not agree, but throwing hate around doesn’t make anything better, ever.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 2:59 am
well..I think we have a long litany of posts from Rocky to back up Daddio’s point.
Daddio Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
James,
Rocky has made numerous comments that would fit right in with what they do in countries that are run by dictators. You must read his comments more carefully. One needs to pay attention to his words and how he phrases his comments.
I must start writing his comments down in the future.
Daddio Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“…subversives from the NRA who will do anything to promote their agenda of gun violence and hate.”–Rocky.
This quote, James, was from Rocky’s above post. Is that not the “loud left”? Is that not the “haters accusing others of the very thing that they are guilty of.”?
Let’s be fair about this James. But you failed to list Rocky for his comment, while you called me to the carpet for my comment.
goliath43 Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Do you ever read his post nothing but hate
June 14th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
And holding up Bill Moyers as the voice of reason here is just as absurd to conservatives as us using Rush as the voice of reason is to liberals.
Bill Moyers is full of horse hockey. He is just a peon who draws maybe a couple dozen viewers. I’m sorry, but he is awfully close, if not, a follower of Karl Marx.
OldLefty Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I think Moyers, (a Baptist minister AND a journalist), is more like William F Buckley, while Limbaugh can be compared more to a cross between Roseanne Barr and Michael Moore.
4moreyears Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Spot on Old Lefty!
RDM Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Lefty, Roseanne Barr and Michael Moore?
So it’s ok if Liberal celebrities should be able to hire armed bodygards, but guns should be banned for law-abiding Americans?
Daddio Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Exactly what liberal celebrities believe. Rosie O’Donnel said her bodyguard needed a gun to protect her children…right after saying that Americans should be disarmed.
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!!!
People are the problem. I should say the criminals are the problem. They would simple buy guns on the black market if liberals get their wish and disarm the law abiding citizen.
Lefty, please do not dishonor William Buckley by comparing Bill Moyers to him. That is an insult to Buckley’s memory and what he stood for. You owe Buckley’s family an apology.
OldLefty Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
RDM,
#1) Nobody’s banning guns.
#2) I guess anybody who wants can have armed body gaurds….does Michael Moore? I don’t know,but on the May 17 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: “Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out — is this wrong?”
#3)What does body guards and guns have to do with saying that Roseanne Barr and Michael Moore are more comparable in calibar to Rush Limbaugh than Bill Moyers is?
#4)Thanks, 4moreyears.
OldLefty Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Daddio,
Actually, I think YOU owe Bill Moyers and apology.
Limbaugh is not a journalist, or a minister or a scholar….actually, I don’t even like Roseanne Barr, but I might owe her and Michael Moore apologies for comparing them to a drug addled DJ!
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Limbowel isn’t even a college graduate.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:24 am
what does that have to do with anything Rocky????
you know who else isn’t a college graduate?
Bill Gates (Microsoft)
Paul Allen (Microsoft)
Phillip Ruffin (Treasure Island Casino)
Michael Dell (Dell Computers)
Richard Branson (Virgin)
John Paul Dejoria (Paul Mitchell Hair products
Peter Rose ( Expeditors Intl. he didn’t even graduate high school)
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Grover Cleveland
Harry S. Truman (I assume you know these guys)
S. Daniel Abraham (Slim-Fast)
Ansel Adams (famous Photographer..dropped out of high school)
Woody Allen (writer, actor, director)
Wally “Famous” Amos (cookie entrepeneur, droped out of high school)
John Jacob Astor (Americas first multi-millionaire also a high school dropout)
Rosanne Barr (interestingly enough)
Irving Berlin (Oscar Winning Songwriter/composer)
Ray Bradbury (which strangly makes sense)
Winston Churchill
Mark Twain
Sean John (P.Diddy, Puffy) Combs
Jack Kent Cook (billionaire, long time owne r of Washington Redskins)
Simon Cowell
Charles Culpeper (coca-cola)
Davy Crocket….do you really want to mess with Davy effing Crocket
Richard DeVos (Amway)
Walt Disney
Florence Nightingale
John D. Rockefeller Sr…that seemed to turn out fairly well.
J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)
Peter Jennings
Steve Jobs (Apple)
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Guido,
Impressive list of influential people.
You done good.
College degrees aren’t everything, but I still think the kiddies should stay in school.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Here in the modern age of the 21st century most people who have half a brain actually graduate from college, and someone like Limbowel proves my point nearly every time he opens his big fat gaping maw.
RDM Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Lefty,
Is your favorite film Fahrenheit 9-11?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:09 am
James,
I’m not saying it’s good to drop out of school…but Rocky’s post was so ignorant I thought it warranted being called out on.
Abraham Lincoln never graduated college, the greatest president ever (unless you want to argue for George Washington…oh wait he’s on that same list)
Especially when we’re talking about business the point of college seems to be A students teaching B students how to work for C students (or drop outs)
EricG Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I think you are doing exactly what I do when I call Sean Hannity a Nazi promoter or Rush Limbaugh a theocratic promoter.
Sounds nice, gets the blood pumping … but it’s all horse-hockey.
“People are the problem. I should say the criminals are the problem.”
Then what do we do? Ignore the situation as the streets fill with illegal firearms?
Like usual I don’t see any offer of a solution from the right wing on this issue.
The right wing, Daddio here had picked up the torch for this thread, wants to make the issue about anything but the fact that unregulated guns and gun sales is contributing to criminal black markets worldwide.
Moyers is right.
“please do not dishonor William Buckley by comparing Bill Moyers to him.”
Calm down, stop hating Moyers for long enough to just think on it. I tend to agree with Lefty.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The peeps in da hood shoot each other for their tennis shoes or because they went to a differnt school[ with illegal] guns, so WTF ?
When guns are illegal so too will MINE be !
[cuz I'm keepin my tennis shoes] !
EricG Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
White morons shoot each other over who insulted who outside of the square dance hall … you saying that one is better than the other?
You going to at long last reveal yourself as a racist disguised as a conservative?
michael Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Eric,
I think that Jerry is a satirical character. He has to be!
EricG Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Maybe … I have no clue in the end.
It’s a lot of work to come in here day after day and bring the same low-intelligence hatred against America … I tend to believe the opposite.
He is a moron or a drug addict or mentally unstable.
You listening Jerry? Go take your meds dude.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
The Eric said: Maybe … I have no clue in the end. It’s a lot of work to come in here day after day and bring the same low-intelligence hatred against America …
K: Keep at it, Eric, don’t quit now…
flap Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“You going to at long last reveal yourself as a racist disguised as a conservative?”
I think you’re making progress, EricG, by at least implying it’s possible to be a conservative without being a racist.
You’re doing great! Next is working with clay.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
When guns are illegal so to will mine be. The peeps in the hood shoot each other for their tennis shoes. I intend to keep mine [tennis shoes].
June 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
So, regarding this motel shooting on June 11th, I assume you as the victim, would have just took being assualted and shot for no apparent reason rather than having your own gun to defend yourself with such as this gentleman did. Difference between him and you. He’s alive. One of the goblins is dead. You? You’d be dead, goblin would be on his way to the next murder.
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/mobile/Norfolk_motel_shooting_death_20090611
Face that.
EricG Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Face this:
Your love for your guns and fear of everyone else in this country is making you insane.
You listen to your BS repeated back to you and in the end you think there is something ‘noble’ about being obsessed with killing others and just simply waiting for an excuse to kill someone.
That’s you. A murderer waiting for an excuse.
These ‘goblins’ you want to shoot are people. You and the rest of the right wing Murder-Worshipers need to turn to Jesus and throw down your tools of death.
Sick little monkeys are going to kill my family, my sisters, my friends and then scream about their rights.
flap Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Stop trying to inject religion and Jesus into this, EricG. Are you a religious zealot? Let people keep their guns.
Turnabout is fair play.
“Sick little monkeys are going to kill my family, my sisters, my friends and then scream about their rights.”
(I think that monkey comment is racist.) But, seriously, you won’t be able to defend your family from idiots with guns because you’re against them. The ultimate irony.
sky Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Why? why should people have guns at all? They are machines made for killing.
Shouldn’t the good guys be the ones without the guns? The ones who use their intelligence/ caring to talk the guy out of shooting them?
Ever hear of the Guardian Angels? or martial arts?
(But seriously, eric, take a break from listening to these right-wingers: I’m worried about your blood pressure ;) . Focus on something positive for a while, maybe.)
libpatriot Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Sky, I’ve heard of the Guardian Angels and martial arts, but it still seems to me that the good guys need to have guns, too. Especially when the bad guys have them.
flap Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Sky, I agree with you, if we could somehow magically remove guns from everyone, then I might be against anyone having them. But bad guys are always gonna have guns.
Good guys WITHOUT guns? Use my mind to prevent someone from harming me? How? By explaining to them they have no right to harm me, and they’ll be prosecuted, blah, blah, blah? They may just blow me away.
Hey, I’m all for martial arts and Guardian Angels. My brother takes jiu-jitsu and I think he’s a lethal weapon with all those crazy arm bars. Despite that, I would still advise him to get a gun (if he doesn’t have one).
In addition, the 2nd Amendment says we have a right to arm ourselves for protection.
Lee Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
For every dubious pro-gun anecdote like this one, I can equally give you an opposing anecdote where a child or other innocent victim died because someone chose to own a gun and ‘defend themself’.
But to cut to the big picture here and the truth, lets look at a government study on the topic (note not NRA or Brady gun control etc):
The conclusion is:
“Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.”
and note that in reaching this conclusion:
“Our study extends previous work by using recent data, looking across both regions and all 50 states, disaggregating victims by age, and adjusting for potential confounders, including poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery.”
Unfortunately this notion that gun ownership makes you and your family safer has created a problem in our country which is out of control and no longer has any easy solutions.
However, changing the mindset of the gun proponents and 2nd amendment rights activists, would be a great start in making our country a safer place
flap Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Yeah, but Lee, that’s like saying seat belts or airbags kill people. Guns are dangerous. Guns kill people. Of course. Control is not the answer. It doesn’t make sense when bad guys themselves are armed to disarm the population. Bad assault weapons, etc. I’m okay with that, actually. But it should be very easy to get a gun. VERY easy.
“Adjusting for potential confounders.”
How do I know if that’s accurate? I have a hunch that the disproportionately large amount of people dying from homicide is in no small part to bad guys having guns in those locations. I don’t necessarily trust this government study. When was this done? Who did it?
Lee Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Flap,
It was done by the National Institute of Health (NiH) and was from 2002. I couldn’t get past the spam filter yesterday even after removing the first part of the web reference so I couldn’t post the link. However, should be simple to find.. and I wanted to avoid posting something easily debatable like the Kellerman study etc
Anyway, stating its ‘like saying seat belts or airbags kill people’ is not true and missing the point. If having seat belts/airbags in a car versus those that dont have them led to higher incidence of vehicular crashes/injuries then you would have a point as it would be a more precise analogy.. but they don’t and therefore you don’t..
It’s the flamingo approach to pretend that guns aren’t the problem and that more guns are the answer. I think knee-jerk reactions either way will just make the problem a lot worse. It’s become a complicated mess..
On balance, I personally think a general ban on handguns maybe the best approach. However, it would need to be researched properly first and realistically such a ban has no chance of occurring within the next 20 years, if at all.
However, before trying to find the solution, I wish I understood the cause better. I mean we have a culture of gun ownership yet so do a lot of countries (including Canada) and yet they have nowhere near the homicide rate. Why? Ethnic diversity/clashes? Climate? Cultural reasons? Help me out here..
Truth is, I’d love for someone to tell me the answer there..
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Lee,
the fact that homicide rates are higher here even when compared to other countries that have high rates of gun ownership should let you know right away that banning any sort of gun is not the solution. It’s not the guns that are killing everyone. It’s the nutjobs pulling the triggers.
flap Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:17 am
“I personally think a general ban on handguns maybe the best approach.”
Lee, that’s insanity. First of all, from a practical/political perspective that’s like getting rid of the IRS, or maybe even harder. Never happening.
My analogy may not have been the best about the seat belts and airbags. My point is, the case could be made that seat belts kill people. If someone crashes and burns and can’t get out, the seat belt kills them. But seat belts save many lives as well. Not the best analogy on my part.
And I don’t know about the homicide rate compared to other countries. I’ll ask you this: is it EASIER for criminals to procure guns in this country versus those other ones with supposedly low homicide rates?
I’m sure there are many factors, Lee. Maybe you’re right that a gun ban would prevent violence on balance but I see it as a very, very bad move that would allow people NOT to be able to protect themselves from people who DO have guns and will IGNORE the ban and, frankly, not in line with the 2nd Amendment. What about all the criminals that ignore the ban and can terrorize those who cannot own guns? It would make the situation a LOT worse!
Perhaps if a mainstream non-lethal mechanism of disarming someone could become popular that was similar to a gun…crossbow, taser, etc., I could see that as an alternative to guns. But still not the same thing.
I think legalizing drugs (at least marijuana) would help reduce homicides.
Lee Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Flap,
After the Dunblane tragedy in the UK, the UK enacted a complete ban on handguns. Now while it is by no means an apples to apples comparison, the likelihood that decision saved lives in the UK is very high.
I completely agree that a handgun ban is unrealistic due mainly to the power of the NRA, the current interpretation of the second amendment and the will of the many gun proponents in this country.
However, it is far from insane. The argument that “you won’t be able to defend yourself” is just a false soundbite and to some extent dumbs down the problem.
I believe a security camera (or even a guard dog) is much better protection against burglaries than a gun. Home invaders are usually just looking for money/valuables and not out to harm any occupants. So its a lot of risk to take. Besides, as I stated earlier, for every anecdote you can offer about someone defending themselves/their property thanks to a gun, I’ll give you one where an innocent victim died because someone exercised their 2nd amendment rights.
But anyway.. what I believe is the ‘insane’ answer is yet more guns/gun ownership as a solution to solve the problem. This is like throwing fuel onto the fire and will not solve anything. Innocent victims will persist, bad guys will still have guns, bad guys will still burglarize homes, assault people, rob people etc.
The only difference is that now more human beings will die..
Lee Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:43 am
“It’s not the guns that are killing everyone. It’s the nutjobs pulling the triggers.”
Guido, but my point was that indeed even though we have all these guns why do have the homicides. The fact that ‘the guns’ aren’t alone responsible for the high homicide rate doesn’t stop removing legal ownership as a possible solution.
But anyway, why do we have all these ‘nutjobs’ then? What is unique about this country?
Lee Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Flap,
It is far from insane to suggest a ban. I really don’t believe the average violent criminal is deterred by the idea that his/her victims may possess a gun. In fact, as the study I provided implied, it actually increases your chances of getting hurt. So the argument that ‘you wont be able to defend yourself’ is not only false but dumbs down what is a more complicated problem.
I don’t know that a handgun ban is the best solution. I just don’t know a better one right now. I would suggest that most guns that fall into the hands of bad guys are obtained either legally or robbing someone who had obtained them legally. If you gradually get these off the streets, then it would imply gun homicide figures have to similarly drop.
However, as you said a gun ‘ban’ is not going to happen, certainly not in the near future. But more guns is definately not the solution but just fuel for the fire.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 3:04 am
we have a divisive and angry culture. race wars, drug wars, political wars, persecution complexes abound.
There are lots of reasons we have so many nutjobs. however if I ever encounter a nut job I’d feel safer if I had the ability to quickly and decisively stop him/her from harming me.
Some gun laws make sense, waiting periods are not insidious in themselves, as it retards people from making rash decisions.
But banning one type of gun or another isn’t helpful or stop anything, and are quite counterintuitive.
Super restrictive concealed weapons permits and laws make it harder for people to legally carry guns, putting people in the hands of those that don’t follow laws.
Ever since schools became “gun free” zones school shootings have gotten bigger and more frequent.
Lee Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Guido,
Maybe you are really good with guns. Maybe you train regularly. Maybe if someone attacked you and you had a chance to draw your gun, you could ‘defend yourself’, maybe..
As I stated before, the facts clearly show that the presence of guns raises the stakes and makes you more likely to get hurt, not less likely.
The only time I feel using a gun makes sense is where you or your family are in serious physical danger. Otherwise, it makes little sense to risk your (and their) life over some material possession etc
And those isolated examples of where a gun is a good thing don’t for me outweigh the negatives such as innocent victims/gun suicides etc
flap Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Lee, I guess many of those who are gun advocates (ignoring the hunting aspect) really worry about being able to protect themselves. I really don’t have the pulse of people who own guns, as I don’t own any, but I bet many of them feel that way, and many of them with good reason.
So, that said, as I suggested, if there was a really good, easy, popular way to non-lethally protect yourself that could combat a weapon (like a taser), maybe gun sales could be curbed. It would have to be something that could essentially take someone out who had a gun from a similar range.
I’m all for reducing violence and getting guns out of the hands of bad guys, but I just worry about a handgun ban or too much restriction doing the exact opposite. Maybe it wouldn’t. I don’t know.
Kregg Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Flap said: … but I just worry about a handgun ban or too much restriction doing the exact opposite. Maybe it wouldn’t. I don’t know.
K: Flap, do you know any bad guys – who already break laws – willing to turn in their guns so as to obey a new law prohibiting them? Neither do I… ;-)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Lee,
I’d rather get hurt defending myself than be under the control of someone who would take away my life and liberty, but that’s just me.
flap Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“Flap, do you know any bad guys – who already break laws – willing to turn in their guns so as to obey a new law prohibiting them?”
I’m with you, Kregg. I generally think it’s a bad idea.
goliath43 Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Americans own nearly 200 million guns, 65 million of which are handguns.
One-quarter of adults in the United States own a gun and only about one in six Americans (16%) own a handgun. That means that five out of six Americans do not own a handgun.
Banning guns is not the answer if 5 out of 6 don’t own them which would suggest that bad guys are getting their guns illegally. If you gradually get hand guns off the street the only ones with handguns are the bad guys.
Lee Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Goliath,
Those statistics are largely irrelevant to the debate. In determining where bad guys get their guns, you need to actually try and answer that question..
My belief is that most guns are either purchased directly or stolen from legal owners. Therefore, a gun ban would remove both those sources of guns for ‘bad guys’.
Will there still be guns left on the streets? Sure.. and thats a problem. However, there is no doubt the number of guns on the streets would decrease as they are removed from convicted criminals and become prohibitively expensive for the average thug to obtain..
Again, this is a complicated argument and it completely dumbs down the question to wave your hands and blindly state that if you take away the guns you ‘cannot defend yourself’..
That position is just a mantra that proponents repeat over and over again without really trying to understand why it isn’t true.
Maybe a blanket ban isn’t the answer.. maybe it needs to be phased.. maybe it needs to be coupled with other measures (which so far haven’t been enforced properly or worked).
But again, more guns is definately not the solution.
Daddio Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I do know the second amendment guarantees me the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It doesn’t list which type of gun I may have. I haven’t broken any laws so therefore banning my guns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And anyone who bans or is a party to banning guns should be brought up on charges and put in prison. The second amendment is the one amendment that protects all the others.
goliath43 Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Those statistics are largely irrelevant to the debate. In determining where bad guys get their guns, you need to actually try and answer that question..
I think I just did.
Lee said:My belief is that most guns are either purchased directly or stolen from legal owners.
Did you come up with that on your own?
The point is it is my right to own a firearm for protection or sport or a doorstop if I choose. Enforce the laws on the books and get tough on criminals using firearms. Defend yourself how you want by hiding in the closet and hope the criminal doesn’t open the door but he knocks on my door notify the morge because they will have a customer.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Funny how [they] want your guns AND your Bible huh?
OldLefty Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I still think Jerry’s a liberal, or is this what they mean by “drive by media?”?…..Someone who throws in some silly bumper sticker saying then runs off?
June 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
NRA- best known front group for the arms merchants. Interesting point. They all have to be working together spewing out all the “Barack taking your guns away paranoia.” It makes sense if you look at the increase in gun sales. Whatever makes a profit even if it involves telling lies. Barack’s done more for gun rights in six months than what Bush did in eight years and he’s still supposed to be wanting to restrict gun rights. BTW I too don’t want the government restricting the rights of gun owners. People will always find a way to kill each other in this world.
libpatriot Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
100% agreement, Crh3e.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Agreed.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I agree…but that’s what special interest groups do…on all sides.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
There’s nothing wrong with some common sense gun regulations. It would in no way restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun for protection. Fact is that the Virginia Tech shooter came into possession of all of his guns legally, despite his clear history of mental illness. Sure, someone like him may then try to obtain his guns illegally, but at least that would give him another hoop to jump through, and would increase the likelihood that he would get caught in the planning stages of the act.
flap Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:55 am
“Clear history of mental illness…”
So if I suffer from bad bipolar disorder or bad clinical depression I can’t protect myself? The VTech guy was a nutcase and there’s no real barometer to pinpoint loons or when they will go loony to the point of gun violence. Everyone has mental illness to an extent…libs more than others. (Just kidding, had to slip that in!) But, seriously, there are too many variables and too many people to really legislate proper parameters on whether “you’re too crazy to own a gun.”
Even so, according to Wikipedia, Cho was declared essentially as a harm risk and shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun if the federal laws ON THE BOOKS were enforced.
But he slipped through, even with a law in place. What WOULD have protected VTech is if the campus was loaded with law-abiding citizens that were concealed carriers. Bastard locked the doors so no one could get out. 32 people killed. It would have been nice for that poor Holocaust survivor professor (who died trying to protect others) to have whipped out a 357 and put a bullet in that guy’s head.
michael Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
flap,
I have a friend who has bad bipolar, and no, I don’t think he should be able to purchase a gun. It would be an extreme safety risk to mostly to himself, but possibly to others too. Same goes for people with severe cases of clinical depression, untreated alcoholism or drug abuse, or any other sort of condition that would significantly impair the person’s ability to make rational decisions.
This is not out of a desire to not allow these people to protect themselves, it is simply out of a need to protect THEM as well as OTHERS who may be put in danger if they own a gun. All constitutional rights extend only to the point where they would be infringing upon the rights of others. I believe that selling guns to people with severe mental illness infringes on that person and the general public’s “right to life”, and at least their right to safety.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Good points Michael,
Provacative. Makes ya think.
flap Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“Significantly impair the person’s ability to make rational decisions.”
I think being associated with the Democratic Party might fall into the above category. I’m partially joking but partially not insofar as that’s SO subjective.
Your bad bipolar friend…YOU think he should not be able to purchase a gun. Maybe he wants to protect himself! Why should his disease impinge on his ability to defend himself? There’s a large gray area and though I personally don’t want psychotics wielding guns it’s also dangerous to be curbing people’s rights just because they have a mental condition.
If a person is not forcibly committed, why should we be restricting their constitutional rights? Drug abusers and alcohol abusers probably need to be committed as well. If they’re out among the population, and can drive vehicles and wield knives, why not guns?
June 14th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“guns don’t kill people”
yes they do. Fallacious argument right there.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Investigators found 10 rounds in [museum shooter James] von Brunn’s rifle and a signed, handwritten screed in his car. “You wanted my weapons – this is how you’ll get them,” von Brunn wrote.
Who’s to argue with that kind of logic?
sky Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
!!!???
meaning?
anonymouse Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
They have to arm themselves up to keep someone from taking their arms away from them.
It makes perfect sense.
sky Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
oh.
I guess I read it more as: “If you want to take my guns away, then I will kill a bunch of people”…
which didn’t read as so funny.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:40 am
“You wanted my weapons – this is how you’ll get them,” means the same thing as “From my cold dead hands…”
It’s a threat against the legitimate authority of the government to regulate weapons and ammunition. It’s saying never mind the rule of law. They’ll shoot to kill.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:29 am
there is no legitimate authority to regulate weapons…at least in theory.
June 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The reason there is nary a peep from the white house on guns is, they are not now, nor have they been, anti-guns. Obama said it, said it more than once.
The gun confiscation paranoia has been fueled by the loud right, along with ‘fairness doctrine’ and tax hikes and lax security, socialism and more.
All of it bullsh#t.
libpatriot Reply:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Like you, Average James, I see no evidence whatsoever that Barack Obama is against gun rights. Obama shows no passion at all for restricting gun rights. None. Nada. Zip. He even recently signed a bill into law that contained a provision allowing guns back into our national parks, effective next year. On this issue, Obama is not Al Gore (who frequently voiced his support for further gun-control legislation, which probably cost him his home state in the 2000 election). But I get the feeling that the NRA thinks all Democrats are alike.
Having said that, the posts on this topic by my fellow liberals blaming guns for crimes makes me cringe! I have to agree with Daddio and say that guns aren’t the problem, criminals are.
The gun confiscation paranoia has been very profitable for businesses selling guns & ammo, so even if gun-shop merchants don’t believe that Obama is really anti-gun, they’re not very likely to come out and say so.
libpatriot Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:01 am
“But I get the feeling that the NRA thinks all Democrats are alike”–at least with respect to Democrats that run for president.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:20 am
I get that feeling too.
flap Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:57 am
I agree…Barack Obama doesn’t seem all that anti-gun. He’s less gun friendly than Republicans, so he’s demonized to an extent.
But, hey, it’s stimulated the economy by upping gun sales I guess.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Alrighty Flap.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:07 am
What’s James Brady’s party affiliation these days ?
June 14th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
The Goblins are people? Sure, they are always the victims when THEY end up shot after attacking an innocent bystander. They were “Just turning their lives around” – Right? If godforbid you or someone in your family become a victim of one of these “people” – I’m going want you to tell me that you still consider them “misunderstood, victim of their circumstances people” – After they have maimed, raped, or killed one of your family members. And, if they stab you with a knife, and leave you to die – Hold that stabwound for as long as you can, while seconds count, the police are only minutes away. You attack me or one of my loved ones, you better know what you’re doing otherwise you will get a piece of brass.
If YOU don’t want to exercise your right to refuse to be a victim – Fine. But, you aren’t going to infringe on my rights.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I’m sorry but you anti-gun folks need to consider that criminals are going to get their hands on guns no matter what you do, they always have and always will. All your gun-banning does is prevent regular citizens from obtaining ownership.
Second comes personal responsibility. If you drive your car drunk and kill someone. Would you blame the car? If someone killed your wife with a knife, would you blame the knife? You can look to Britain and how their gun-ban worked. All the “good” guys got screwed and the criminals reigned supreme. The VT shooter obtained his guns legally and fell through the cracks? – If he couldn’t of got a gun (which he would have illegally) – He just would have went to the store and bought some common household chemicals and started making bombs. You gonna call common household chemicals to be banned, too?
Police and guns. Remember that DEA agent who shot himself in the foot with the GLOCK .40 in front of a classroom of children (go ahead, and google it, watch him preach how he’s “The only qualified enough, that I know of to handle this here GLOCK .40… BANG!” – Personal neglegence. Should the DEA officers be barred from guns?
Why is it okay for police to have guns to protect YOU against criminals, but not okay for YOU to have guns to protect YOURSELF from criminals? I’m sure if you were being attacked, raped or worse, and were lucky enough to get out to 911 you’d tell the police to “LEAVE THE GUNS BEHIND!!!”
Right.
Kids and guns. Personal responsibility. Parents accidentally run over their own kids backing out of the driveway many times a year. Oh, but that’s an accident, tragic. When a child gets a gun, same thing? Of course not. Both are personal neglegence, not an accident. Put the parents in jail.
Criminals do not follow the law. It doesn’t apply to them, in their world. You need to understand. When they see your “Gun-Free Home” signs and bumper stickers, they smile and you’re the next stop.
More power to you.
michael Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Timothy,
Your argument is based on the idea that people who favor gun control want to stop ordinary, law abiding citizens from owning guns. This is false. We simply support restrictions that prevent criminals, mentally ill individuals, etc. from being able to legally get their hands on them. Sure, they may seek them out illegally then, but that gives them another hoop to jump through and puts law abiding citizens at an advantage. Since they have to engage in criminal activity in order to even come into possession of a firearm, it means that it’s more likely that they’ll get caught in the planning stages of some sort of big, elaborately planned attack, simply for being in possession of illegal firearms. If folks like this could easily and legally come into possession of firearms, it would be easier for them to keep their plans under wraps. Also, the fact that it is illegal may well deter lesser criminals, e.g., someone who wants to hold up a 7-Eleven to get some money to buy drugs, from purchasing firearms at all. I’m not saying it’s going to stop everybody, but it will at least stop some.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
On my blog I asked the following questions.
“What do you think about that “22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family” idea? Even if it’s wildly exaggerated, let’s say by a factor of five, wouldn’t it still mean that to have a gun in the house is a bad idea?”
You can imagine the response.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:48 am
I worry every day that some wacko nut, fueled what he hears on the radio, is going to shoot our first black president. There already has been something like that -the man in Tennessee who walked into church and shot and killed what he perceived as evil liberals.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
SGL said: I worry every day that some wacko nut, fueled what he hears on the radio, is going to shoot our first black president.
K: I get the feeling that folks on the left somehow feel that nuts need to to be ‘fueled by what they hear on the radio’ to act out. Nuts have been killing people since BEFORE radio so why now blame their motivation on what they listen to?
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:42 am
We’ve never had a black president before. I’m not saying hate radio causes the act, but for those nuts who do listen and act with violence – it serves as reinforcement to their wacked out views.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:55 am
SGL,
I have a similar fear.
You know the wacks are locked and loaded. This is not a groundless fear.
There are always crazies yes, but right now things are very volatile.
I gotta go with SGL on this Kregg.
The paranoia and hate just keeps rolling out of the mouths of the loud right. People are pissed off with completely imaginary scenarios. To the already unbalanced among us it is more fuel on their fire.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 11:41 am
SGL said: We’ve never had a black president before. I’m not saying hate radio causes the act, but for those nuts who do listen and act with violence – it serves as reinforcement to their wacked out views.
K: So, “wacked out” libs shouldn’t be allowed to listen to Alan? I think you’re using conservative radio as an excuse for nuts acting like nuts. BO being black DOES put him at risk for some racist whack job acting out against him but such a person could just as well be a liberal racist as a conservative racist. Who would you blame it on if a Lib racist attacked him? It couldn’t be left-wing radio because there IS none…
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 11:49 am
James said: I gotta go with SGL on this Kregg.
The paranoia and hate just keeps rolling out of the mouths of the loud right. People are pissed off with completely imaginary scenarios. To the already unbalanced among us it is more fuel on their fire.
K: James, would this ‘paranoia and hate’ be of the same sort as rolled from the mouths of the loud left for the 8 years of Bush? There HAVE and alway BE nuts and they don’t need talk radio to entice, encourage, or urge them on.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Come on Kregg,
Be honest, the loud right are speaking to the deranged right, and they are armed.
With the left in power the right are frustrated. The right somehow believe things are going to be taken from them, like guns, like freedom of speech. How did they get these ideas ??
The loud right.
This is not rocket science Kregg.
Of course there have and will always be nuts who need no provocation.
DHS has it right. The conditions are what the conditions are. Rush,Hannity,Levin,Savage,Cunningham,Coulter,NRA,Dobson,Terry,deNugent,Cheney and the rest of the loud right are fomenting fear and hatred. The results cannot be good.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
James said: Come on Kregg, Be honest, the loud right are speaking to the deranged right, and they are armed.
K: I would agree the ‘loud right’ are speaking. All who wish can listen. That does not mean the ‘loud right’ is speaking to the deranged. And, lots of us are armed so its neither accurate or logical to associate armed people with the ‘deranged’ or the ‘right’ any more than it is fair to say that since rapists wear underwear, and since most men wear underwear most men are rapists…
J: With the left in power the right are frustrated. The right somehow believe things are going to be taken from them, like guns, like freedom of speech. How did they get these ideas ??
K: From facts. Who has spoken out for the need to restrict talk radio or make it ‘fair’? Who has spoken out against gun ownership?
J: The loud right. This is not rocket science Kregg.
K: James, I heartily disagree. Just because you defend private gun ownership does not mean you are ‘right’. LibPatriot is just as ‘rabid’ in his defense of gun right as am I. Does that make him “right-wing”?
J: Of course there have and will always be nuts who need no provocation.
DHS has it right. The conditions are what the conditions are. Rush,Hannity,Levin,Savage,Cunningham,Coulter,NRA,Dobson,Terry,deNugent,Cheney and the rest of the loud right are fomenting fear and hatred. The results cannot be good.
K: The people on your list that I’ve actually listened to are NOT ‘fomenting fear and hatred’ unless you have such a low opinion of humans that you think they are simply vessels into which are poured opinions, thoughts, actions, and motives by sinister outside forces. People state their opinions, their frustrations, their beliefs, etc, on talk radio just like we do on this blog but I don’t see you decrying the ‘fomenting of fear and hatred’ that Rocky and Eric and certain others spew. If humans are as susceptible to inference and subliminal suggestion as you believe the right to be then all ya’alls need to be put in jail for giving Rocky and The Eric the time of day… ;-)
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Kregg,
I understand the desire to cede no ground but….This is just silly.
The loud right are speaking to the deranged right. Truth. I am in no way implying that you or even the vast majority of right-wing radio listeners is deranged. I am implying that they are listening. Kregg, I find it hard to believe that you thought I meant otherwise.
I am interested in your facts Kregg.
Obama is not interested in our guns.
Obama is not interested in the fairness doctrine. Facts, based on what the man actually said.
I defend gun ownership and am most certainly not right-wing.
Deflection technique Kregg?
I am speaking about the deranged right.
I again find it hard to believe that you would say that humans are not impressionable and susceptible to inference.
I am dissapointed Kregg.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Kregg,
James said: I understand the desire to cede no ground but….This is just silly.
K: James, there is no ground to cede. I believe your premise is flawed. People talk on the radio. Other people listen. Some of those listeners are nuts and most are not. The premise that right-wing radio is talking to the nuts is flawed – they are talking to whoever will listen.
J: The loud right are speaking to the deranged right. Truth. I am in no way implying that you or even the vast majority of right-wing radio listeners is deranged. I am implying that they are listening. Kregg, I find it hard to believe that you thought I meant otherwise.
K: Your statement seems to imply that that right-wing radio’s goal or purpose is to foment violence amongst the nuts. But to be true, all of us other Cons who listen are NOT the target of right wing radio. If you meant something different then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
J: I am interested in your facts Kregg.
J: Obama is not interested in our guns.
K: How do you know this? Simply because a few months into a four year term he hasn’t said much about them?
J: Obama is not interested in the fairness doctrine. Facts, based on what the man actually said.
K: As Limbaugh said, BO’s statements have a shelf-life and when they expire he has no shame in completely reversing himself.
J: I defend gun ownership and am most certainly not right-wing.
K: Then you ought to be VERY careful about this guy.
J: Deflection technique Kregg? I am speaking about the deranged right.
K: Not at all.
J: I again find it hard to believe that you would say that humans are not impressionable and susceptible to inference. I am dissapointed Kregg.
K: Some certainly can be. But to presume that all are is not at all accurate. From what I see of the Libs they figure that all Cons are ‘mind-numbed robots’ incapable of thinking for themselves but are simply receptacles into which thoughts and opinions are poured by their handlers.
RDM Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
What can I say. Yes, I carry a Big One.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am
liberal racist ~ k
HUH? I’m not sure there’s such an animal. 92% of black voters votoe democrat. Don’t you think a “liberal?” racist would have a problem with that?
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
SGL said: liberal racist ~ k HUH? I’m not sure there’s such an animal. 92% of black voters votoe democrat. Don’t you think a “liberal?” racist would have a problem with that?
K: Do you not think there are white liberal racists?
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
None come to mind. If you know of one, I will entertain the thought.
Kregg Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 12:53 am
You can start with your boy in the senate from Virginia – Robert Byrd.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
92% of black voters votoe democrat.
I agree. I don’t think that Obama won the black vote because he was black; I think that he won the black vote ’cause he is Democrat.
That being said, I think that Obama benefited somewhat by the concept of an attack on him would be a racist statement:
“I don’t look like the guys on the One Dollar Bill.”
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Pino said: I agree. I don’t think that Obama won the black vote because he was black; I think that he won the black vote ’cause he is Democrat.
K: I do believe there were a number of people who voted for him simply because he was black.
michael Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Sure there were, but there were also a number of people who DIDN’T vote for him simply because he is black.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Michael said: Sure there were, but there were also a number of people who DIDN’T vote for him simply because he is black.
K: I fully agree
RDM Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Sure there were. The Democratic party has always been the black party. What’s new with that.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am
There HAVE and alway BE nuts and they don’t need talk radio to entice, encourage, or urge them on.
Agreed.
The extreme right is loud and upset. For the last 8 years, the extreme left was loud and upset.
Both extremes are unpleasant.
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Agreed Pino,
However the extreme right is more likely to be armed and dangerous.
The extreme left is more likely to go on a hunger strike, throw blood or sit down in the middle of the street.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I do believe there were a number of people who voted for him simply because he was black.
I am NO supporter of Mr Obama. However, to finally have a President that is not a White Man is a fantastic thing for this country.
I really feel that Conservatism ought to be about Maximum Individual Liberty. As such, I am VERY disappointed that we were not able to nominate the first woman or minority.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Pino said: I am NO supporter of Mr Obama. However, to finally have a President that is not a White Man is a fantastic thing for this country.
K: Why? If we are going to be a color blind society then we need to actually BE one where race or sex has NO bearing on the ‘legitimacy’ or the ‘desireability’ of a president.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
You won’t be around for that utopia. You will be dead. As will I.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
SGL: You won’t be around for that utopia. You will be dead. As will I.
K: Color blindness starts at the personal level. Drawing lines of distinction in ANY direction based on color at the personal level will prevent us from EVER reaching the ‘utopia’ of color blindness. If you are color blind you should elect presidents in a color blind fashion.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
the loud right are fomenting fear and hatred.
images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hate+bush&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=xXE2SoHsBIKktgfw1v34Dg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title
June 15th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Why? If we are going to be a color blind society then we need to actually BE one where race or sex has NO bearing on the ‘legitimacy’ or the ‘desireability’ of a president.
Because if we WERE a color blind society there would have been far more minority presidential candidates (from both parties) than we have seen.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Um said: Because if we WERE a color blind society there would have been far more minority presidential candidates (from both parties) than we have seen.
K: Why?
Um Cara Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Because it is unlikely that we would have only had 1 out of the 100 or so historical presidential candidates be a minority if we were a color blind society.
Kregg Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 12:58 am
There are many reasons that a colored minority might not make it to be president that have nothing to do with the color of his skin…
Um Cara Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Obviously, but it is statistically unlikely that 99/100 presidential candidates would be white men if gender and race biases were not having an effect.
Kregg Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Um said: Obviously, but it is statistically unlikely that 99/100 presidential candidates would be white men if gender and race biases were not having an effect.
K: Not necessarily. When tested for ALL the factors that go into bringing a presidential candidate to the office its no great thing that a black man has not made it before this. Consider that California is the most populated state in the union but how many presidents have come from California?
June 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
race or sex has NO bearing on the ‘legitimacy’ or the ‘desireability’ of a president.
Make no mistake; he is not desirable. But I do think that this has done more for race relations than anything in recent history. That I can think of.
In fact, with Obama’s election, I hope that we will see this as a watershed moment; no more talk about color or race in elections. That we will begin to see more and more “persons of color” in higher office.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Pino said; Make no mistake; he is not desirable. But I do think that this has done more for race relations than anything in recent history. That I can think of.
K: What do you think it has ACTUALLY accomplished for race relations? Those who trade on race – from EITHER side – will continue to foment their positions.
P: In fact, with Obama’s election, I hope that we will see this as a watershed moment; no more talk about color or race in elections. That we will begin to see more and more “persons of color” in higher office.
K: Bush put more ‘persons of color’ in high office than any Dem has EVER done but didn’t get a single point of credit from the Libs. What makes you think that race will suddenly stop being a political tactic since we have a half-black and half-white man as POTUS?
average james Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Kregg,
I noticed that Bush did that.
One of the good things from Bush43.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
James said: I noticed that Bush did that. One of the good things from Bush43.
K: You seem to be the only Lib that has… ;-)
June 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I noticed that Bush did that.
One of the good things from Bush43.
AND the Dems filibustered his Latino court nomination.
Nice.
Kregg Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Pino said: AND the Dems filibustered his Latino court nomination.
K: Well, of course! Ya’ll know that the only good Latino is a Lib Latino, don’tcha’?
flap Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Actually, Kregg, you’re not really Latino if you’re conservative. Kinda like not really being black if you’re conservative.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
the only good Latino is a Lib Latino,
Yes. Race serves the Dems as much as the Repubs.
Let us not forget that following the implementation of the minimum wage, hundreds of thousands of black men become unemployed. Which, by the way, may be the very roots of any inequality we see today.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Miguel Estrada was filibustered because he would not release the very limited legal writings he had.
flap Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
correction:
_____Mr. or Ms. [conservative judge nominated during George W. Bush's administration]_____ was filibustered because there was a Democratic Congress and they didn’t like Dubya.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Don’t you just love the smell of gunpowder and napalm while having a fresh cup of java. Ahh, what a great morning.
Armed and Dangerous…Ha!
Daddio Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo! I like the smell of gunpowder. YEE-HAW!!!!
flap Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
YEEEEEEEHAAAAA!
June 16th, 2009 at 9:23 am