We are a nation of more than 300 million people.

FACT: The N.R.A. has a membership of 4.2 million people.

FACT: Less than 6% of American gun owners are N.R.A. members.

FACT: Three quarters of N.R.A. members are currently asking for background checks on ALL gun sales.

The NRA leadership is out of step with its membership.
The majority of Second Amendment supporters want sensible gun laws.

The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?

A conservative adviser’s idea about how to revive the GOP … It's pirate time. cont.

….
Take the president's issues, steal them—they never belonged to him, they're yours!

Examples of what might be done:

2) gun control

If there are voices within the GOP that are for some part or parts of gun reform it would be good for them—and for the party—to come forward now.

I love the Second Amendment and I'm not kidding, but I have to say tens of millions of assault weapons in the hands of gangbangers and unstable young men couldn't be what the Founders had in mind.

We need a little moderation here, a little give.

My comment: of course, assuming the GOP is capable of such change of heart. I do like the 2
party system. Best of luck.

A conservative adviser’s idea about how to revive the GOP … It's pirate time. ... cont.

Take the president's issues, steal them—they never belonged to him, they're yours!

Examples of what might be done:

3) immigration reform

Finally, Republicans should shock everyone, including themselves, by pushing for immigration reform—now. Don't wait for the president, do it yourselves, come forward individually or in groups with the argument for legalization of who lives here now. Such bills should include border control and pathways for citizenship, but—and most important—they shouldn't seem punitive or grudging and involve fines and lines and new ways to sue employers. The world has changed. Ease up now. In the past 10 years immigrants, legal and illegal, have fought our wars. We need to hurry in those who are trying to bring gifts we need into the USA. Whoever comes here learns to love our crazy country, or at least appreciate it. If we do a better job of teaching them why the goodness we have even exists, we
will do OK.

The point here is to have the GOP lead in terms of good policy. But it's also important for the Republicans to show the variety, disagreement and alive-ness that exists within the party. It is not some grim monolith, some thought-free zone, or was not meant to be. It's not bad to be unpredictable. Living things are.

Members should loosen up, speak for their corner, put together caucuses, go forward, move. Go on TV, dagger and sword, and make your case.

Really: It's pirate time.

This has been…a conservative’s idea about how to revive the GOP

My comment: of course, assuming the GOP is capable of such change of heart. I do like the 2
party system. Best of luck.

Are there any good reasons for citizens to own assault weapons?

Similar to car registrations - should all firearms be registered & their sales recorded & kept on file for law enforcement?

Should gun manufacturers and distributors be liable to pay damages, hospital bills, and loss of livelihood bills for innocent gun victims? Other industries such as alcohol and tobacco are NOT EXEMPT from liability of their products.

What is to be done about 'straw' gun purchasing?

FACT: A gun in a home is 22 times more likely to kill a resident of that home than an intruder.

FACT: The United States is the most violent of all industrialized nations.

.

@Backhouse -- As with many, many things there are not good reasons for owning certain things, but I say yes as the answer to your second question. No disagreement there. Do you like the idea of arming guards at schools?

He Pig, IR, BCWC, etc. what is your opinions on armed guards? Stupid huh?

,

*** Powell: "I think the GOP is having an identity problem":

My 3 posts above are some ideas a conservative adviser proposes to revive the GOP...it's a good thing if the GOP is capable of coming around to 'steal' President Obama's ideas, starting with raising debt limit and adopting new gun measures.

Backhouse, I am a gun owner and a sportsman. I see no other purpose for private ownership of military style weapons then to kill human beings. At best a serious discussion ought to be made about what direction we want to go. The NRA represents gun manufactures not owners. They could care whether they sell guns to incompetent people or not. They just want to sell guns. This is evident by their constant rejection of any sane gun laws that are proposed.

,

,

We should let the Republicans tell the President who they want for Secretary of Defense. And then, when the President appoints that person, we can all sit back with popcorn and watch the GOP tear "the President's nominee" to shreds. . . .

The United States is the most paranoid industrialized nation.

Take a moment to remember those 20 little angels of Newtown Connecticut and 6 other victims...a month later.

The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?

Ben, if it's such a good idea, then you should be ready to answer the following questions:

1. How much should an armed guard at a school be paid?

2. Does the school provide the weapon and ammunition or does the guard supply his own?

3. Will the school be required to obtain additional liability insurance for having armed guards on site or will the armed guards have to insure themselves?

4. How much will school taxes increase to pay for all of this?

5. If you don't want your school taxes to increase to pay for this, what are you willing to cut to offset paying for this?

6. If you don't want to cut anything to offset paying for this, are you going to expect Dept of Education funding to pay for it?

Wayne LaPierre tells us that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Never mind that this ignores what teacher Ryan Heber did in California last week, it also ignores two simple truths...

...that every day good guys with guns become bad guys with guns...and you can pass all the background checks in the world, seem like the sanest person on the planet and still have a bad day.

Johntho, exactly.

"The NRA represents gun manufactures not owners".

Furthermore, the N.R.A. likes to posit that it is speaking for all gun owners.

It does not. And cannot.

@Pig -- You can find examples on both sides that wish to bring civility back and move everyone towards the middle. Take for example this from Democrat Joe Manchin who has a common sense approach that incorporates the best of both sides with Jon Huntsman:

I hope this concept moves forward. I pray it is not just more lip service. I would like to see all my friends -- left and right -- like and share if you agree. I for one believe it is time for civility and quit automatically assessing "guilt by conversation" (Manchin's phrase) in the discussions.

http://www.nolabels.org/

If Colin Powell likes and supports Hagel, he should be a shoe in. Sure, you'll have the whiners and snivelers, like McCain an Graham, who would vote against GOD if he were a Democrat. (And maybe he is?) But, the majority of real Americans in Congress will vote for Hagel.

Lets get on from all this childish foolishness and get on with the Country's business.

Ben-lotasanumbers asked:

"The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?"

Here's a candid, straight-up answer. I don't know why anyone would think turning an educational institution into a fortress would be a good idea.

Tell us Ben. Why would anyone think that's a good idea? Just as an aside, what budget expense(s) should be cut to make this revenue neutral?

Newtown Lesson. The lesson of Newtown (and all the other massacres) should be simply that the rights of gun owners should not trump the rights of public safety. That is what it means to live in a democracy. Most people--including gun owners and non-gun owners, republicans, democrats and independents--believe that sensible gun laws, bans of assault weapons and huge magazine clips, universal background checks are necessary for the good of society as a whole.

We are not talking about taking away the right to own guns for hunting, sport, competition but no one needs or should be allowed to own a military-style assault weapon with hundreds of rounds of ammunition in one clip to shoot deer or at a target. We realize that banning such weapons will not prevent the senseless deaths happening daily but the least we, as a society, can do is at least make it more difficult for the crazed and unstable to massacre so many so quickly. It is time that Society begins to look at and evaluate all aspects of gun violence whether it is mental health, poverty, drugs or greed by those whose businesses profit from gun violence.

The NRA has 4.2 million members, 74% of them believe in sensible gun laws. We are a nation of over 300 million. The NRA is owned and run, not by its 4.2 million members, but by the gun and ammunition manufacturers for profit, for their bottom-line gain--the 2nd amendment is their sales pitch and ad campaign. Why should the few control the many?

Jody,

"the rights of gun owners should not trump the rights of public safety. That is what it means to live in a democracy."

The N.R.A. promotes their hateful, self-serving agenda:

That if you can afford it, you can amass an armory and wage a war of your own.

Johntho - what is the difference between a semi-automatic Remington .223 and an AR 15 other than the look of the weapon? What is the difference between a Winchester 30-06 and an AK 47?

I want to thank DaNoid, David Walker, IR, Black Cat for responding. It is encouraging to see the left come out and actually debate a question posed. It is good that you are on record of opposing the idea of armed guards. Now, please by all means respond as vehemently to this:

Take for example when NRA president LaPierre advocated armed guards at our schools to protect our children. Although his entire statement in context made sense, he was vilified from every left attack squad available. Now just Friday -- FRIDAY -- Sen. Barbara Boxer -- liberal Democrat from CA -- submits a bill "The School Safety Act" -- under the cover of a Friday which is a slow news day and almost certainly too late to make the Sunday shows -- that calls for funding of that very thing -- armed guards at schools. In addition the Obama WH says it will consider it.

WHERE IN THE HECK IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE LEFT ON THIS??? The hypocrisy knows no boundaries. Cmon. I want everyone out there that made fun of and attacked LaPierre to defend this. What excuses will you make?? Maybe, the Boxer proposal didn't go as far as LaPierre's? Is that legitimate? Or maybe since it is a Democrat that makes it alright? Or maybe, after considerable thought, the left's position has evolved. Cmon please tell me.

http://www.courant.com/community/washington/hc-biden-gun-control-0111-20130110,0,334423.story

My, My -- a liberal and the WH considering this idea. (shakes head)

Colin Powell's interview on MTP was absolutely brilliant!

It was about time someone called out today's bat @!$%# crazy Republican party and I can not think of anyone better to do it than General Powell.

He even managed to keep old Gotcha Gregory in check!

Everyone knows I am NO fan of MTP but that was the best interview I have seen in recent memory.

How refreshing to listen to a Republican who isn't certifiably insane...

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

Only the Right marches in lock-step. I don't know what Boxer proposed and don't care. And I seriously doubt that Liberals are going to rush around saying, "Well, gee, if Barbara says it's okay, I guess I'll have to change my opinion." We're not like you--Hannity and Rush tell you what you should believe and you begin falling all over yourself to repeat their infinite wisdom.

I am against placing armed guards in schools, and I am sure many other Leftists on this site are too. Does that answer your question? Don't you feel even a little bit foolish now? Probably not. You can't think for yourself. . . .

the GOP is having an identity problem

The GOP's problem is 1) They have lost all credibility as the party fiscal conservatism; 2) They cannot claim to be the party of limited government and still push their socially conservative agenda through public policy.

It's time for a serious overhaul of the GOP. Ask your state chairman to nominate Mark Willis for RNC chair:

http://stepdownnow.com/why-this-is-important-mark-willis-for-rnc-chair/

Bookem' While not familiar with those weapons, my educated guess would be capacity. I am a gun owner and do own a semi automatic 22 capable of 15 shots before reload. But have to break it down to do so. By the way I haven't used that gun in a lot of years. I prefer my double barrel 20 or a pump that has 3 shots. Even in target shooting, shoot once, see where it hits and adjust is a much more intelligent use then spaying a target with many shots missing altogether. Spaying a target only works on human beings. I'll do the research and come up with an answer if you can answer one question. Who outside the military needs the capacity to shoot and kill 20 school children and 6 adults?

Ben, to answer your question. I do not think that arming our teachers, or armed security guards at schools makes any sense. Columbine, VA Tech, and other sites of mass shootings had armed security guards. Wayne LaPierre's premise that arming our teachers and schools is the answer is so short-sighted, narrow and self-centered that it is a joke. Should we have armed guards at the door of every classroom? At every movie theater? Mall? Post Office? Private Business? These are all places where mass shootings occurred. Giving more people more guns merely sells more guns and ammunition--the goal of the NRA. The fact that people buy this ridiculous sales pitch is testiment to how effective the NRA gun manufacturers lobby has been.

Heard an estimate of $6.2 Billion to place armed security guards in every school. That doesn't include liability insurance. No one has discussed the liability for schools of such a plan in the event something goes horribly wrong and those weapons are in turn used against others in said school. Is the NRA willing to foot the bill? I doubt it.

@Jack -- There is no need to feel foolish on my part. It's the left and the likes of you who are feeling foolish right about now. You don't care what Boxer proposed but care about the same proposal from LaPierre. You are too hypocritical for words. They'll be crickets from the rest as they scramble to change their position. What are you??? Their designated wing man today LOL!!!!!

@Jody -- Fine and you are entitled to your opinion. But you and others are so quick to convict Republicans for "guilt by conversation" at the drop of the hat. Why not the same dressing down to Boxer and the WH for "considering" it???? Me thinks the Dew Drop Inn crowd tipped too many this weekend and overlooked a move by the left on this issue.

Jack in Portsmouth, I agree we do not march in lockstep. While I don't like the idea of guns in school regardless of who is carrying, I do think we need to consider armed guards. What a sad state our former greatest country on earth has become when this should even have to be considered.

Only the Right marches in lock-step.

seems like a lot of the proletariat left does the same. Really FR is hardly the place independent thought. Carry on Jack Off

No bias here... it's not children that you need high capacity weapons for... it's the BATFE and FBI when they come to confiscate your guns and throw you into prison for "disagreeing" with the Looter in Chief.... And, just curious, why no outrage about the 500 Obamabots who were slaughtered in Chicago last year? Guess only white kids matter you hypocrits...

You are too hypocritical for words.

And you're too stupid for words. If you were smarter (a lot smarter), you would realize that what I was saying is that Barbara Boxer's views are not going to influence mine. You read what I wrote, but you didn't comprehend it. How typical of you.

Ben, since I disagree with the idea of armed guards in schools, then it should be obvious to you that I would disagree with Barbara Boxer's legislation. FYI, there are many schools who have armed security guards and have had them for years, particularly inner-city schools where gang and drug violence is a huge problem. "Under consideration" is a far cry from let's do it.

Ben, nobody should feel foolish, not even a fool like you. The dialog must be open and even if it is LaPierre or Boxer makes little difference where it comes from. I am in agreement with Jack that I don't think it is a good idea at all. However I am open to the dialog, it is necessary for finding solutions and that is the goal, not making one of us look foolish.

Fed up, you belong in prison

lock-step?

Yeah...the conservative adviser ( I cited about how to revive the GOP ) actually used the word 'lock-step' to describe today's GOP:

Now is the time to fight and be fearless, to be surprising, to break out of lockstep, to be the one thing Republicans aren't supposed to be, and that is interesting.

Obviously, even Republicans admit to this 'lock-step' - a parliamentary party manuever in a political system that is not parliamentary ... is disastrous, according to 2 veteran congress watchers in their new book It's Even Worse Than It Looks.

The killing of school children is a very enotional issue, but the statistics show that mass killings are only a tiny portion of the total of murders in the US every year. By far, handguns are used for murder more than any other method.

While I personally disagree with the NRA's interpretation of the second ammendment, there is no chance of rewriting it. The focus must therefore be on reducing the motivations for murder. Profitability of gangs is the easiest area to target.

So here it is. If America is a free country, people should be allowed to make their own informed decisions about what to put in their bodies. Make Drugs legal and tax them. Hundreds of billions are wasted every year in the never ending, ever expanding drug war. A tiny fraction of that money would be enough to treat the cronic drug users that get into trouble.

As was seen after prohibition was aboloshed, profitibility of gangs dropped, the murder rate dropped and membership in gangs dropped.

The drug inforcement industry has no motivation to end the drug war. From the sherriffs, to the Private prisons, their livelyhood and profit relies on the ever expanding war on drugs and the imprisonment of casual users.

I'm not even a casual user of drugs. But it is easy to see that this is a relitively painless way to reduce murder and crime in general. It also could, with the savings from enforcement, and revenue from consumption taxes, balance the budget.

Fed up, you belong in prison

for what exactly? that pesky freedom of speech? Call the KGB JETHRO

Ben, the posts you put up on this thread today are exactly WHY most of us never bother answering your questions and rarely engage you in debate. You have no intention of actually debating the pros/cons of armed security guards (or whatever), instead you turn around and attack those who take the time to respond.

@Jody -- No you are wrong. The left started the attack on the NRA and LaPierre's statements of last month -- in particular the idea of armed guards. This was to out you and the rest of the LibsRUs crowd of your total hypocrisy. Now, you want to debate armed guards in schools? Why? Because Boxer submitted a bill? The WH said it would consider what most on here called the "dumbest" idea?

Okay. How about this.

Boxer is one of the dumbest, irresponsible, unfeeling, callous person in the Congress and doesn't not even deserve her seat. How dare she speak for a small minority. How dare the White House for not immediately coming out and denouncing such an idea. There should be no hesitation.

That is how you attack the right. There is no defense for Boxer's bill that has any legitimacy coming from the left other than one from a hypocritical viewpoint. Nuff said.

Ed, well said. Legalizing drugs such as marijuana is a tough sell because it runs counter to society's sensibilities but our war on drugs has been a multi-decade, multi-billion dollar failure. As you pointed out, when prohibition ended, so did the violence associated with it; the same would be true for drugs. Our jails and prisons are filled with minor offenders (a huge expense) whose biggest crime against society was to be in possession of small amounts of illegal drugs; these same people then have a criminal record that follows them the rest of their lives.

I do not think I need to remind everyone, a life is just that... a human life. It should not matter if it is a child, someone's son or daughter, parents, grandparents, etc. The act of violence is committed by a person with an extremely deranged mind. So if the hot topic is about gun control, where are the discussions about the mental instability that went hand in hand with not only the Newtown tragedy, the one in Aurora, and any others from the past??

Ben-lotsanumbers:

You asked this question:

"The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?"

I answered, and asked YOU to answer the question. In typical Rovian fashion, you refused to answer your own question and then asked yet another question.

I'll ask again, reminding you that you first posed the question: "The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?"

Johntho - so your definition of an assault weapon is the capacity of the magazine?

Johntho, So YOU believe that the military needs to shoot school children and adults????

Ed- I agree-

Drugs should be legalized which will take the "dealer" out of the equation, and also reduce the prison population.

Ben,

Apparently you mistake me asking what I believe are relevant questions about the issue as outrage.

Senator Boxer's proposal is actually for National Guard troops to be used at the discretion of the Governor of each state to guard schools as opposed to schools employing private security...and, no, I'm not in favor of it.

Boxer is one of the dumbest, irresponsible, unfeeling, callous person in the Congress and doesn't not even deserve her seat.

Ben, unless you are from California you have no say as to whether or not Senator Boxer "deserves" her seat.

Johntho - so your definition of an assault weapon is the capacity of the magazine?

at least he got the magazine portion right. a lot of the libs equate clips to magazines. No Lock step uninformed talk there..nope none

Ben, unless you are from California you have no say as to whether or not Senator Boxer "deserves" her seat.

Noid, give it a rest. Day in and day out you libs come in here and decry how the right needs to be removed from politics and then you say the above. stop with do as I say not as I do mantra, we get it. Libs are hyopcrites

Ben, just as I said, you don't want to debate, you want to play "gotcha"; and you are wrong. Even republicans and long-time gun owners thought LaPierre's speech made him sound border-line insane. It wasn't just democrats/liberals who made those comments about LaPierre. To repeat so you can possibly understand my view, I don't like Barbara Boxer's idea any more than I did LaPierre's. While you may have focused only on what liberals were commenting about LaPierre, you ignored what many conservatives were saying. As I said before, Ben, you don't want to have a discussion on the merits of an issue; you want to play games. This is a serious issue, I am happy to discuss/debate and make my own views heard but I will not take you, Ben, seriously because you have no intentions of being serious.

@GreatlyEntitled #1.45: You said a mouthful! And unfortunately there's millions of these deranged crazies here in the US. Call themselves REPUBLICANS!

Colin Powell showed what a true patriot looks like during his MTP interview. He is a sane voice in the party of total insanity. His comments about guns was telling as were two other Republicans yesterday. They are all members of the NRA and each of them denounced the ability to buy assault weapons and large magazine clips. They all know the only reason for such weapons is to kill human beings and they have no place in our society.

But, as someone yesterday reminded us, the NRA is not governed by the gun owners who are members - it is governed by the gun manufacturers who are loving and encouraging the crazed to believe that the government is going to come take their guns. It plays right into the needs to sell bigger weapons to the ignorant who don't care about anything but themselves.

They pander to those who are too dumb to know they run the show. And, they have no problem with the mentally ill who occasionally kill large numbers of people - as long as they sell their guns and fill their pockets. LaPierre is owned and operated by them and you little gun lovers march in step to whatever they tell you to do!

Pigotry - The Republican Party … is a disparate and fractious lot of varying talent who, again, are connected to Congress - an institution less popular than cockroaches, according to a Public Policy Polling survey last week. Congress is now less popular than cockroaches and colonoscopies, though more popular than the ebola virus and gonorrhea. The House has an approval rating of 9%.

How can Republicans be a disparate lot since time and again you have claimed they are in lock-step?

Interesting that Congress's ratings have gone down since the the Democrats had increases in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. How do you blame the approval rating decrease on Republicans?

Jack in Portsmouth

We should let the Republicans tell the President who they want for Secretary of Defense.

It's not the Republicans. Bibi Netanyahu is the guy who currently must approve all of Obama's cabinet choices before they're allowed to take office.

Colorado,

Actually the decline to the lowest approval ever began in 2011 when Republicans won control of the House and gained 6 seats in the Senate and the Congress reached this new low in 2012.

Gallup (Jan 7-10, 2013) Congressional Approval-Disapproval:

14%-81% with 5% unsure

2012 average approval = 15% which is the lowest since Gallup started tracking Congressional approval ratings, 38 years ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159812/congress-begins-2013-approval.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Mac Forrester

@GreatlyEntitled #1.45: You said a mouthful! And unfortunately there's millions of these deranged crazies here in the US. Call themselves REPUBLICANS!

Wow really...? What is the point to your comment other than simply bashing or not commenting on the issue? It has everything to do with moral bankruptcy of common sense.

Ben-636050

Sen. Barbara Boxer -- liberal Democrat from CA -- submits a bill "The School Safety Act" -- under the cover of a Friday which is a slow news day and almost certainly too late to make the Sunday shows -- that calls for funding of that very thing -- armed guards at schools. In addition the Obama WH says it will consider it.

WHERE IN THE HECK IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE LEFT ON THIS??? The hypocrisy knows no boundaries. Cmon. I want everyone out there that made fun of and attacked LaPierre to defend this. What excuses will you make??

I'm fine with armed guards in all grammar schools as long as the enormous cost is paid for by a tax on guns and ammunition. After all, we've got a spending problem, and we can't add to it. If cigarettes can be taxed because they're a menace to the public, so can guns.

Ok, you want to pin me down as to what weapons I am talking about as "assault rifles". Here it is, it is a weapon capable of killing 20 first graders and 6 brave adults in a matter of less then 20 minutes. Remembering that these children was shot multiple times and one little fellow shot 11 times. There is no need for guns like this in civilian hands in this country that needs this kind of weapon other then for evil purpose. In my opinion, it would be ok to ban all semi automatic guns capable of shooting more then 3 times without a reload, and I don't mean a clip, I mean break the gun down and reload. While this would not solve all of our gun violence it would at least give innocents a chance to either escape or incapacitate the perp. I would also not only endorse but recommend long prison sentences to those that refuse to comply. Only outlaws would have guns. If you did not turn in those kinds of weapons you are an outlaw in my opinion. CA and fed up, you could share a cell, not for free speach but failure to comply with the law.

Bibi Netanyahu is the guy who currently must approve all of Obama's cabinet choices before they're allowed to take office.

Oh, boy! You're stepping in it this morning, Houston! You're going to be tarred and feathered and run out of town with Hagel for company.

BTW: It's not only "the left" that thinks LaPierre is a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. The conservative New York Post ran this headline on his press conference:

"GUN NUT! NRA loon in bizarre rant over Newtown"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/new-york-post-_n_2352203.html

It's not that LaPierre suggested armed guards that made him look like an idiot. As the New York Daily News headline put it:

"vile NRA nut blames everyone and everything EXCEPT the GUNS".

Steelers, Only when they are on the "other" side. You know, those pesky rusky's, or maybe some jihads, or something like. Actually no, that isn't what I meant. What I did mean is only the military needs to have these powerful weapons, civilians do not. They serve no other purpose then to kill human beings.

Seeking,

It is a sad truth, that whenever there is a highly publicized mass killing, gun manufacturers' profit increases.

Caesar,

There have been a enormous number of lines wasted in the last few days ridiculing people for using the words 'magazine' and 'clip' interchangeably. It is a distraction from the discourse at hand when you know very well what they mean.

For the record, a clip is used to quickly load a number of rounds into a magazine.

Ed - it's sickening, really. And the gun manufacturers love it! That's beyond disgraceful. And, any normal human being would have problems with the gun manufacturers instead of putting more money in their pockets.

I'm telling anyone who is in the market for sports equipment to go to Dick's Sporting Goods. They've stopped selling assault weapons until further notice - after the Sandy Hook massacre. Amazing - a company with intelligence and a soul. We need more like them.

Ed numbers, I have been around guns most of my life and didn't know that. I am guilty of using clip and magazine interchangeable. Thanks for the information. By the way if somebody were to say clip to me I would understand that it is the part that holds the bullets. And I still say a weapon capable of shooting 30-100 times non-stop is not necessary for an orderly society. Only in third world countries which is what sometimes I feel the republicans want.

Miss Piggy has to be a tool of the DNC. There's no other explanation.

Instead of the abusive comments hurled back and forth from both sides, why not think a bit and come up with proposed solutions for the overlying problem which is: the high number of murders in America. Use some realism, for example, the likelihood of a major change to the 2nd ammendment is 0. Both sides should understand this. What else can we do?

It is a complex problem and the solutions will also be complex so, outlines only.

ben @ 1.2 said --"The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?"

"President Barack Obama’s two daughters attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., where they have been protected by 11 armed guards, with a twelfth to be hired. Plus, the two daughters have Secret Service protection. “One of the main incentives of running [for re-election] was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times,” Obama jokingly told ABC’s Barbara Walters three days before Newtown. But it’s a point worth noting."

so it is ok for armed guards to be in the president's kids school but it is a horrendous suggestion for other kids.

Billybob,

Armed guards in schools is like a band-aid on a belly wound. It does not address the bigger problem.

@Greatly Entitled#1.59: "It has everything to do with moral bankruptcy of common sense"

Guns.

Legitimate raping of women as opposed to the illegitimate raping of women.

Lower taxes for the wealthy. Welfare for the wealthy. Creating and conducting wars. Exploiting the ignorant, and feeble minded.

My point exactly. It's called republicanism!

Johntho, you admitted your ignorance before and should have stopped there. In 20 minutes, I could kill 20 unarmed people with your .22 cal. I could kill those people with a six-shot .22 cal revolver. Would you classify your rifle as an assault weapon?

Bookem Danno - no, you couldn't. Because with a single shot handgun someone could have easily stopped you - not so much with an assault weapon. Any intelligent adult would know that.

Dennis - Perhaps you have comprehension difficulties. The beginning of a decline has no bearing on Pigotry's comments. It is alleging a current approval rating which is 40% lower than the approval ratings to which you are referring. Are you accusing it of making up data again? That is certainly possible since it didn't provide a source. Maybe you need to let it defend its own posts.

Ben-636050

The NRA proposed that a way to protect children was to place armed guards at schools. My Lord why would anyone think that is a good idea?

You obviously don't know that most high schools in the US have off duty police officers on campus. And it's been that way since I was a kid over 25 yrs ago.

Ben you say:

WHERE IN THE HECK IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE LEFT ON THIS??? The hypocrisy knows no boundaries. Cmon. I want everyone out there that made fun of and attacked LaPierre to defend this. What excuses will you make?? Maybe, the Boxer proposal didn't go as far as LaPierre's? Is that legitimate? Or maybe since it is a Democrat that makes it alright? Or maybe, after considerable thought, the left's position has evolved. Cmon please tell me.

I'll tell you, sir. It is here. I do not approve of guns on any campus, period. I do not approve of funding them either and do not agree with Senator Boxer on this issue. Just because one is a liberal doesn't mean we all fall in line with some of the leaders of our party. We aren't like Republicans where theymarch, in jackboots, to the cadence of the party leadership right or wrong.

I believe in sensible legislation for gun control. The NRA speaks for only a small fraction of our population and for an industry whose very profit depends on many guns being sold as the market will bear no matter what the consequences. No one has ever proven why a private citizen needs an automatic or semi-automatic firearm for protection, sport or competitive target shooting. I doubt they ever will. The fear tactics from the NRA are begining to fail and it is about time. No one is going to take away your guns. Most liberals and conservatives I know, regardless of party affiliation, understand and value the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as interpreted by Supreme Courts over the many years which allows for private citizens to own firearms. The expectation is that that ownership comes with certain responsibilities. Like libel and slander are exceptions to the 1st Amendment rights to free speech and press so sensible gun control laws are in order for the 2nd Amendment.

As horrible as it was the Sandy Hook incident was finally the kick in the butt we, as a nation, needed to finally address this issue in a sensible manner. It woke people up to what is happening in this country. We are out of control. We need to regain control and show that small minority controlled by Mr. LaPierre that they no longer are in control of this issue, that we will not be afraid and will not be intimidated. Congress needs to have the guts to stand up to the "gun lobby" and just say no to their outrageous demands in favor of sensible gun control, not an out and out ban but sensible control. The problem is that if there are more such incidents as in the movie theater in Colorado or Sandy Hook people may actually opt for a total ban and that wouldn't be a good thing.

Backhouse: Your "facts" are not quite factual Great Britain has a violent crime rate 3 1/2 times greater than the USA. And our violent crimes are localized to certain urban areas, duh. You are soo full of BS.

Still no armed guards at Newton, so what exactly is different today that will improve the safety of children there?? I see nothing. Personally I'd pull my children, home school or anything before letting them get killed by our government. Obama refused to sign a bill which would have increased funding for school security: but he could still muster up a tear.

As everyone on here likes to say FACT: 3% OF MURDERS WERE COMMITTED USING RIFLES. OF THOSE RIFLES A SMALL PERCENTAGE WERE ASSULT RIFLES. SO THE ODUMBO INITIATIVES WILL STILL ALLOW 99.5% OF THE MURDERS TO CONTINUE. AND PROBABLY MORE BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE RIFLES WERE ILLEGAL TO BEGIN WITH.

ARMED GUARDS AT SCHOOL CRAZY? I FEEL A LOT SAFER IN A BANK WITH ARMED GUARDS THAN I DO OUT ON THE STREETS.

I FEEL A LOT SAFER AT AIRPORTS WITH ARMED TSA GUARDS THAN I DO IN THE PARKING GARAGES AT AIRPORTS!

I FEEL A LOT SAFER AT A POLICE STATION THAN I DO STANDING IN FRONT OF A POLICE STATION.

I FEEL UNEASY IN A BUILDING WITH SIGNS POSTED " NO GUNS ALLOWED " I KNOW A CRIMINAL OR FRUIT CAKE WILL GRAVITATE TO SAFE PLACES TO THEIR DEEDS.

GROW UP, GO TO A SHOOTING RANGE AND SEE THAT IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. BUT IT SURE IS AN ACE IN THE HOLE IN A BAD SITUATION. AND IT KEEPS THE BAD GUYS AT BAY.

From January 1 1949 until now, just over 1 million Americans have been murdered.

Yes I counted at the bureau of statistics site.

Let that sink in. A Million Murdered.

Something has to change.

Perspective:

Since 1949, 150,000 more Americans have been murdered than have died in combat in all the wars America has ever been involved in.

America WILL HAVE A National Universal HealthCare System Like Our SANE Allys Have And FULL Psychiatric OutReach Teams with Examine and retain Authority. We WILL Rebuild and Activate ALL of our State and Federal Mental Hospitals Across America, taking Dangerous men, and women, off of the streets and out of Society instead of administering worthless "psychiatric medication" peddled by The big pharmaceutical corporations For Their Profit Only. And about Banning guns????? with weapons Of Choice manufactured Around The Planet just waiting to fill the American gun ban vacuum and sold to Anybody is what will happen. The FINEST AK-47 Combat Assault Rifles are made in Rumania, China and Russia; as the tip of the Weapons Mountain WITH NO END IN SIGHT Especially a gun ban with no American Universal HealthCare system in place. So what we have here is penalizing law abiding responsible citizens while ignoring the True Perps: Big Pharmaceuticals, Big "health insurance" corporations and RollOver RubberH0Le CRIMINAL "legislators" In State and Federal Positions. We MUST and Will Address this problem of Criminally Insane people getting guns.Prohibition was a Super Failure and Alcohol Flooded Over the borders and into America UNTIL Prohibiton was repealed. Where does that leave an arms prohibition??

• The fanaticism of the NRA will, in the long run, lead to stricter gun regulations.

@ Fiesty, Seeking, Mac

So you are all saying that the only political party that has any sense whatsoever is the Democratic Party? The only people in America who have any sense are Democrats? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen posted.

@ Seeking

So your idea of gun control is single shot pistols only? That by far takes the prize for the (in Feisty words) bat#%$& craziest thing ever said by a human being. With a six shooter, most capable gun handlers could kill 20 people easily in way less than 20 minutes. You should actually make no comments on gun control as you know less than 3 year olds about guns.

It's official - Congress is now less popular than cockroaches and colonoscopies, though more popular than the ebola virus and gonorrhea. Really. The numbers came, this week, from a Public Policy Polling survey. The House has an approval rating of 9%.

Over this past weekend two events occurred that should give conservatives pause, at least the less strident or those who have a strain of fairness in them.

On Saturday, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Eugene Patterson, died. He was 89 years old, and to many probably not known. Yet in his lifetime, he wrote some amazing editorials at a time when there was major strife especially in the South. He was editor of the Atlanta Constitution from 1960-1968, in 1967 when he won journalisms most prestigious prize. In 1963, when he bravely wrote about the bombing of the Birmingham Al. church that killed 4 little black girls “A Flower for the Graves”. It was considered so moving, that Walter Cronkite, the epitome of a great journalist himself, asked Mr. Patterson, to read it as part of the evening news:

"A Negro mother wept in the street Sunday morning in front of a Baptist Church in Birmingham," Patterson began his column. "In her hand she held a shoe, one shoe, from the foot of her dead child. We hold that shoe with her.

"Every one of us in the white South holds that small shoe in his hand. ... We who go on electing politicians who heat the kettles of hate. ... (The bomber) feels right now that he has been a hero. He is only guilty of murder. He thinks he has pleased us. We of the white South who know better are the ones who must take a harsher judgment."(from the Huffington Post)

Mr. Patterson along with his equally courageous publisher, Ralph McGill, worked hard to enlighten readers, especially in the south. of the evils of bigotry. His distinguished career continued with the Washington Post, and then the St. Petersburg Times along with their publication the Congressional Quarterly. A native of Georgia, a World War II vet who served in the Army, Mr. Patterson leaves a great legacy of brave and courageous journalism. A collection of his editorials from the Atlanta Constitution was published in 2002, "The Changing South of Gene Patterson: Journalism and Civil Rights, 1960-1968." Is well worth the read.

On Sunday, General Powell, former Secretary of State, decried how his party has a “a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party”. He pointed out several examples of such by supposed leaders in the party, Sarah Palin, with her “"When I see a former governor say that the president is 'shuckin' and jivin' -- that's a racial-era slave term," Powell said, referring to Palin's words on Obama's response to the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi. Another example was John Sununu’s comment that the President was” lazy” on the President’s performance in his first debate with Mitt Romney. Sadly this type of thinking hasn’t much changed since Eugene Patterson’s time, other than its not confined to the Deep South.

Today, we don’t have journalists or media owners with the courage of Eugene Patterson and Ralph McGill, they were the gold standard for their industry, we need more like them. We also need to have more Republicans willing to stand up to the extremes in their party, calling out bad repulsive behavior, and the ugly words that heat the” kettles of hate”.

Thank you Gingerbread mama.

GBM, thank you so much.

What is very tough, is knowing that "racism" is a culturally constructed concept.

Across the millennia, humans have adapted to our planet's various climes: White and short helps to deal with the cold. Dark and tall helps to deal with the heat.

During the course of human history, we have moved about and mixed up a bit. Over time, the melting pot will make us more at one.

GBM, excellent post. Thank you. We need many more Eugene Pattersons, Ralph McGills and Colin Powells (we do have some who call it like it is and are in turn accused of playing the race card); and we need many fewer Rush Limbaughs, Sununus and Palins (who daily play the race card while daring to say it is the other side). The Limbaughs, Palins, Sununus suffer an ignorance that has been too long part of this country; when any political party gives them a place to stand, that party becomes the mirror image of them.

@Gingerbread Mamma#2.2: Thank you so much Ma'am. The Great "Gene Patterson" was the warm sunshine of balance, intermingling with the "Dixie Dew" of the Great "Ralph McGill". The annals of historical American journalism will never chronicle greater, and more noble efforts, than those set forth by the Men from Adel, Georgia, and Soddy Daisy, Tennessee. Truly, Two of Americas Greats!

Hi Mac....truer words were never spoken. My late husband grew up in Atlanta during the 40's and 50's and never grew tired of singing their praises. They were exceptional men during a searing time in the nation's history.. Brave, courageous men who were truly Great Americans.

Happy New Year to you and your family.

Thank you kind friends. Our need today, for excellence in journalism, is indeed great. We have a few who aspire, but their voices are not being heard. At least not by many, the noisy ill educated seem to shout them out. More's the pity.

???

!!!!!!

Hagel will be the first 'war veteran' to take DOD...another FIRST of the Obama Presidency.

.

FORWARD....

Pigotry, I think you meant that Hagel will be the first enlisted veteran to ever head the Dept of Defense.

Ben's 3.0 is a perfect example of his contributions to debate!

Thanks, Jody

Pigotry...Here are a few more of Obama's Firsts! FORWARD...

.

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act (Unilaterally Executing American Military Operations in Libya Without Informing Congress In the Required Time Period - Source: Huffington Post)
• First President to Triple the Number of Warrantless Wiretaps of U.S. Citizens (Source: ACLU)
• First President to Sign into Law a Bill That Permits the Government to "Hold Anyone Suspected of Being Associated With Terrorism Indefinitely, Without Any Form of Due Process. No Indictment. No Judge or Jury. No Evidence. No Trial. Just an Indefinite Jail Sentence" (NDAA Bill - Source: Business Insider)
• First President to Have His Attorney General Held in Criminal Contempt of Congress For His Efforts to Cover Up Operation Fast and Furious, That Killed Over 300 Individuals (Source: Politico)
• First President to claim Executive Privilege to shield a sitting Attorney General from a Contempt of Congress finding for perjury and withholding evidence from lawful subpoenas (Source: Business Insider)
• First President to Issue Unlawful "Recess-Appointments" Over a Long Weekend -- While the U.S. Senate Remained in Session (against the advice of his own Justice Department - Source: Heritage Foundation)
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case (Source: Gawker)
• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions" (Source: DHS documents uncovered by Judicial Watch)
• First President to Sue States for Enforcing Voter ID Requirements, Which Were Previously Ruled Legal by the U.S. Supreme Court (Source: CNN)
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places (the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case, Source: Investors Business Daily)
• First President to Refuse to Comply With a House Oversight Committee Subpoena (Source: Heritage Foundation)
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It (Defense of Marriage Act - Source: ABC News)
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees (BP Oil Spill Relief Fund - Source: Fox News)
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present" (Source: The New York Times)
• First President to Have His Administration Fund an Organization Tied to the Cop-Killing Terrorist Group, the Weather Underground (Source: National Review)
• First President to publicly announce an enemies list (consisting of his opponents campaign contributors; and to use the instrumentalities of government to punish those on the list - Source: Heritage Foundation)
• First President to Attempt to Block Legally-Required 60-Day Layoff Notices by Government Contractors Due to His Own Cuts to Defense Spending -- Because The Notices Would Occur Before the Election. (Source: National Journal)
• First President to Intentionally Disable Credit Card Security Measures (in order to allow over-the-limit donations, foreign contributions and other illegal fundraising measures - Source: Power Line)
• First President to send 80 percent of a $16 billion program (green energy) to his campaign bundlers and contributors, leaving only 20% to those who did not contribute. (Source: Washington Examiner)
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts (Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First President to issue an Executive Order implementing a "Racial Justice System", a system that tries to achieve "racially equivalent outcomes" for crimes (Source: Daily Caller)

• First President to Send Millions in Taxpayer Dollars to His Wife's Former Employer (Source: White House Dossier)

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government (Source: Reuters)
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat (Source: Christian Science Monitor)
• First President to Move America Past the Dependency Tipping Point, In Which 51% of Households Now Pay No Income Taxes (Source: Center for Individual Freedom)

• First President to Increase Food Stamp Spending By More Than 100% in Less Than Four Years (Source: Sen. Jeff Sessions)
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs (Source: President Obama during an early meeting of his 'Jobs Council')
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases (Source: The Hill)

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters (Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First President to Propose Budgets So Unreasonable That Not a Single Representative From Either Party Would Cast a Vote in Favor (Sources: The Hill, Open Market)
• First President Whose Economic Policies Have the Number of Americans on Disability Exceed the Population of New York (Source: CNS News)

• First President to Sign a Law Requiring All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party (Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First President to Sue States For Enforcing Immigration Laws Passed by Congress (Source: The Arizona Republic newspaper)
• First President to See America Lose Its Status as the World's Largest Economy (Source: Peterson Institute)

• First President to redistribute $26.5 billion of the taxpayers' funds to his union supporters in the UAW (Source: Heritage Foundation)
• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler (Source: Detroit News)
• First President to Attempt to Bully a Major Manufacturing Company Into Not Opening a Factory in a Right-to-Work State (Boeing's facility in South Carolina - Source: Wall Street Journal)

• First President to Endanger the Stability of the Electric Grid by Shutting Down Hundreds of Coal-Fired Plants Without Adequate Replacement Technologies (Source: National Electric Reliability Corporation - PDF)
• First President to Have His EPA Repudiated by a Federal Judge for "Overstepping Its Powers" When They Attempted to Shut Down Coal Operations in Appalachia (Source: Huffington Post)
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (Source: Politico)

• First President to Lie Repeatedly to the American People About the Murder of a U.S. Ambassador and Three Other Diplomatic Personnel for Purely Political Reasons (Source: Roger Simon)
• First President to Openly Defy a Congressional Order Not To Share Sensitive Nuclear Defense Secrets With the Russian Government (Sources: ABC News, Rep. Michael Turner)
• First President to Leak Highly Classified Military and Intelligence Secrets to Hollywood In Order to Promote a Movie That Could Help His Reelection Campaign (Source: Judicial Watch)

• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space (Sources: USA Today, ABC News)
• First President to press for a "treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and rights to half of all offshore oil revenue" (The Law Of The Sea Treaty, Source: Investors Business Daily)
• First President to send $200 million to a terrorist organization (Hamas) after Congress had explicitly frozen the money for fear it would fund attacks against civilians (Sources: American Thinker, The Independent [UK])

• First President to Insert Himself into White House Biographies of Past Presidents (Source: The New York Times).
• First President to Golf 105 or More Times in His First Three-and-a-half Years in Office (Source: The Hill)

Hope Is Gone - when you finish your posting of lies does it make you feel better because you just look dumber with each and every attack you make on our outstanding President. You look like a loser because - let's admit it - you are one and you backed two. Your lies are debunked over and over by both FactCheck and Snopes. You're truly a blitering idiot!

Oh and your LOOOOOONG post just gives us more to laugh at you about! You clearly have too little to do and much too much time to waste!

@Seeking Sanity:

You must understand that HopeIsGone is not only a pathological liar, he is a habitual liar.

Despite the fact Martin Luther King Jr's WIFE, SON, AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY state MLKjr was a Democrat, Hopeless insists he was a life-long Republican! He really believes his own lies.

@HopeIsGone:

Still afraid to defend your lies, Hopeless, and instead keep deflecting! LOL! What a pansy!

You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

SeekingSanity....I see you are part of the lazy, freeloading, leeching class in our society who is incapable of working and supporting themselves?? I truly feel sorry for you. Also, what is a "blitering" idiot?

...and here comes Say What?, the resident retard!

@HopeIsGone:

Still afraid to defend your lies, Hopeless, and instead keep deflecting! LOL! What a pansy!

You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

Lefty's name calling gives so much credibility and maturity to his lying.

Hope,

[First President to Golf 105 or More Times in His First Three-and-a-half Years in Office]

CORRECTION: Dwight David Eisenhower got in his share of golf, and then some. A study of the 34th president's daily itinerary during his eight years in office from 1953-'61 turns up a staggering 1,000-plus days of golf, including almost 800 rounds everywhere from Augusta National to Cypress Point to Turnberry and beyond.

Ike played more rounds of golf in his first year than President Obama did in his first 4 years.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2008-04/ike

Dennis...lol....OK, do you want me to remove that one? I assume all the other items in the list you found to be factual??

Hope,

It is the only one I read

If one is wrong then none are creditable

Dennis...you normally skip to the bottom of an article and then try to comprehend it? Our schools are definitely failing our youth!

Troll.

• So Hope -- people like you have been putting out this kind of crap for at least the last 4 years. It's mostly lies, only a fool believes it and if your intention was to convince the majority of the population to vote for somebody other than President Obama in 2012, -- it didn't work.

When I first learned about 'bump-firing' several weeks ago, I was loathe to bring it up fearing it would become all the rage as in 'that's so cool'! But too late, one can go to youtube and get lessons.

Well done, IR.

"simulating automatic fire"...

In a world of cartoon cutouts, where nobody really dies.

No Ben Don't put words in my mouth. We can talk about Armed Guards in schools if we also talk about the increased funding that it's going to take to make it happen and the increased funding to indemnify these folks for the accidents that are going to rise. The Idea of arming Teacher's is however the dumbest idea I have ever heard brought out of you'll Yahoo's fevered imaginations. Get real and we can talk.

Independent Redneck, VA.

After all you can’t expect a Good Guy with a Popgun to take out a Bad Guy wearing Full Body Armor, carrying a Bushel Basket full of ammunition and the 100 Round Clips to go with it and Firing at a rate of 900 Rounds a Minute now can you?

Thanks for keeping this in the forefront of the national dialog.

It's simple to me. The amount of guns available have reached the breaking point.

Time for our society to pull in reins.

Salud

Thanks IR for this post.

I couldn't agree more about armed guards at schools, it is the dumbest idea to come out of this horrific tragedy.

Anyone who has little ones go out the door in the mornings, full of life, full of the joy of innocence, sees the little ones of Sandy Hook elementary and hopes it wont happen again. Every day I think that, EVERY DAY! Schools should be a sanctuary for learning and growing, not armed camps that would teach them to be afraid of living and where everyone must carry a weapon, what a bizarre notion.

You did a could one yourself GBM. And it should be expanded to all the Georgia Gentlemen that we have a special reason to know and love. As Tomas says Salud

@GM -- Tell that to Boxer and the White House LMAO!!!!!!

I couldn't agree more about armed guards at schools, it is the dumbest idea to come out of this horrific tragedy.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lets Vigilante Patrols Loose To ‘Protect’ Schools

By T. Steelman

The thing that has many detractors worried most is that some of Joe’s volunteers have criminal backgrounds. A spokesman said that some of these men have “… faced disciplinary action in connection with their crimes, either avoided felony convictions or petitioned to have their records expunged, and are now moving on.” The fact that the crimes these men may have committed are not made public is troubling, considering the positions in which they are being placed. There are about 3,000 volunteers in Arpaio’s program and, though they will not be on the campus proper, the proximity and access they will have to students makes their criminal pasts worrisome to critics

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/09/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-lets-vigilante-patrols-loose-to-protect-schools/

Reckon something like this is what you had in mind there Ben

And to think someone ridiculed my playful mocking assertion that we arm pedophiles with guns to protect school children. Looks like Sheriff Joe took my advice to heart and did just that.

I don't care if it's LaPierre or Barbara Boxer - armed guards in schools is a horrible idea. And, if an armed guard isn't anticipating an assault, frankly, they are just as useless as no guard. We need to address the root issues - not put bandaids on the problem.

We need to address mental health issues; licensing for guns - no matter how they are sold - and background checks no matter how the gun is sold; NO ONE needs assault weapons and large magazine clips -NO ONE.

Excellent post, IR. Can't add a thing to the conversation except to say that it makes zero sense for the public to possess miltary-style weapons. It is illegal to own rocket launchers, grenades and machine guns yet the AR-15 and similar guns can be the equivalent of a machine gun with the same deadly consequences.

IR,

Bump firing is a complete waste of ammo. It's not particularly accurate. I bought one of the bump stocks for one of my AR's just for @!$%#sandgiggles. While it does increase your rate of fire it comes at a cost of accuracy. Basically think of the stock as a suspension. Hits a bump and springs back into it's original place. Keep your trigger hand steady, and you can possibly get 600-900 rounds per minute. Seeing as the AR has a standard mag of 30 rounds and you can get larger mags up to 150 rounds, there's no way you will ever fire 600-900 rounds a minute. I have a pre-ban M16 that is rated for 700-950 rounds a minute, but in practice I would never be able to hit that mark unless it was converted to a belt fed system which would basically limit you to however much weight a person can carry. I don't know if you have ever lifted 1,000 rounds of 5.56, but it's pretty heavy. Way too heavy to carry as an apendage of the gun, let alone accurately aim the thing.

Politicians need to realize that it's not the guns, but the people that commit these terrible acts. The Newtown shooting was carried out with stolen guns. The Firer Fighters killed responding to a call were killed with illegally obtained firearms. The CO Theatre shooting was done with illegally obtained firearms, as he lied on the federal forms about the intent of the firearms usage. He had been planning that attack for at least 2 months according to court transcripts. Just yesterday the shooting by police at a theatre had a 20 year old with an illegally possessed and concealed firearm. The school shooting in CA last week was carried out with a stolen gun. How on earth would any amount of background checks, mental screenings, or a ban of Assault Style rifles have prevented any of this? They wouldn't be able to make it retro active, so there would still be 24 million rifles available. During the 1994 ban it didn't stop school shootings. There were 62 of them from 1980 to today. 19 of them occurred during the 1994 ban.

JODY, IOWA,

It is not illegal to own any of those. Machine Guns all you have to do is get a $200 stamp from the ATF after getting the OK from your county Sheriff. Same with supressors. I have a pre-ban M16, and a BAR as proof of legally owning a machine gun, and I also have a supressed Barrett M107, and a supressed MP5. If you get the right FFL license you can own rocket launcers and grenades. Even C4 and similar explosives.

For the record I am a sport shooter and collector. My collection ranges from 1650's deuling pistols all the way up to today's modern weapons. I own at least one firearm from every major conflict the US has been involved in. It really shows the technology advancements of firearms thru the years. Some of the first guns ever were made in China in 900 AD to defend cities from foreign invasion.

Dawgfan while I appreciate your detailed response just so's you know it I am a firearms instructor and have a long history with them myself so I'm quite aware of all the problems that you mention. Also some of the problems that you mention with theft etc. You do however make the mistake in thinking that some of our Yahoo Brethren are as reasonable as you and I. Some folks just don't care about all that stuff. Also you make the point of obtaining Licenses Etc for all your various collections and here again I don't think anybody here would have a problem with any of that. Expand on that with me a little bit. If somebody had to sign for ammo say above certain quantity's don't you think that it just might tip some body off that they are planing something shady. Same if somebody bought One of these stocks. How about if somebody was buying up body armor. These are all things that most of these incidents have in common. As a for instance I'm a small farmer. Over and above a certain amount of fertilizer I have to sign off on it. Somebody checks to see if it is going to be used for it's intended use and not explosives. Same with what I'm talking about. At various times all of these people inadvertently tipped off that they were planning something. All you had to do was put the signs together. Your solution is that we can't do anything so why try. My solution is to try and throw out the things that don't work and to keep on trying till you get it right. I like my way better than yours because when you have a problem it's always better to do what you can about it rather than ignoring it and hoping it goes away. Something is always better than nothing.

IR,

Buying ammo isn't the problem. Heck, I've purchased 3 tons of brass from a military auction to reload for range use. Someone can buy all the ammo they want, but they can't use it unless they have a firearm to shoot it, for which they should have gone thru a background check. I think citizens should be able to use the NICS line when making a private sale instead of the Proposed making everyone go to a dealer. All the things mentioned wouldn't have stopped any of the school shooters in the last 30 years. You know it and I know it. Sandy Hook would have happended regardless of there being a check on ammo amounts. It would have happened regardless of Universal Background checks. It would have happened regarless if a mental health professional submitted his name to the NICS. Same with the CO shooting. He showed knowledge of being able to build bombs, and if he was not allowed to buy a firearm he could have planted bombs made from common materials and could have had a much more devastating affect.

Making certain items harder to get or restricting them from the law abiding citizens isnt going have any major effect on mass shootings. A researcher was giving details of his study on the Brady Act, and the 1994 Ban yesterday at a Summit to reduce gun violence and said that neither had any decernable effect on the number of shootings, or the number of murders. I think it's time we start severely punishing the offenders. I know the ones that shoot a couple people then themselves we can't do anything about, but the ones that commit armed robbery and spend 6 months in jail only to be released to offend again are the real problems. I say commit a violent crime while in possession of a firearm should come with a mandatory 30 years in prison without parole. Actually brandish and harm someone with a gun while committing a crime should get a mandatory life sentance with no parole. The truth about all the murders in this country come from gang violence, domestic violence, drug deals, or verbal arguments. They are the ones that account for 95% of all gun related homicides. Also, there should never be a plea deal for any crime that involves a firearm. Too many times these criminals get a plea deal and are back on the streets to murder, rape, rob, and terrorize the law abiding. We need to blame the offenders and not their choice of weapon.

Great post bcwc!

A statistic came to me over the weekend. Since the Newtown shootings on 12-14-2012, there have been in the US, 900+ gunshot deaths.......in less than 30 days!

When will it stop? Gun sales are through the roof and the irrational fear used to explain this, the government is going to take their guns or ban sales, is just that, irrational. What will be their reason, when in a moment of rage or madness some of these weapons are used on innocent people, killing or maiming them for life? I seriously doubt, these gun owners are responsible, keeping a lock on them to prevent other irrational or mentally challenged individuals from using them. No one seems capable of giving that reasonable explanation.

bcwc, great points.

Freedom is...

Every day an average of 88 people die from gunfire.

Eight of these who die every day are children.

Charles Bouley:"We certainly can keep military grade weapons, rapid fire weapons, military grade ammunition and other such items out of the hands of civilians."

Well if it's cops shooting perps, I'm glad... likewise if it's a law abiding citizen defending themselves from raping, murdering, thieving Obamabots... if it's one of the 1200 or so accidental shootings each year, I'm saddened... and if it's Obamabots killing Obamabots in the urban areas... well, until the Leftist media cares, neither do I...

My dad never carried a pocket knife. My dad, sporting his red hair, had a temper. He lost it one day as a young man and stabbed another young person. From that day on he wouldn't have even a small knife on him. I feel the same about open carry, most murders in this country are people that know each other. Most are crimes of passion that if these people had to go and get a gun it wouldn't happen. I lay a lot of responsibility on people like fed up with a size two hat and 18 shirt size as a big problem. Not very many need a gun on them at church, the movie's, the county fair, etc. But many feel they do and it is wrong. There are just plainly to many guns on the street, most owned by ordinary citizens who fear for their safety, unnecessary. Remember a good guy is only a good guy until he squeezes a trigger, then he may become the bad guy.

Johntho,

The N.R.A. has facile clockwork responses like, "Lock up the criminals and that will solve it".

Well, our jails are full!

But many are not criminals until that moment when - as you say: "he squeezes the trigger".

The data overwhelmingly shows: That more guns in civilian hands = more civilians deaths.

John I wonder how many of the ones that has a gun has a bad temper __bet its over fifty percent of them. So they shouldn't be allowed guns since that is a mental disorder but they do . Most of the ones that killed wasn't criminals until they killed so they were legal gun owners until they killed.

Fed Up - let me guess, you're a gun owner, right? You CLEARLY aren't mentally capable of having one!

Johntho,

The problem is the high number of suicides by gun, in homes that possess them.

Attacks on family members and suicides in the home, are often impulsive moments acted out of crisis.

Great illustration about your Dad! Our family full of redheads of varying shades - but No guns.

BCWC, excellent post.

Johntho, the example of your dad is a great example of how easy availability can result in harm.

Over the last 10 years more than 5,000,000 Americans lost their lives to Heart Disease. Over the last 10 years roughly 40,000-60,000 people were killed by weapons other than firearms. Over the last 30 years there were 62 school shootings with 19 of them being during the 1994-2004 Assault Weapon ban. OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS 10,000,000-30,000,000 PEOPLE HAVE USED A FIREARM IN SELF-DEFENSE. I don't know about you, but 10-30 million occurrences of self-defense far outweights the 150k lives lost at the hands of people that would have killed regardless of the availability of a firearm.

Backhouse,

Experts have even said you can't count suicides as a reason for gun control. They would have killed themselves regardless of the availability of a firearm.

I would argue self appointed VIGILANTE George Zimmerman is a classic example of Johntho's comment, "...Remember a good guy is only a good guy until he squeezes a trigger, then he may become the bad guy."

It's too bad so many of these gun nut neanderthals were born in the wrong century. You see how they would have fared in the 'wild' west, right?

Priceless.

Attacks go hand in hand with suicides:

1. Attacks on family members and suicide by gun, only happens if there is a gun.

2. The MORE guns in a state -- the HIGHER the gun deaths and suicides in that state.

When I hold a gun everything is a target and I imagine hitting each and every one.

You must be from Connecticut

I remember during the campaign,Amy, when Powell endorsed the President for a second time, folks like Sununu immediately dismissed it as to be expected since they were both African-American. What I don't understand is why all these people who decry the Republican party's behavior don't quit. How could Powell continue to be affiliated with a party that has treated him this way?

I know. Powell said it was because he was raised as a Republican, basically. And he rattled off the names of long-dead Republican leaders, who were moderate, qualified and competent.He couldn't really name a modern Republican with those qualities. Let's face it, liberal people seem more concerned with reforming the Republican Party than Republicans are. It's the nature of progressives to want to improve things. I think Powell is a liberal and he doesn't know it.

It is about time a moderate Republican told the American public his true thoughts and feelings about his own party, that it is one of Extremists Gone Wild. The Congressional GOP leadership have no qualms about holding the country hostage to promote their insane ideas. Just ask those in the House, they WILL crash the global economy and shut down the government to avoid approving the debt ceiling. Odd for a group of people that hate poor people; they will drive 3/4 of the population into poverty via a crashed economy. That Powell recognizes and speaks out against this type of behavior is commendable.

Of course, the best was the ever horrible Peggy Noodle-head Noonan on This Week proving Powell's position. That female dog blowhard had the nerve to issue a stern warning to the President, advising him to be very, very careful while treading through gun control. According to the Top Ramon crackpot journalist, Americans are afraid of government, and that is why they are arming themselves in droves ever since the Newtown and Aurora shootings. Perhaps someone should whisper into that linguini lambasting head that what people are afraid of is her and her right-wing extremist fettuccine freaks.

You mean Israel isn't a state now? They sure seem to be the tail that wags the dog.

Hagel and Powell taking on Republican senators is the classic case of war heroes versus chicken hawks.

Why would Israel want to become a state? They get more money from the United States now than they ever would by being a state.

Unlike our close allies, Pakistan and Afghanistan, who we know we can rely on if we ever need their help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Learn the difference between Military aid and Economic aid. Read why both Israel and Egypt receive so much military aid...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Treaty

The "Arab Spring" has left the U.S with very few viable, rational partners in the Middle East.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to all the BS surrounding the pending appointments ignores the history;

It is rare for the Senate to actually vote down a candidate, but it has happened 9 times, most recently to John Powers , nominated by George H. W. Bush for Sec. of Defense in 1989. The first rejection occurred when Andrew Jackson's nominee for treasury , Roger Taney, was rejected in 1834.

df

I'm sure you care to list the lucrative partnerships PRE Arab Spring, right?

chortle. snort. thanks.

When the caliber of your weapon exceeds your IQ, it's a huge problem.

How about hiring armed, trained guards at the schools to protect children?

Who pays them?

How about hiring armed, trained guards at the schools to protect children?

See my questions to you in post #1.16.

Auntie, I'll take your post under advisement. It and a penny has about the same value.

How about we quit being so damn paranoid about everything.

It's pretty sad when Americans become afraid of themselves.

Ben-636050

How about hiring armed, trained guards at the schools to protect children?

... and after that? Playgrounds, McDonald's, malls, theaters, birthday parties? Where would you stop?

I guess we need to plan ahead and start putting armed guards on the weekend soccer and baseball fields.

Armed, trained, guards in schools. Wow, that worked so well in California last week, about as well as the Edsel worked for Ford; Epic Failure!!

Just think of the jobs created, maybe this is what the republicans meant by job creation.

Johntho, I could be fall down drunk and have more on the ball than you.

I want to thank those who responded. It is encouraging to see the left come out and actually debate a question posed. It is good that you are on record of opposing the idea of armed guards. Now, please by all means respond as vehemently to this:

Take for example when NRA president LaPierre advocated armed guards at our schools to protect our children. Although his entire statement in context made sense, he was vilified from every left attack squad available. Now just Friday -- FRIDAY -- Sen. Barbara Boxer -- liberal Democrat from CA -- submits a bill "The School Safety Act" -- under the cover of a Friday which is a slow news day and almost certainly too late to make the Sunday shows -- that calls for funding of that very thing -- armed guards at schools. In addition the Obama WH says it will consider it.

WHERE IN THE HECK IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE LEFT ON THIS??? The hypocrisy knows no boundaries. Cmon. I want everyone out there that made fun of and attacked LaPierre to defend this. What excuses will you make?? Maybe, the Boxer proposal didn't go as far as LaPierre's? Is that legitimate? Or maybe since it is a Democrat that makes it alright? Or maybe, after considerable thought, the left's position has evolved. Cmon please tell me.

http://www.courant.com/community/washington/hc-biden-gun-control-0111-20130110,0,334423.story

My, My -- a liberal and the WH considering this idea. (shakes head)

Second Amendment
"As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:"

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There we have it. We need to have a "well regulated militia." So the NRA needs to get out of the way, in order that we can regulate the militia.

Ben ... perhaps you should read my post at #5 ... Ms. Boxer is looking for common ground to get something done.

As to LaPierre, he was also attacked by many on the Right.

Wow - Ben thinking he is on the road to Gotcha Gregory reporting. Perhaps Ben could try reading his own articles.

The school safety initiative would make federal dollars available to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment, although it is not nearly as far-ranging as the National Rifle Association's proposal for armed guards in every U.S. school. http://www.courant.com/community/washington/hc-biden-gun-control-0111-20130110,0,334423.story

Policemen and surveillance equipment equate to armed guards - only in the mind of a complete lunatic.

In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

Four Justices dissented, each of which signed both of two dissenting opinions. One, by Justice Stevens, examined historical evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment to conclude that the amendment protects militia-related interests. A second dissenting opinion, by Justice Breyer, stated that even if the Second Amendment protects a separate interest in individual self-defense, the District of Columbia provisions at issue are permissible forms of regulation.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller leaves some issues unanswered, including whether the Second Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the Second Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

As background to the Court’s decision, the following is a selective bibliography listing only some of the substantial literature of books and journal articles on the Second Amendment.

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

@BCWC and Red -- I see you are answering one of my questions -- What excuses will you make?? Maybe, the Boxer proposal didn't go as far as LaPierre's? Most of the responses was that the concept of armed guards was the "dumbest" idea. LMAO You have been outed. Game, set, Match on this one. Looking for more rousing debates from the low information left.

Auntie, it is far better for people to think you stupid then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. In this case you typed.

Ben ... I see no reason to make excuses and certainly not invent any to satisfy you. You asked a leading question ... as always the objection is sustained.

Johntho

Re your discourse with Auntie Fascist ... I would step back and not be caught leaning too far off base.

Sorry Ben, there is no game, set, match, you Dumbfux News low comprehension reader. Again, from the article you cite:

After the Newtown shootings, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre proposed that every school be protected by armed guards, who could be volunteers, firefighters or private security personnel. Boxer said that her plan is limited to law enforcement officials from the community and that any decision would be up to individual schools.

Now go ahead, and explain away how a police officer presence equates to privately hired Armed Guards. What should be pointed out, from this article, is that Boxer suggested this proposal to placate you low-information right wing extremists, something we haven't seen from the obstructionist GOP. Personally, I don't why she would bother making an attempt to find bi-partisan solutions, since all you and your ilk do is bitch and complain and prove over and over again you won't budge from your stance.

The idea is gaining currency among some Democratic lawmakers, who see it as a potential area of common ground with Republicanswho otherwise oppose stricter restrictions on firearms.

I agree with the premise, who is going to pay, how much will it cost the school districts to put, train, and insure armed guards in schools. This weekend on another thread regarding the dad that "tested" a texas school's security...I was asking the same questions.

For all those posting placing blame on the school district for not being prepared and demanding that school districts get prepared....are you willing to paid for the additional securtiy measures in your local taxes...city, county, and property taxes. I also pointed out that school's are broke, and cutting programs, teachers, administrators....yet angry that they aren't spending money on additional security. Our society is showing it's instant gratification mentality without thinking that additional funds are needed for schools now, let alone for initiating increased security measures. That would include upgrading doors to locked...replacing glass, with bullet proof glass, increased video, etc. not even taking armed security guards into effect.

The NRA is big on talk and what America should do...but sorely lacking on any recommendations on the funding for such initiative's. Let the NRA start sending checks out to all schools in America, as a helping hand to such a tragedy and reactionary remarks to the CT shooting.

Johnthro...

...it is far better for people to think you stupid then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

LMAO

Johntho, it's "than", not "then". If you want to attack someone's intellect, mispelling and poor grammar do a number on your credibility.

Jackie, I believe someone on this same post had a great idea. The cost of trained officers in each school should be paid for with very high taxes on guns and ammunition. It should ALL come from the gun owners!

Ben, your "gotcha" question does not deserve debate or an answer.

IF you are truly interested in debating the subject, do so. If all you are interested in doing is baiting those who oppose your views, you will find none here to satisfy you.

I will state what others here have stated far more eloquently. I do not support armed guards in schools, regardless of who advances the idea.

I do support a discussion on how, from this point forward, releasing fewer guns into society will render guards unnecessary. I do support a discussion on how better checks, better attention to mental health, better regulation of guns already in existence will make us all safer.

Ben,

The June 26 decision split down party lines. If Gore had been inagurated, it would have gone the other way. That's how close it is.

@ Seeking Sanity

I think anyone over 2% of recommended body weight should pay for all the health related issues of obesity in this country. It should all fall on the backs of fat people!!!!!

You are a moron

And so should the Democrats take back their party from the extreme left radicals and move in this direction:

www.nolabels.org

Nope. We are the majority.

So true markinbecker. Our Nation is more of a Progressive Nation moving Forward.

That is the problem Ben, the democrats have moved toward the middle. Obama is under attack daily by both the right wing radicals and the left wing radical. Maybe you are to far right to appreciate that. Obama cares is a perfect example. As many republican idea's (see Romneycare), are incorporated in the bill and yet it is rejected by both the right, and by the left because it doesn't go far enough. ie, the public option was dropped.

@Ben-636050

And so should the Democrats take back their party from the extreme left radicals and move in this direction:

Just who are those extreme left radicals that you mention? I can't think of any.

Ben, again you deflect the discussion.

The Democrats, particularly the President, are already in the center. The only reason it still looks left to you is that the Republicans are falling off the right edge of the political spectrum.

Obama is to the right of Nixon.

Yes, the republicans should take a stand against the tea bag people. Remember, crazy should not win.

"Crazy" did win back in November when Obama was elected ... the man is a financial clusterf_ck who has run up national debt while never having a budget and he jumps to every "crisis" as a means to promoting his half-baked thoughts.

The sheer fact that the Newtown killings are being used for political purposes tells more about those who would use this tragedy to further their political agendas than it does the tragedy itself. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" ... who said that ??

The hatred of the Senate is based upon the teabaggers filibuster, not the liberals.

Hope,

Citation please!!

Gallup (Jan 7-10, 2013) Congressional Approval-Disapproval (not Senate):
14%-81% with 5% unsure
Approval by Party ID:
Republicans = 6%, Democrats = 15% and Independents = 17%
2012 average approval = 15% which is the lowest since Gallup started tracking Congressional approval ratings, 38 years ago.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159812/congress-begins-2013-approval.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Now the house is hated because of Boehner and Cantor.

You mean the republican house, has the lowest approval rating in history. Get your facts!

@HopeIsGone:

Still afraid to defend your lies, Hopeless, and instead keep deflecting! LOL! What a pansy!

You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

Dennis - great post of the facts! HopeIsGone - clearly you weren't counting on Dennis were ya?

Are you people really this stupid?? Dennis...you do realize that Senate IS PART OF CONGRESS???? Therefore, a Congressional approval rating would absolutely include the Senate!! No wonder why our country is so screwed....our schools must really be failing our students!! SeekingSanity....really??? really???????? Third grade History classes used to teach this stuff......I guess the Teacher's Unions are spending too much time protecting bad teachers and not enough time protecting the education of our children......

HopeisGone - are you really this stupid?????? Dennis broke down the ratings for you - according to each branch of Congress. I understand that your comprehension skills are sorely lacking but try to get someone with intelligence to explain it to you!

@HopeIsGone:

Still afraid to defend your lies, Hopeless, and instead keep deflecting! LOL! What a pansy!

You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

SeekingSanity.....you are almost as simple as Say What!! Please note that the post by Dennis DOES break-down the approval rating for Dems and DOES also list this as the LOWEST in history!! You ass-douche, you need to go back to school and this time finish the 3rd grade!!

...and here comes Say What?, the resident retard!

@HopeIsGone:

Still afraid to defend your lies, Hopeless, and instead keep deflecting! LOL! What a pansy!

You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

Hope,

You said the SENATE. You were wrong !!

The approval is for Congress where the HOUSE has 81.3% of the Congressional seats and has more authority with our nations purse strings than either the Senate or the Whitehouse.

Say What? .....lick any windows today?? Does your mother still make you wear that shiny, yellow helmet so you don't injure yourself? ....I feel sorry for you.

Dennis...you do understand that "Congress" is comprised of the lower house (known as the House of Representatives) and the upper house (known as the Senate)? You do also understand that there are MORE Democrats in "Congress" than there are Republicans??? Good....come back tomorrow and I will start teaching you the alphabet...

@HopeIsGone:

Still afraid to defend your lies, Hopeless, and instead keep deflecting! LOL! What a pansy!

You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

@Hopeisgone: (Just cannot stop lying...here is more proof of your lies)

The 113th Congress:

Democrats 53 Senators Republicans 45

Democrats 200 Representatives Republicans 233

Totals: Dems = 253 Republicans = 278

Want to explain your lie in #12.15 please?

Say What?....LOL......so, now you are admitting that America still votes for more Republicans than they do for Democrats???? ...I wanted you to jump in on that one and you did......you are quite a simple person. ...I'd bet that you are a school teacher? Our children are doomed!

.

PS- Did you teach Dennis? He thinks that the Senate is a separate entity from Congress.....

No!

I you stated in your #12.0 "Senate". I clarified by saying "Congress" meaning that not just the Senate had a poor approval but both chambers thus Congress.

You mad an error and now try for a CYA.

@Hopeisgone:

Still deflecting from your lies.

1. The GOP lost seats in the House and Senate...

2. Show me where I said "America still votes for more Republicans...." Another of your lies

3. Explain your lie in 12.15...yet another of your lies.

4. You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

Dennis is correct....you lied in #12.0. Is there ever a time you DON'T lie?

I better get back to work.....seems I will have to work even harder and pay even more taxes....someone has to support Say What? and the other freeloaders here.....

@Dennis...

HopeisGone is both a pathological and habitual liar.....read his posts. Then, when challenged, he deflects like he tried to do to you.

@Hopeisgone:

Still deflecting from your lies.

1. The GOP lost seats in the House and Senate...

2. Show me where I said "America still votes for more Republicans...." Another of your lies

3. Explain your lie in 12.15...yet another of your lies.

4. You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

Say What?......You are just pissed because I pegged you as a 4th grade History teacher who isn't too good at their job. If not for the Unions protecting your job and allowing you to fail our children, you'd be kicked to the curb and wind up working as a 2nd rate used car salesman. I also pegged you as the type of individual who tries to sell Amway or the next "big thing" to your family and friends in your spare time ...not realizing that they are all laughing at you behind your back. You are very opinionated, have a fat wife who doesn't love you, a few kids that have moved out of state to be far away from you, and a disposition of wanting the whole world to be as miserable as you. You believe that your misery is somehow born from your "intellect". Yet, you have difficulty even completing a simple task like the morning crossword puzzle of your newspaper (which you buy at a convenience store and do not have delivered so that you can save that 50 cents per week).......

Say What?...tell me I am not right....

Say What? ...you there?? ....(crickets)

@Hopeisgone:

Still deflecting from your lies.

1. The GOP lost seats in the House and Senate...

2. Show me where I said "America still votes for more Republicans...." Another of your lies

3. Explain your lie in 12.15...yet another of your lies.

4. You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

Say What?....hit the nail on the head....didn't I? How's that maroon Prius doing?

@Hopeisgone:

Still deflecting from your lies.

1. The GOP lost seats in the House and Senate...

2. Show me where I said "America still votes for more Republicans...." Another of your lies

3. Explain your lie in 12.15...yet another of your lies.

4. You gonna spin your lies again about MLKjr, Hopeless?

You ran off like a wuss last night when I posted what his WIFE said!

But that is OK, for you see, the WHOLE BOARD KNOWS, beyond question, that you are a liar.
And I will continue to post your lies, until you man up.

Why not spin your lie about MLKjr being a "life-long Republican" despite his son, his wife,
and autobiography saying he was a Democrat? Snopes and Politifact also say the claim he was
Republican is FALSE

The RINO Colin Powell has lost any and ALL credibility

The RINO Colin Powell has lost any and ALL credibility

Only with the far right nut jobs.

sonmanvb - clearly Powell's honor and integrity would cost him all credibility with someone like you who possess neither.

So yet another personal attack from Seeking Sanity ? Is there no end to your self-serving need to attack others with different opinions ?? Are you THAT freaking insecure about yourself ???

Whether you care to admit it or not, Colin Powell has lost some credibility and has contradicted himself.

Correct Answer: Teabaggers, extreme right wing conservatism! It is the reason the founders gave us the 2nd Amendment. Conservatism is today's tyranny. The founding fathers were radical/revolutionaries. Conservatism in the late 18th century meant support of King George and the British military.

sonmanvb

So when are you getting or giving marching orders?

And liberal in the late 18th century meant someone who stood for liberty and individual freedom...a far cry from the "liberals" today.

markinbecker, Libtards REALLY are ignorant.

Wrong booken. Liberty meant freedom from British rule.

And liberal in the late 18th century meant someone who stood for liberty and individual freedom...a far cry from the "liberals" today.

My point exactly.

That wasn't your point. You had not idea what you were talking about. All of the conservatives in the late 18th century moved to Canada, they weren't even part of the US.

You assume that it only meant freedom from British rule. The thought of James Mill were regarding the establishment of a representative government that sought to give the most liberty and freedom of choice to the individual. Although Mill was British, it does not mean it was only against British rule.

Yes it did. We fought an 8 year revolution. Liberty from British rule had percolating for some 15 years before the Declaration of Independence. After the revolution Britain was stockpiling troops in Canada and blockading our ports. We went back to war against them in 1812. Don't try to re-write history.

Mill was a resident of Britain. Others of the time, who were not colonists, spoke and wrote of individual liberty. It has to do with more than the colonists and the American Revolution.

Anybody that uses the "fascist" card has no credibility. Total nut case.

Johntho, Todays liberalism will destroy this country and what it stands for. Just look around you. We now have a government and president that will go around the Constitution to get what ever he wants that he knows very well he can't get congress to do and a whole party supports that(DEM) and half of the other party(REPUBS). That is the very definition of tyanny.

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini

Fedup..........................seek help for your mentally challenged ideas.

Ah yes, another so-called "progressive" displays her fangs ! Gingerbread momma is another "regressive" who will make a personal attack upon you simply because she doesn't agree with your opinion ! LOL !!

Let me guess, she ALSO is a friend of Seeking Sanity.

Actually, Nazis did not ban guns in Germany. I've heard this incorrectly repeated many times. Hitler was a pro-gun advocate.

After World War 1, the Treaty of Versailles mandated that Germans have almost no access to guns. However, as quickly as the 1920s, Germany began to relax its gun laws. The Weimar Republic, however, did have gun registration laws.

When Hitler came to power, he further expanded gun rights, removing some restrictions and the prior registration requirements. The only exceptions were for minorities, such as Jews and Gypsies, who were prohibited from owning guns. However, most experts agree that, had these minorities been armed, they would not have been a threat to Nazi Germany, which was already well in power by the time the prohibition was created.

To summarize, Hitler did "effect total gun control," but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Weak stupid reply. Your talking about crossing the street aholerand.

What's going on? When I want to make some comments, up comes a McDonald's screen that blocks the comments area.

It's frustrating, to say the least.

Any $5.00 or more purchase, with your name and e-mail address, at any MacDonald's, will fix that.

It's a new Newsvine-MacDonald's internet marketing tool.

P.S. If you haven't left yet, just kidding.

Dan Troy - wrong - the VAST majority of American believe our gun control laws are too lax and that there is no need for anyone to have assault weapons or large capacity magazines. We believe there should be mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales and that there should be licensing for ALL guns.

Your making up "facts" doesn't fly here!

Let's see, SS, you are from Chicago where the gun control laws are amongst the strongest in the country ! Yet Chicago is well-known as the gang-banger violent capitol of the U.S. at this time with one of the highest murder rates !!!

How are those gun control laws working for you in Chicago there genius ?????

psoreilly,

Your last suggestion is most likely an unconstitutional usurpation of States Rights. States are free to regulate guns sales and ownership as they see fit subject to adhering to the 2nd amendment and conformance with US law. There is no compelling national interest served by prohibiting states from adding additional requirements or restrictions.

Good point...it think it may be a little more than 1/3 however....there is a lot of inadvertent mass murdering going on in the world with no violence employed at all. Just a though.

Pigotry borrowed from Peggy Noonan's latest column. As with most of what Peggy Noonan writes, it was thoughtful. Since the GOP's biggest fear is primary challenges from the right, it's also probably irrelevant. You can't borrow (or steal) issues that you refuse to admit are issues.

Auntie, U R good ...

well, many don't know the source, don't know how to find the source, or don't care to know the source.

I like this thoughtful piece from Peggy Noonan. Basically, one party becomes better by 'stealing' from others... Eisenhower did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Obama has done it. Now it's GOP's turn - I wonder if the GOP is ever capable of taking a page from Pres. Obama, given their behavior in the last 4 years.

well, many don't know the source, don't know how to find the source, or don't care to know the source.

Well, no offense; I have been curious about both sides' arguments and are always ready to share with you what I have found. I am always ready to share with all of you whatever I have got.