Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

Marco Rubio showed his true yellow colors last week, joining 45 other cowards to defeat Senate legislation designed to stop criminals from buying firearms online and at gun shows.

The vote was nauseating. So is Rubio.

A few days earlier, he’d admitted to Fox News that he hadn’t read the complete bill that would expand federal background checks of gun buyers, but he was opposing it anyway.

Other pertinent materials that Rubio obviously didn’t read included a recent New York Times sampling of nutjobs, convicted criminals and even one fugitive who purchased assault rifles and other weapons over the Internet.

On NBC, Rubio repeated the NRA lie that background checks don’t work.

The truth: Since 1998, the National Instant Background Check System has blocked more than two million gun purchases by felons and others who are prohibited from owning firearms.

It’s unknown how many of them later went to gun shows and purchased AK-47s because, in most states, gun-show vendors aren’t required to keep detailed sales records. That’s one loophole that Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey were trying to fix.

The Manchin-Toomey bill was supported by a huge majority of Americans — between 86 and 90 percent, depending on the poll — but not by the junior senator from Florida, the one who thinks he’s going to be the nation’s next president.

Listen to what he said on television:

“The fact of the matter is, we have a violence problem in the United States. Guns are what people use, but violence is our problem.”

Really? Stop the presses!

In fact, Rubio doesn’t have much to say about the causes and costs of violence in American culture. Currently there’s no mention of this tragic problem on his official website.

What you’ll find there is multiple “news” items about his role in immigration reform. He believes this is the issue that will make him the Republican frontrunner and help put him in the White House.

That’s why he appeared on seven national talk shows last Sunday — to promote new immigration legislation. When questioned about the upcoming gun bills, Rubio faithfully recited his NRA scripture.

And when it came time to decide on Wednesday, with heartsick families of the murdered Newtown children watching from the Senate gallery, Rubio stood with the cowards and pimps for the gun-manufacturing lobby.

He voted no to universal background checks. No to a ban on assault rifles. No to modestly limiting the number of bullets in magazine clips.

  • Sen. Marco Rubio, like most politicians, is an opportunist who will support whatever he believes his constituents want. While much is being said about the 90% that support more effective background checks, the truth is that most Americans support the right to bear arms and object to any restrictions that limit their ability to buy and carry lethal weapons. One of the greatest ironies of their most reason decision is that they claim to have defended the Constitutions by guaranteeing the rights of an UNREGULATED militia…and many Americans believe it!

    • jmprint

      They believe it, because the NRA puts out enough paraphernalia to brain wash all those who lack backbone to think for themselves.

      “The fact of the matter is, we have a violence problem in the United States. Guns are what people use, but violence is our problem.”

      So how do the republicans take care of this issue; Give them more powerful guns and more rights to carry out the violence on innocent bystanders. Ya, they are for the people, NOT!

      • Independent1

        Here’s an article from the Daily Mail in Great Britain reporting on a study that says (toward the bottom) that America really doesn’t have more violence than most other countries on the planet but what’s really troubling is America has far more ‘lethal violence’ than most other countries because Americans own 35 to 50 percent of the guns in the world. Here’s that article:

        Gun Violence Contributes to America’s Low Life Expectancy

        The United States has far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation in part because there are so many residents who own guns and store them in unlocked places in their homes. The lax gun rules are a major contributor to the low life expectancy rate that Americans have compared to their global counterparts.

        A new report reveals that of the 17 wealthiest countries, American males have the lowest life expectancy of 75.6 years and their female counterparts are the second lowest in the rankings coming in at 80.7 years. The blame placed on guns comes just weeks after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and as politicians make calls for stricter gun controls.

        The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents and none of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two
        violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

        ‘With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this
        problem,’ said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute
        of Medicine. The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts
        occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It’s the lethality
        of those attacks that stands out.

        ‘One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and
        unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of
        firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic,’ the report said. For example, the United States has the highest rate of firearm ownership among peer countries — 89 civilian-owned firearms for every 100 Americans, and the U.S. is home to about 35 to 50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned firearms, the report noted.

        • idamag

          There is probably a thinking problem in the United States. A lot of people have been scared. The fear benefits some groups like the NRA.

    • TheSkalawag929

      The two don’t necessarily cancel each other out. Effective background checks don’t limit a person’s ability to buy and carry firearms. It does make it harder for that portion of the population who are by law prohibited from buying or carrying firearms.

      • I agree. However, claiming to be champions of the Constitution while undermining it is nothing short of laughable. The Second Amendment has two clauses: the right to bear arms and the need to establish “a well regulated militia.” When Republicans, and four Democrats, decided to vote against the expansion of an existing background check law to include Internet and gun show sales they made a mockery of the second clause in the Second Amendment. Allowing criminals, former convicts, and people suffering from mental illnesses is the last thing in the world the founding fathers had in mind. The goal when the Second Amendment was written was to ensure we were ready to reject a potential British invasion, rather than give lethal weapons to unstable people and criminal elements.

        • idamag

          There are the words, “Well regulated.”

          • Independent1

            You notice that all the gun nuts choose to pretend those words don’t exist. To me, well relgulated would imply that the govt should have a registry of who owns a gun so should a militia be needed to repel some form of invastion, the govt would know who to call upon to defend the state or country.

          • TheSkalawag929

            There are the words, “Well regulated.”

            Yeah and that doesn’t equal everyone.

  • adler56

    Rubio will have no chance when the rest of the country finds out he’s a liar and a thief
    in addition to being a coward. Another Republican out of touch with reality.

    • Independent1

      How right your are! What would really help is if more and more Americans would wake up to the fact that every Republican that aspires to be a member of the GOP is a thief at heart, hellbent on doing nothing but lining his or her pockets with corporate and billionaire monies in payment for them to start wars and pass every piece of legislation they can that allows those corporations and billionaires to continue stealing billions of taxpayer’s dollars. The GOP is nothing more than an American version of the Italian Mafia.

      • TheSkalawag929

        What would really help would be if more Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and common sense Republicans would do all they can to get the message out EVERY chance they get.

      • adler56

        I think the mafia had more honor than the repugnants.

        • Independent1

          I think you’re right. I don’t think hoods in the Italian Mafia go out of their way to do things that they know are actually harmful to the country. Whereas GOPers seem so determined to filch as much money from taxpayers that they don’t care what they destroy – the country, the planet or even themselves in the long run.

    • Sand_Cat

      Hey, George W. Bush got elected in 2004, or at least he got enough votes to make it close enough to steal. If he wasn’t a liar and a coward, we need new definitions of the terms, and I certainly wouldn’t put thieving past him (particularly of elections).

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Republican bully bois never ever miss the chance to shift blame or refocus on issues. Instead of them apologizing for their misbegotten refusal to support tighter gun control, now they are looking to blame anyone they can in this administration for the obstructions these NRA suck ups caused in the first place. Check the facts. Back in 1994, they had the opportunity to change gun control laws regarding hand grenades. They backed the NRA and refused to budge. Sorry but the Boston mayhem is on the GOP heads. Americans are not going to allow these fruitcakes of the NRA and the GOP to bully the country into desensitization of civility and accept that gun massacres and bombings must be accepted because of the flimsy excuse that “it’s going to happen anyway.” No …It won’t “happen anyway” if manufacturers are limited on the number of guns they can mass produce and flood the streets with. And NO it “won’t happen anyway” if the licenses to sell guns and deal them are jacked to the highest possible fees. The same jerks of the conservative party who live in “dry states” where alcohol is prohibited are the same armed nut jobs who allow loonies to walk freely on streets the rest of states fund through our tax dollars. What these GOP suck ups to the NRA really want is the right to intimidate Americans. They can’t win elections honestly, use tax dollars honestly or perform the duties of their political jobs honestly…What would make anyone believe they care about the people who pay their salaries? All any American has to do is see how many millions the NRA and gun manufacturers are pumping into Porker Politicians campaigns and you see the dirty, filthy, disgusting Pay to Play that’s killing and maiming innocent Americans and their children.

    • Well said – they are nothing more than overcompensated whores….no more, no less.

      • wesley rasmussen

        Please – you insult the whores of the world…

      • idamag

        I believe whores are more honest. You know what they are.

        • neeceoooo

          You’re right about that, they don’t have to lie about their profession.

    • itsfun

      Win elections honestly, check on what is going on in Indiana right now. Use tax dollars to send wife and kids on vacations every month or so. perform honestly, what happened to our Ambassador, (Obama is hiding the facts). We will keep our 2nd amendment right whether you Socialists like it or not. How can anyone believe high fees will keep criminals from getting guns?

      • Independent1

        When are you going to wake up and realize that the 2nd Amendment only gives you the right to care ‘A GUN’; not the fanciest gun that kills the most people as quickly as possible! Even the Supreme Court judges that were right-wing biased agreed to that in 2008 when their decision said that: “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many long standing prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11] So grow up and realize that your fantasy about owning the best people-killer you can buy IS NOT a right supported by the 2nd Amendment.

        • itsfun

          Where does it say I can’t own the best people-killer?

          • Lovefacts

            The best protection, people killer as you call it, is a shotgun. If you want protection, that’s what you buy.

          • itsfun

            People killer is what independent1 chooses to call a gun. I just responded in his or hers terms. I agree with shotgun.

          • Lovefacts

            Now, if you’d used this as a response to independent and nothing but this, I would’ve liked your response. The problem I have is when hyperbole is used and I can’t tell if it’s your actual belief or not.

          • Independent1

            In one of your other comments, you mentioned that – IMO, there should be a difference between what is sold to the public and what
            is sold to the military and law enforcement. I couldn’t agree more with that – and I certainly don’t disagree at all that a shot gun should be the people’s choice of weapon for self-defense in the home. The problem is, because places like WalMart sell only the AR-15, that’s what people are going out and buying – which is something that should be stopped. WalMart should not be selling people killers – AR-15s. And my biggest problem with the AR-15 isn’t that it can hold a magazine that will shoot 30 bullets, my biggest problem is that they’ve made it so easy to shoot, with virtually no recoil, that even a 7 year-old could grab one and kill 10 people before they could blink an eye. Just about exactly what the youngster did at Sandy Hook – and he wasn’t much bigger than the average 10 year old.

          • Independent1

            That’s not what I said at all. You keep barking about wanting to be able to buy any gun you think your wild imagination would like to buy because you’ve been saying that you feel the 2nd Amendment gives you that right. What I’ve been telling you is that the 2nd Amendement DOES NOT give you the right to buy any gun you have in your imagination – I was using the AR-15 people killer as an example. The 2nd Amendment does not give you THE RIGHT to own an AR-15; it only gives you THE RIGHT to own A GUN. And that gun can be definded by the government without infringing your 2nd Amendment rights. When Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment, the only gun you could have purhcased was either a single-shot musket or a single-shot revolver. There were no such thing as multi-shot guns back then. So the 2nd Amendment only says that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS (arms being a gun, not necessarily an AR-15.)

          • itsfun

            didn’t they have cannons back then. I would call that an assault weapon.

          • Independent1

            I believe cannons have been around since about the 13th century; so they had them when Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment; but that’s not the point. You can’t own a cannon today legally, or a tank, or a machine gun, or a grenade launcher – virtually anything that’s specifically designed to wage war.; so that should include guns that were developed for just that purpose – to kill as many people as is possible without really having to have much skill at it – because the gun will spray bullets without you doing a lot of aiming or working very hard to do it. The kid that killed the 26 at Sandy Hook, would never have been able to do that with a hunting rifle – partly because he would have had a hard time just firing it – certainly a far harder time than he had firing the AR-15 his Mom bought at WalMart. (The kid also wasn’t old enough to purchase a gun in Conn; you have to be 21. and he wasn’t that old yet).

          • neeceoooo

            I really like your argument.

          • Actually, you CAN legally buy and own a cannon, or a tank, or a grenade launcher (although you can’t legally have the grenades). And I agree that he could not have killed as many people with a standard hunting rifle, but why would he “have had a hard time just firing it”? That is just a stupid and untrue comment!

          • Independent1

            I’ve done quite a bit of seaching on the internet and have been unable to find a website that will go out on a limb and suggest that a tank, cannon or grenade launcher are outright legal. Most references to the legality of these weapons of war say that it’s up to local ordinances; so my hunch is that you’d have a hard time getting a license in a local area for a tank, cannon, grenade launcher etc. that would allow you to use it for it’s intended purpose – waging war. You may be able to get a permit to own one of these things for decorative, display or some other non-military purpose.

          • Independent1

            Maybe for killing one person, but guns like the AR-15 are better suited for killing MANY PEOPLE. And aside from that though, an AR-15 serves very little other purpose (other than making it very easy for even a 7 year old to kill MANY PEOPLE. because an AR-15 is so EASY to shoot. Which is one reason why they should be banned.)

          • Lovefacts

            Actually, an eight bullet clip will only kill two more people than a revolver. The problem is in the clips and number of rounds it will fire. IMO, there should be a difference between what is sold to the public and what is sold to the military and law enforcement.

            The public wants to protect their home and family. A shotgun works best for that. The military and law enforcement are fighting a war. Different needs require different weapons.

            The liberals/progressives, of which I am one, have a bad habit of going for an extreme solution that threatens those on the other side. Be rational, recognize what we can and can’t accomplish and go after it. But when vitrioloic rhetoric is used and extreme measures are involved, nothing happens.

          • TheSkalawag929

            I would agree with you if magazines were limited to eight rounds but they aren’t.

            Which is the extreme solution? Is it wanting to protect myself, my family and other innocents from AR-15 toting thirty or more round magazine bearing nut-jobs.
            Or is it allowing AR-15 toting thirty or more round magazine bearing nut-jobs to buy as many of these weapons and magazines as they choose unchecked.

            Tell me which you think is the more extreme solution.

          • Lovefacts

            Like you, I would love for all these high capacity weapons to no longer be available. However, given the current political climate and how polorized the country is at the moment, it’s extreme to expect it or demand it. When we do, we get nothing. I suggest nibbling away at the problem and educating the public.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Which will attain the desired results, Loving to have something or Working toward getting something?

            The way is not easy. If it was we would already be there.

            Since Dec.14, 2013 three thousand six hundred and fourteen people have died in incidents relating to firearms.

            We can’t afford to nibble.

          • Independent1

            I didn’t say at the moment you can’t buy it. I said, the 2nd amendment DOES NOT give you THE RIGHT to buy it.

          • itsfun

            I have the right to protect myself, so I must have the right to buy it. I think the amendment gives me the right to purchase any gun I want. It didn’t outlaw cannons for people when written.

          • CrankyToo

            Wake up, folks! This giboni who calls himself “itsfun” cannot possibly be as stupid as he’s giving you to believe. He’s got to be a troll. Ignore him; he’ll eventually go find some other site to haunt with his inanity.

          • BDC_57

            I think hes related to Lana

          • idamag

            nobody is that crazy.

          • plc97477

            No lana is one of a kind. Thank god.

          • neeceoooo

            I would say it is to our misfortune.

          • old_blu

            You are absolutely right about that, and good evening. Aren’t you the early one I see in the mornings?

          • neeceoooo

            Good morning friend, we have got to stop meeting like this. Yes, sometimes I check out the comments in the evening as well.

          • neeceoooo

            maybe they are one in the same

          • neeceoooo

            Thanks for the warning

          • TheSkalawag929

            You didn’t do a very good job of protecting yourself because you have contracted a server maybe even fatal case of Maximus Stupidus.

          • Sand_Cat

            And people like you should fear for your safety.

          • itsfun

            Why? Are you going to come and get me tough guy

          • TheSkalawag929

            Where does it say that you CAN own the best people-killer?

          • Independent1

            No where. But unfortunately, it doesn’t say today that you can’t either – which it should except for the cowards that voted down the background checks, and the assault weapon ban and the maximum of 10 rounds in a magazine.

          • johninPCFL

            In the SCOTUS ruling, just like he quoted above, to wit: “the right is not unlimited. It IS NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever…” Are you reading impaired?

          • TheSkalawag929

            Maybe not so much reading impaired as willfully stupid.

          • neeceoooo

            and why do you want the best people killer?

        • idamag

          If those nuts who need to carry assault rifles weren’t so cowardly, they would join the service where they are supposed to carry one.

          • Independent1

            You expressed the reason why they won’t join the service – they’re cowards. They’re awful brave about making a big fuss over enacting sensible guidelines on gun ownership, but they’re cowards when it comes to putting everything on the line.

          • neeceoooo

            And it may be that we don’t want them in the service carrying a rifle they may shot a room full of innocent children just because they can.

        • neeceoooo

          The interesting thing about the NRA debate is that Mr. Lapierre was all for gun control 10 or 15 years ago

        • My neighbor lady is an avid anti-gun person, she hates ANY gun! Shortly after a shooting in Omaha – a gang related 1 person shooting – came on the news, she came over to talk to me and said (exact quote) “I wish I could kill everyone who makes guns, sells guns, owns guns or uses a gun!”

          • Independent1

            Yup! There are extemists on both sides of the issue – you’re neighbor obviously went off the deep end.

      • TheSkalawag929

        You’re a parrot. Aren’t you?

      • John Pigg

        As a moderate Hoosier. what is our state doing that I should know about?

        • itsfun

          voter fraud investigation into voter registration

          • John Pigg

            I have no idea what you are talking about?

          • BDC_57

            I dont think he knows what he talking about

    • TheSkalawag929

      This is a battle that must be won on the state level the same way that the battle for marriage equality is being won one state at a time.
      It’s time to make state legislators accountable.

  • itsfun

    Why do liberals think the criminals will obey gun control laws? Criminals will always have access to guns. I wonder how the people in Boston felt when they were in lock down with no guns to protect their selves in case the bombers broke into their homes?

    • Independent1

      Here’s a few statistics that I’m sure you’ll blow off because they’re totally counter to the dellusion you’ve gotten yourself into by reading all that grossly distorted and biased propoganda from the NRA – but I’ll pass it along anyway.

      What the NRA doesnf’t want you to know is: should you buy a gun, having that gun in your home raises the risk of someone dying in that home by up to 5 times that of someone dying from a gunshot in a gunless home (especially a woman and the kids); which is a far greater probablity (that someone in a home will die from the gun you bought), than the probablity you’ll ever get to use the gun for self-defense. The study that I’m going to show you which was done by Josh Harkinson and published in Mother Jones, totally refutes the NRA’s claim that each year 2.5 million people use a gun in self-defense. Using facts from the Department of Justices Crime Victimizaltion Survey, Josh proved that the 2.5 million claim of the NRA is really only about 75,000 times/year is someone really able to use a gun for self defense; and that’s 75,000 times out of 7.5 million gun related crimes per year. A victim is really only able to somehow get his or her gun and use it to stop a gun-related crime in 1% of all crimes where someone commits it brandishing a gun.

      Here’s Josh Harkinson’s article that was published in Mother Jones: (Josh used a lot of pie charts and graphs to make his points which I converted into words)

      Bogus Gun Lobby Statistics

      The gun lobby claims that people must carry guns to protect themselves from being killed by criminals; but facts show that most homicides occur between people who know each other and don’t occur in situations where someone is expecting to have to protect themself. So, for example, of the homicides that occurred in America during 2010, less than 3% were justifiable homicides for the cause of self- defense.

      The gun lobby also would like Americans to believe that guns are used about 2.5 million times a year for self-defense; but according to the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a fraction of that; being again less than 3% of the gun lobby’s grossly inflated number (actually less than 75,000 times – nowhere near 2.5 million).

      Also, of about 30 million crime victims recorded for the years 2007-2011, less than 1% of the victims were actually able to find and use a gun for self-defense purposes: that means out of 30,000,000 crime victims, less than 300,000 were actually able to protect themselves with a gun; even though Americans own around 300 million guns.

      And finally, in any given year, far more Americans have their guns stolen, about 230,000, than are ever able to use their gun to defend themselves, less than 75,000 out of about 75 million crime victims. Pretty sad isn’t it for all the hype the NRA puts out; and especially considering all the mass killings America has
      suffered the past decade that were committed by killers who couldn’t have purchased the guns they used and therefore were only able to use a gun to kill a lot of people because they stole the gunfrom a relative.

      • itsfun

        You know what they say “figures don’t lie, but liars figure”

        • Independent1

          And you and the NRA have sure proven that!!!!

      • BDC_57

        It was the lies that NRA assholes spread around that the cowards believed.

    • Lovefacts

      Here’s an interesting thought. If it’s more difficult to by weapons if via a universal background check and strict new weapons trafficing laws that are in place and enforced, it will be HARDER FOR CRIMINALS–along with the insane–TO BUY & USE WEAPONS. That means, the rest of us will be safer.

    • jmprint

      I’m sure they felt safe, making it more difficult for the criminal to obtain guns is a plus, if we had a registry on assault weapons, we would know how they were obtained, and it would slow the criminals, if it saves one life, it’s all worth the effort.

    • TheSkalawag929

      Here’s a question for you. Why do so many of you pro-gun people fall back on this stupid argument? Why do you think they are called criminals in the first place? And what makes you think the people of Boston didn’t have guns to protect themselves if one of the bombers broke into their house while under lock down.

      • itsfun

        If Feinstein and Obama had their way, no one would have a gun to protect their selves with.

        • Independent1

          Why are you being so resistive to the truth? The only thing Feinsein and Obama want to see is assault type weapons banned. Neither of them has ever suggested that your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun should be infringed. Remember what the Supreme Court right-wing judges agreed was right back in 2008: Here’s a synopsis of their entire verdict:

          In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the
          Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

          Note that the right-wing judges on SCOTUS said: “the right is not unlimited!!!! IT IS NOT A RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ANY WEAPON (you want) WHATSOEVER IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER AND FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE” Your second Amendment right IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE!!!! You can’t own that cannon you keep talking about.

          • Sand_Cat

            Really, don’t try arguing with this moron. His screen name says it all.

        • TheSkalawag929

          If water wasn’t wet you wouldn’t have to worry about getting caught in the rain.
          What’s your point?

    • Sand_Cat

      Only morons like you think criminals’ “obeying” gun laws is necessary. Laws are made to control the lawbreakers, not in some faint hope they’ll have a change of heart.

      • itsfun

        Point is criminals will still get guns. The laws and background checks will do nothing to stop that.

        • TheSkalawag929

          Where will the criminals get the guns from?

        • idamag

          And bank robbers will still rob banks and bankers will still rob the people.

  • If Senator Rubio has any GUTS, I defy him to do the following.

    Face the parents of a slain child. Look them in the eye.

    And tell them, “IT SUCKS THAT YOUR KID GOT BLOWN AWAY BY SOME WHACK JOB.

    BUT, HEY, THAT’s JUST THE PRICE THAT YOU GOTTA PAY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ANY NUT CASE THAT HAS ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE AND A FEW SEMI-AUTOMATIC HAND GUNS. OH, AND MAYBE A DOZEN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES WITH SEVERAL HUNDRED ROUNDS OF AMMO.

    Besides, we all gotta make sacrifices, right?

    This is a copy of a previous comment that I made to a blog participant on this site. He declined to “MAN UP” and face those parents, instead giving rants about wanting armed guards or armed teachers at schools.

    But that doesn’t really work. There are already locations, such as Fort Hood, that have armed people in high concentration, and they could not prevent a massacre.

    Besides, the fantasy is that an armed teacher would calmly stand and face the COWARD with the semi-automatic rifle, and in true RAMBO tradition, ‘TAKE OUT THE PERP” with no collateral damage.

    It must be nice to live in Fantasy Land.

  • I just have to wonder why we are such a “violent” people? Could it be because that two thirds of the American citizenry has finally realized that with the current political situation of the wealthy
    owning” most of the wealth, that we have no chance in Hell of bettering ourselves and taking care of our families. That makes me angry also!! Yet NOTHING is done!

    • Independent1

      Madelaine, a study that was reported in Great Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper says that a big contributor to America’s low life expectancy compared to many other countries is influenced by how leathal violence in America is because of guns. That study claims that there is no evidence that America has more violence than other countries but there is evidence that America has more violence where someone ends up dying – mainly caused by America owning 35 to 50 percent of the world’s guns and doing a terrible job of storing them in the right way. See a copy of that I posted in a response to jmprint that should be just above your comment.

  • Have any of you heard Bloombergs newest rant? “We need to redefine the constituton”? This kind of thinking is why the NRA and millions of legal gun owners oppose any new gun laws. Then there is govonor Christy saying we have the second most strict gun laws in the country but they are not working so we must tighten them some more. We can not trust them to stick to their word or anything they agree to. They are out to take our guns, we know it, you refuse to see it, or even think about what will happen if they do it. If we give one step, they will keep taking more, not happy their laws are not working. If we lose the second amendment, we lose them all. The president wants to sign the UN TREATY which states” all citizens must be disarmed” are you so trusting of our government that you do not fear another holocaust? I do not trust our govt as far as I can throw them. You should be thanking everyone who wants to own a gun, they maybe the one to save your life. None of us were against background checks until they got greedy and wanted more and registration. we will always oppose that, it gives them a list by which to confiscate our guns.

    • itsfun

      Ditto

      • Sand_Cat

        Ditto.

    • Sand_Cat

      I think I asked you before to provide some credible evidence for any of your claims, which of course you didn’t, and you haven’t and won’t this time either, because you’re a delusional moron.

    • TheSkalawag929

      You only appear to know what you are talking about to yourself. Everyone else outside your small circle Faux Noise watching friends can see that you don’t have a clue as to what is going on in the real world.

      You need to get outside the bubble.

  • old_blu

    As you spew your bull shit about it’s not guns that kill, it’s people out of the other side of your mouth you protect the people that do kill.
    Thank you very much all you worthless cowards for protecting the second amendment rights of the crazies and felons, go ahead and kiss the ass of the NRA some more. Jeezz 2014 can’t get here fast enough for me.

    • Independent1

      Hi old-blu! Did you see the news item a week or two ago about the deputy’s wife that was killed by a youngster picking up a gun the deputy had just laid down after showing it to one of his friends? As the youngster picked up the gun he unintentionally hit the trigger and the gun fired killing the deputy’s wife. Of course I’ve seen some conspiracy theory posts questioning whether that’s what really happened, but in any case, unless someone can prove that the deputy, his friend or the youngster deliberately shot the wife, then it’s really a stretch to continue to believe that guns don’t kill. Had that gone been a hammer or a knife or virtually any other instrument, the kid may have been hurt, but the woman would now be alive; it’s pretty hard to kill someone with one of those weapons by ‘accident’. Despite the nonsense rhetoric from gun nuts and the NRA, guns do kill many people without that having been the intent of some person to do the killing – IT WAS THE GUN THAT DID THE KILLING!!!

      Also, if guns don’t kill, why is it that America has at least 3 times the incidents of lethal violence of any other major industrialized nation? No proven additional violent acts, but a very proven rate of excess lethal violence. Here’s an excerpt from an article that ran in the Daily Mail of Great Britain, that points that fact out:

      The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents and none of
      the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that
      ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

      • old_blu

        I see where some young kid in Oregon yesterday was accidently killed and one was killed last week because his “law-abiding responsible” dad was practicing his quick draw and shot through a wall and killed his son while he was playing in the back yard. And hello to you my friend.

        • Independent1

          These unintentional shootings are really unfortunate and sad – But what’s really sad is that between 2005 and 2010, there were more than 3,800 of them in the US. With about 105,000 ‘gun related accidents’ occuring in 2010 – 31,000 or so resulting in a death and almost 74,000 requiring treatment at an ER, I think owning a gun is going to start really costing those who insist on owning a gun. When I was checking into buying some life insurance recently, about the 4th screening question I was asked was “Do you own a gun?” It may be that insurance companies are starting to realize that guns pose an added risk for the coverages they provide and are going to start factoring in to their rates tose increased risks that people incurr with the purchase of a gun – owning a gun increases the risk of someone dying in the home where the gun is kept by up to 5 times – especially at risk are women and also children of the home. I wonder how happy our gun fanatics are going to be if they are suddenly hit with higher insurance costs for virtually all types of insurance they need. I can see the added risks affecting at least life, health and homeowners insurance.

    • Sand_Cat

      Don’t hold your breath waiting for things to change much.

      • old_blu

        You are right about that my friend I would just turn blu and pass out. (get it “turn blu”) hahaha, and good evening to you Sand_Cat.

  • We know who Rubio is now, he will never get a run for president.

  • labrown69

    We have de-evolved. Our leadership and our voters are a
    thundering gaggle of corrupt, ignorant, dissolute scum bags who are pecking
    like hungry Chickens at all of our rights and I can tell you what we will have
    left when they are finished. You will have your dick in your hand and your
    thumb in your ass and little else! ALL of our rights are important.

  • ralphkr

    Amazing to me that all those people that have been screaming that Obama is an illegal president because he was born in Hawaii, had a non-citizen father, born in Kenya, born on a far distant planet (oops, sorry, that was Superman), etc. are now touting Rubio for president while ignoring the fact that neither of his parents were were US citizens when he was born. That ties right in with the elder Romney running for president even though foreign born of parents who had renounced their US citizenship, and McCain who was foreign born of 2 US citizens. I could have sworn that the Constitution states that anyone born on US soil is a citizen and that anyone born outside of US soil is a citizen but to qualify for President you have to be born on US soil with at least one US citizen parent.

    • Sand_Cat

      I think it says “a natural born” citizen without all the qualifiers, but I haven’t really looked lately.

      • ralphkr

        There is more than just “natural born” listed. Natural born means to be born on US soil with at least one parent a citizen of the US. Rubio was born on US soil which makes him a citizen but neither of his parents became citizens of the US until well after he was born. By the way, one of the funniest accusations against Obama being president was that his father was a British subject and what made it so funny is that EVERY president of the US can trace his lineage to UK.

        • Sand_Cat

          The only thing I see in the document itself is in Article II:

          No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
          States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
          eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
          eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
          five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United
          States.

          • ralphkr

            You seem to have forgotten that there have been Constitutional Amendments as well as various SCOTUS rulings pertaining to the requirements to be President of the US which currently boil down to being born on US soil to at least one US citizen parent. The requirement “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” has absolutely no bearing now since anyone alive at that time is long deceased.

          • Sand_Cat

            Yes, I quoted that part (about citizens at the time of adoption…) because it’s there, and I didn’t want to leave anything out. I’m not aware offhand of any amendments pertaining to presidential eligibility or the definition of a “natural born citizen,” but my point was not to argue with you. You’re probably right about SCOTUS rulings, in any case.

    • TheSkalawag929

      What difference does it make? If republicans don’t like the rules or they find them to be a hindrance they just change them to suit their purpose.

  • Frida, I don’t want Rubio, in any party. This vote, his speeches, his pretending to be from a poor Latino family living in the same neighborhood for years (and quite a nice one at that), has left me with very little respect for someone trying to use his race as his calling card.

  • neeceoooo

    I hope everyone on the discussion blog sent letters to their senators to tell them 90% of the American people want these gun controls. I live in a red state and 2 of my senators voted no and I did send letters to each one. My one little voice probably won’t make any difference but at least I feel like I am doing something.

  • howa4x

    Rubio is caught between a very ignorant base and a national poll showing 90% support for gun background checks. This is why the Base will prevent any sane candidate from reaching the nomination

  • howa4x

    He is trying to do the Romney 2 step. being for and against an issue. The base of the republican party is far too ignorant to see the folly of their ways. They will never let a rational and pragmatic person pass by them. They want crazy and stupid to represent them.

  • Sand_Cat

    This idiot actually thinks he has a shot at being president? He looks and sounds like a not-too-bright high schooler.

    But then, I was forgetting about 2000.

  • midway54

    We can only hope that this opportunistic hack is on his way out of the Senate in the next election.

  • Independent1

    You’re right. I’m fairly sure that Federal law doesn’t ban an AR-15 (which was part of the Senate vote that didn’t get approved the other day) but CT and some other states have passed laws banning them. Unfortunately, most of the western states that are even against background checks and limiting magazine sizes haven’t.

  • leadvillexp

    We don’t need more gun control and if most people knew the laws they would see that. Yes you can buy firearms on line, but they have to be shipped to a Federal Firearms dealer. It is against federal law to send them to a non licensed dealer. The dealer then does the background check before giving it to the buyer. FFL holders at gun shows also have to do the paper work and back ground check. In most states a private person can sell to another person face to face. Most gun control and registration is a waste.
    This said I would suggest firearms licensing. All owners and users of fireams would get a back ground check that would show on their drivers licence. It could be like hazmat is for CDLs and renewed every 5 years with a back ground check. It would not effect the Second Amendment as there would be no more gun regestration only people. None of the legislation enacted since Newtown would have changed the outcome there. Mentally ill people that are going to kill will find a way.