Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, September 29, 2016

This Is What It Looks Like When A Senator Blatantly Lies To A Mother Who Lost Her Son In A Mass Shooting

Flake-letter-e1366578914716

Just days before the vote to modestly expand gun sale background checks, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) told Caren Teves he agreed with her: Background checks should be strengthened. He then voted with 90 percent of Senate Republicans to prevent that exact legislation from even getting an up-or-down vote.

Teves lost her son Alex when he used his body to shield his girlfriend from a spray of bullets being fired at late-night moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado last year.

Flake’s fraudulent answer to Teves was mild compared to his excuses for not voting for the amendment. He claimed that it would expand background checks to private sales — it wouldn’t — and would create a national registry of gun owners, although the legislation specifically banned such a registry.

Since the vote against background checks several senators have seen their approval rating plummet — including Flake who is now the least popular member of the Senate.

This isn’t the first time a Republican senator has been rude to Teves. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) gave her some “straight talk” in February.

But at least McCain voted to expand background checks.
Jeff_Flake

  • If the Koch brothers manage to pull this none off, the level of misinformation and control of public opinion in the United States will make Goebbels blush with envy.

    • idamag

      I think you can see the danger in the deregulation that allows the media to stray from the truth. You can also see the danger of one entity owning all the media.

      • RobertCHastings

        At least the British did something about it when they put Rupert Murdock and Newscorp (owner of Fox News) on trial. ALL freedoms, including that of speech, are maintained only through constant vigilance and the ultimate willingness to sacrifice.

        • Joe Dutra

          Nothing much has come of that trial. There has been lots of theatrics and a fair share of politicians sucked into the morass.

          • RobertCHastings

            One of the daily British tabloids was shut down, and several Murdock underlings have been jailed. Even Murdock had to testify, before Parliament. Unfortunately, they seem to be a society that values honesty and excellence in journalism much more than we do.

          • Joe Dutra

            They certainly do not hold their leaders, left or right, in the same reverence that our media does. Well, the exception being the BBC.

        • TexanPatriot2

          Britain: Left-wing regime. The “Conservative” Party of Britain is a JOKE, only being just to the right of Stalin and Obama on the spectrum.

          • RobertCHastings

            Really! Do you chew your food by yourself? You apparently can’t think on your own. What you are saying echoes, ever so loudly, precisely what those bastions of journalistic, Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, are saying. Amizing how easy it is for them to find (or create) clones.

          • ruler777

            The fact that you put Beck and Limbaugh in the same category with O’Reilly tells me that you don’t watch O’Reilly (who has had the top program on cable for 13 years).

          • RobertCHastings

            And Fox News has more viewers than any other news. So, what is your point? Several years ago, O’Reilly told folks that he and his evening ENTERTAINMENT show had garnered a Peabody Award. The Peabody is for excellence in journalism, something which O”Reilly has NEVER engaged in. His award was not for journalism, it was for entertainment, and it was NOT a Peabody. O’Reilly is appropriately bundled with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc.

          • ruler777

            Wonder why Fox news has more viewers than any other news if America believes like the liberals and they are in the majority?

          • RobertCHastings

            Compare Fox’s total viewership with the total viewership of ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, HLN, PBS. While Fox is ineluctably right leaning, the others are at least centrist and moderate. How do your numbers come out? Or do I really need to ask?
            As for the liberal comment, liberals are NOT in the majority, contrary to what you and your paranoid friends may think. However, Democrats MAY be in the majority, if Republicans will allow all of them to vote.

          • ruler777

            I am not a Republican, but I do think the Democrats were allowed to vote. Even the dead ones were allowed to vote in Illinois. In Indiana, where some precincts reported 0 votes for the Republican Candidate (A statistical impossibility), I would say the Democrats did a little voter fraud. Now they are trying to let all the immigrants in, because they know they will vote Democratic if they do let them in, and into the giveaways.

          • RobertCHastings

            And where is the outrage, the calls for someone to pay for this atrocity, this vicious assault on the Constitution? There is none simply because your “charges” have already been proven false. No one (except Republicans) has been charged and prosecuted for voter fraud. Check your sources for likely bias and probity and I feel certain you will probably understand just why you have come up with your conclusions. You’ve been lied to.

          • ruler777

            Since you seem to be unaware of these things, you must not read newspapers or listen to the news much. I could show you articles like these from nearly every state.
            An NBC Bay Area Investigation has uncovered thousands of California voters who remain on the voter rolls despite having died several years ago.
            Raleigh-based group devoted to reducing the potential for voter fraud presented the N.C. Board of Elections on Friday with a list of nearly 30,000 names of dead people statewide who are still registered to vote.
            we’ve all heard the stories of dead voters in Chicago or suitcases of absentee ballots in the Deep South
            A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death.
            The Democrats want people to show identification to buy a gun, but do not want to require them to in order to vote for leaders of our country. Why not? That would eliminate much of the voter fraud.

          • RobertCHastings

            Being registered to vote and actually voting are two entirely different things. I find it higly unlikely that any of the registered dead people that you point out have actually had the temerity to find their way to the polls and vote. And you want people to show ID in order to vote,but not to buy a gun. So, I guess our two sides are at an impasse.

          • ruler777

            It is far more important to show identification to vote and determine our leaders and everything that happens in our country (including gun laws) than it is when someone buys a gun. But why are you saying that? You already have to show identification to buy a gun.

          • RobertCHastings

            So, it is a good thing to have to verify in order to buy a gun? So,why not require verification for all ownership transfers of guns? May I reasonably assume that you believe that there is rampant voter fraud, or is that stretching your remarks. Voter registration should be all that is required, since a person’s eligibility is verified at the polling place, generally without any picture ID.

          • ruler777

            There is more voter fraud than fraud trying to buy a gun………in Illinois, and especially in the Chicago area. You have to show a lot more proof of ID to buy a gun than to vote already, and that should not be the case. You might disagree if you have Illinois connections, because then you would be used to graft, cheating, fraud, and every other crime known to man.

          • ruler777

            I didn’t know that Fox had more viewers. Have you forgotten that you were the one that told me that? Maybe instead of the heart surgery, you should check for dementia?

          • RobertCHastings

            Yes, Fox has more viewers than any other single network, but not more than all the other center or left center networks. Once again, resorting to insult, for what purpose? Run out of arguments with any wheels?

          • ruler777

            No, I am serious. Sometime it seems that you forgot what you wrote. I was just worried about you. More and more people have Alzheimer’s.

          • RobertCHastings

            Sorry, your entire point eludes me. What is your purpose in attempting to be insulting? I thought we had some good discussions going, but you have apparently run out of ammunition.

          • ruler777

            Amazing! Liberals insult like hell, but can’t understand when others do it. You are a jerk.

          • RobertCHastings

            Thank you, you just validated my post.

          • ruler777

            I am tired of playing with you now. You bore me. I will find a more intelligent person to spar with.

          • RobertCHastings

            Stalin was a communist. Look it up on your political spectrum chart and see where “communism” falls on the spectrum. I don’t think, since it is an authoritarian government, that it comes anyplace near the left-center of Obama. The conservative party of GB is not nearly as conservative as our conservative right is for a number of reasons, Europe has politically advanced well beyond our primitive ultra-nationalism and religious fundamentalism.

    • Allan Richardson

      Ministry of Truth? With Guantanamo as the Ministry of Love, perhaps?

    • alien5

      Omamma has that all wrapped up . It is called the main stream media

      • RobertCHastings

        Look at the ownership of the “main stream” media, as you call it, and tell us if you think the “main stream” media is controlled by the Left. Rupert Murdock, whose Newscorp controls Fox, and many other news outlets in this country, is NOT of the left. There are many other more prestigious outlets in the main stream media that are equally rightist. The fallacy of the “liberal media” has long ago been debunked, but you folks certainly love to beat a dead horse, don’t you.

        • Nice how you conveniently fail to mention MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, Solon, Huffington Post etc, etc, ad nauseam. As they are the majority of the MSM and so left leaning it’s pathetic.

          • RobertCHastings

            Interesting that you list the Huffington Post as “main stream” media. If you do that, you must consider “The National Memo” as “main stream”, also? Salon is definitely NOT liberal, nor is one of the best periodicals on foreign affairs, “Foreign Affairs”. Fox News (ugh) draws the largest viewership, and the stuff you like, such as “The RightScoop” have their own adherents. Why don’t you read the Wall Street Journal sometime, especially their editorial page. And then, of course, it is apparent that you DON’T consider talk radio as mainstream, since you said nothing about Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. Nice how YOU conveniently failed to include the whole spectrum of media, especially if it would favor your position.

    • We already have that it’s called – MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS…

      • RobertCHastings

        No, the Ministry of Propaganda would be under the authority of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, backed by Rupert Murdock and his son.

    • TexanPatriot2

      It’s occupied by the programming staff of OMSNBC.

  • dtgraham

    I like that phrase “managing the media”. That’s what it’s all about for them. Modern conservatives basically battle fake media bias with real media bias. Fox News constantly baits the rest of the media with ridiculous “news” stories designed solely to promote the GOP and/or run down the Dems . They whine and cry on air that the liberal media (meaning every other network) isn’t covering this so called news story…and why aren’t they covering it they ask? Why can’t they be fair and balanced? Too many times that bait is eventually taken.

    As I posted recently to someone else, Murdoch and Ailes discovered in the 90’s that the far right agenda on television is an easy sell to too many weak minded, uninformed, and apolitical people when you dumb it down and then dress it up in phony, populist language. Top it off with a complete disregard for facts, a good helping of belligerent religiosity, then throw the flag over it and cover it all with a thick sauce of hyper patriotism. That’s the classic demagoguery and they play to the darker angels of our nature.

    • jabber1

      And now the Koch brothers are trying to buy 8 papers to further their radical agenda. No wonder the mainstream media is failing.

      • Joe Dutra

        “Radical”? They have shifted to the far left? Astonishing!

        • And here’s part of the problem. We can’t seem to have a rational conversation about these topics because the right wing would prefer to insert “oh, look! A squirrel!” comments into the middle of the discussion instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

          • Joe Dutra

            Pardon me, Your Overweight Loftiness. And here is another part of the problem; individuals such as yourself have eaten all of the squirrels.

          • TexanPatriot2

            When Obama tanks the country, all there will be left to eat will be the squirrels.

          • Ben

            I guess you have missed all of the BI-PARTISAN Bills passed in the House, to only be shelved by Reid and the Dem controlled Senate. Never to be brought to a vote. But, it’s all Rep fault, right? You will get what you deserve.

          • english_teacher

            The bills may have started out bi-partisan. The question to ask is why the bills were shelved by Reid. Could there have been some kind of “poison pill” added?

          • Have you looked at the 2,000 page Affordable Care Act? How many poison pills are in there (pun intended)? Hell, that “healthcare” bill included a government takeover of the college loan program. The biggest spending bill in history, and we had to “pass it to find out what’s in it”? You people lost all right to b*tch for the next decade, over that one partisan monstrosity.

          • Really? Because of Bush, you guys lost the right to attempt to govern for a century. That fool was the worst leader in the history of leadership and the worst thing to happen to our country since the depression, and that includes several wars and disasters. So I tell you what; We won’t bitch for the next decade, and you and the rest of your un-American neo-cons, teabaggers, and right-wing nut jobs (which includes that entire side of the congressional aisle) can go away until 2112 and let the grown-ups govern without having to stop every couple minutes to wipe your runny noses.

          • Idiot if the likes of you are governing the country won’t be around in 2112.

          • Ever have a coherent thought Jay Landon? I didn’t think so…

          • you are right, jay. bush was a traitor. he sided with treasonous democrats on almost every issue for 8 long years. bush declared islam, the enemy of civilization, and the enemy of our country since its inception, to be a great religion of peace. his worst crime was to disenfranchise american citizens by allowing unrestricted invasion by illegals, who are then allowed to vote by democratic party criminals. you are right. bush is scum. a stealth democrat who spent 8 years enslaving us to the democratic party. thanks to ignorant and or malicious voters, we now have 8 years to experience something worse than bush. thanks, jay.

          • When you start with the name calling that is the end of conversation. Keep your a ….ss clean cause your ,mouth you can’t.

          • lazarus062268

            You have the verve of a Homosexual. You go girl. Can you come out from behind that computer and play? I could teach you a thing or two. I’ll bet you’re a 2o something college kid, with no job and pay no taxes. I’d so love to see you in 30 years. Death panel euthansia sounds reasonable for you.

          • apolloknowsall

            100% democrat. Obama said the debate would be on C-span (lie) that you could keep your health insurance if you like it (lie) that it isn’t a tax (lie) that it would reduce your rates by $2500 (lie) that it would increase access to health care (lie)…

            Democrats lie, and we all pay for it, and you re-elect them.

          • Middle class taxes won’t go up a single dime…LIE. Benghazi was about a video…LIE I’m not a Muslim…LIE I’m in favor of the 2nd amendment…LIE Let’s save lives with gun control but kill late term fetuses and live born babies…HYPOCRITE I ended the war in Iraq…LIE I wake up in the morning thinking about jobs and go to sleep thinking about jobs…LIE I knew nothing about guns walking to Mexico…LIE The list is endless…

          • lana ward

            It’s Harry Reid that has perfected adding poison pills to bills

          • Since when are teachers smart enough to comment?

          • Bills only get past Reid if there is billions in pork spending included…

          • There have been bipartisan bills passed in the House? Name some as I can not remember anything good coming out of the House of Representatives in years.

          • idamag

            I would like to see those bills, wouldn’t you?

          • TexanPatriot2

            Didn’t you Socialists give yourselves Obamacare? It passed the House, right? Too bad that nobody named Pelosi or Obama, or Reid, will EVER partake of the program they are forcing everybody else onto.

          • We missed those because they are figments of your stunted but overactive imagination.

          • Jay take your drugs and obumma free money and go back to sleep!!!

          • cartho73

            Agreed Ben…
            Votes have consequences don’t they?

          • yea ,right,the liberals are all about discussing the issue at hand,just don”t do anything stupid like bring up truth or facts or evidence, that just clarifies to the point the ad-libbies have no wiggle room left.

          • The problem is ALL right wingers make up facts that are entirely disconnected with reality and then complain that the Dems ignore your ‘facts’. Like the death panel fact? Which was utter idiotic BS made up by utter idiots. Have your side come up with a single ‘fact’ that is based in reality and not cooked up in a back room at FoxNoos and someone might pay attention to it. Here’s a FACT for you: Over 70% of Americans support universal background checks, bans on high capacity magazines, and ban on assault rifle sales. Here’s another fact for you : The Supreme Court ruled that reasonable, sensible gun regulation not only ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but are desirous. One last fact for you : Countrys that have strict gun laws have way, way, way, way, way less shootings than we do. Strict gun control works just fine, if not for the gun addicts in this country for whom a bunch of dead children is preferable to having to register a gun, that lives cut short are a small price to pay to be able to go to the gun range and blow through a clip with an AK-47. Sad excuses for humaNS, aLL of you.

          • washbag

            Jay , if they dealt with the facts ,we’d have compromise and solutions. I’m afraid their facts are fabricated. Nice response.

          • TexanPatriot2

            Death Panels are FACT. They just aren’t “called” that — so that’s what you Socialists hang your “opinion” on. When a government bureaucrat decides which medical treatment you can have through issuance of Guidelines—-don’t follow them and you don’t get paid—the panel that came up with that is a “Death Panel”.

          • RobertCHastings

            The “fact” of “Death Panels” was a fabrication of Republicans who did not like the ACA. The so called “Death Panels” were panels of doctors who would decide on best practices for patients near end of life, and NOT panels that would withhold treatment to hasten death. How stupid are you people, anyway?

          • RobertCHastings

            No. Your own doctor decides which treatments YOU will receive. If he is a good doctor, he will tell you why he is NOT going to put you through something, even if you want it. He will prescribe medications based upon his knowledge and experience, in a manner that will hopefully get you through whatever it is you are experiencing. If he is a good doctor who actually cares about your health and not what the insurance company will be paying him, you will receive the medical care you need. This is precisely what your “Death Panels” would do, especially during the last few weeks of your life, when either you or your family may be distraught and unable to make reasonable decisions based upon the efficacy of specific treatments. The “Death Panels” will NOT hasten your passing, nor will they deny medical care that is genuinely needed. If your personal doctor is a good doctor, he is a one-man “Death Panel”.

          • cartho73

            @ JayLandon
            Tell that to the victims of Norway…

          • RobertCHastings

            Does Norway, as a country, over the years, come any place near the US in the incidence of gun violence. Almost 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. 162+ were killed at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. These are, of course, isolated incidents which do not depict any sort of overall picture. Get the picture?

          • cartho73

            Neither of those incidents had anything to do with guns you numbskull.

          • RobertCHastings

            And that was not the point, you ninny. The point is that no one place can be defined by one incident of violence, be it gun violence, bombing, etc. Aurora, CO does not define the entire state of Colorado as rampant with gun violence; the Murrah building does not define Oklahoma City as rampant with bombing violence; Sandy Hook Elementary does not define Connecticut as rampant with gun violence. Get the picture?

          • cartho73

            Ninny?? Who uses that word anymore LoL!!!
            Ok, obviously you have issues with ADD or something equivalent because you cannot even stick with the theme or title of the article. So just please stop since you are embarrassing yourself needlessly and go back on the regiment of prescribed medications so you can become a useful member of society once again.

          • RobertCHastings

            I believe the subject of the article was, overall,gun control,and in particular the lies one seantor told a grieving mother. And you are saying the my posting had nothing to do with either? Who needs to be on meds?

          • cartho73

            Your examples had nothing to do with gun control in any way…
            “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

          • RobertCHastings

            However, they had EVERYTHING to do with violence, of which gun violence is a part. Controlling gun violence WILL control overall violence. Read your own adage.

          • cartho73

            “Controlling gun violence WILL control overall violence.”

            Now I know you are deluded…

          • RobertCHastings

            So, let me see if I have this one right. You dispute my claim that controlling gun violence will control overall violence. Is that your position? Good, I just wanted to clarify that. I wasn’t sure if that was what you were saying, or if it were something else, equally stupid. That is really an interesting hypothesis that you have come up with, asserting that either1) gun violence and overall violence are not related, or 2) gun violence has no effect on overall violence. Who’s deluded?

          • cartho73

            Obviously you. I don’t know who’s overreach is more pathetic in trying to force a case; yours or senator Feinstein. You must both be drinking from the same kool-aid bottle. Next you’ll be saying that the Jewish people are at fault for Hitler and their own holocaust because they simply exist. To think that people like you actually walk among the general populace is quite disturbing and scary to say the least…

          • RobertCHastings

            In other words, gun violence is not part of the issue of overall violence. As far as the Holocaust is concerned, it is apathetic people like you who permitted it, who saw no problem with Hitler’s policies and could not have cared less about the plight of “others”. I wonder what your response will be when a drive-by claims the life of someone you know. Hey man, shit happens.

          • cartho73

            Hitler disarmed the entire populace and no one could fight back because people like thought it was a great idea to have everyone’s weapons taken away for the greater good. As far as the drive by goes…it has happened and yes they did die be ause they had nothing to defend themselves with you unsympathetic jerk. Before hurling an insult make sure you know what you are talking about first. What you pulled is the equivalent of telling a mute to speak louder because you can’t hear them. Thanks for being a complete Horse’s rear end there. Hope you feel good about it…

          • RobertCHastings

            Blatantly incorrect. I know you won’t want to, but check it out on Snopes.com, a fact and truth searching website. Looking it up in some legitimate histories may also help you find the truth of this.

          • ruler777

            Hastings, I see you are having as much trouble with other people as you are with me. That is what happens when you think you are the only one that knows anything. Of course, Hitler didn’t take the guns away from ALL Germans. Most of the Germans were brainwashed like our liberals and supported him.

          • cartho73

            Check my previous post. I have consulted history and Wikipedia…

          • RobertCHastings

            So have I, and you did not readwhat you think you did in Wikipedia. The full story regarding German disarmament of civilian populations included two groups,1)all civilians and military in conquered nations, and 2) JewsONLY in Germany proper,for obvious reasons. The myth that Germany under Hitler disarmed all German civilians is just that, a myth.

          • cartho73

            Very few if any Germans had guns. If for some reason they actually did it was only because of connections. The a stage German did not have a weapon.

          • RobertCHastings

            And what leads you to that conclusion? Simply because the armistice after WWI required them to give up their guns? Or was it positively stated in the Wikipedia item (or elsewhere)?

          • RobertCHastings

            Hitler DID NOT disarm the German populace, his move was to disarm all of those in subject nations that the Nazis invaded and subjugated. Sorry that I inadvertantly hit so close to home. But, as I said before, shit happens. My daughter died of cancer, but I don’t go around trying to beat up on all the survivors.

          • cartho73

            I’m sorry, I should be more clear. He disarmed all the German Jews, dissidents, and anyone who he deemed questionable. He passed a law which only allowed ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

          • dtgraham

            I always enjoy the right’s claims that if only Hitler hadn’t disarmed the German people (he didn’t) or if only the Warsaw Ghetto Jews had guns, they would have fought back successfully and everything would have been different. The mighty Soviet Union was near collapse against Hitler’s war machine and, I may be wrong, but I think the Soviets had guns.

          • RobertCHastings

            I love Wayne LaPiere’s rant at the recent NRA convention when he wondered how many Bostonians wished they had guns on the day of the bombing. And the result would have been much, much more serious than it turned out to be. The TV characterization of police as being able to hit their man with one shot from a distance in excess of forty feet is grossly untrue, even among the best trained. Had a hundred Bostonians had handguns at the finish line of the Boston marathon, I honestly believe at least one hundred or more would have died.

          • ruler777

            It was not only apathetic people. It was also brainwashed people. Sorta like Obummer has done to the liberals in this country.

          • ruler777

            By an overwhelming two-to-one vote of 76-38, the North Carolina state House passed a bill allowing permitted concealed handguns on college campuses. As with other states, private universities will be allowed to post signs that ban permitted concealed handguns.
            Robert, I don’t agree with this at all. College students are not mature enough to have guns on campus. I assume that most colleges will post signs prohibiting them, but the way this reads, only private colleges can do that. What about the public universities?

          • RobertCHastings

            Surprise of all surprises, Ialso have a problem with this. Unfortunately, because of the 2010 Census and Republican control of both houses of the state legislature, those people are pretty much entrenched for a while, and have taken it upon themselves to wreak havoc on civil society with such rulings. My own locality recently passed a CCW law allowing CCW on school campuses, in spite of state law which strictly prohibits that. And it only took two conservatives to pass it, which will, undoubtedly, subject my city to costly litigation costs.
            Wayne LaPierre’s response to the Boston bombing was “I wonder how many Bostonians wish they had a gun that Monday.” I firmly believe if all the Bostonians at the finish line had had guns on their persons, hundreds would have died, and very likely neither one of the bombers.

          • ruler777

            You are such a dimwit. He didn’t mean if they had guns when the bombs went off. Your mind is so cloudy (I think it is that Alzheimer’s Dementia thing). He meant they wished they had them to protect themselves when they were quarantined in their houses. It is amazing how a liberal can twist anything anybody says that is not what they believe!

          • RobertCHastings

            Oh great and powerful OZ, please enlighten me as to how you are privy to what he meant. What he said, plain and simple, was, basically, “How many Bostonians wish they had guns on the DAY of the bombings” not the day after, not the day of the chase , not the day the captured the younger bomber, but the day of the bombing. Sorry the quote may not be absolutely accurate, but he did say the day of the bombing.

          • ruler777

            I used something that you don’t have as a liberal….common sense. What possible good would a gun do at the bomb scene? He obviously meant to protect themselves with the terrorists still on the loose. LaPierre may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but you have to agree that he isn’t dumb. He is a lot more successful at what he does in life (whether you agree with it or not) than you are.

          • Hey Jay, too bad your mom wasn’t a patient of Kermit Gosnells’

          • matt

            I thought it was over 90%…..

          • Kevin Campbell

            Ask 10 of your nieghbors. See how many think that universal background checks would have made a difference in any of these shootings. Facts, 9800 deaths by guns in USA in 2011, 32,000 deaths by car accidents. Of those car accidents, more than 10,000 were related to drunk driving (which is illegal). More deaths by car accidents than by guns. To protect everyone, we should ban all items that could harm anyone. Is that what you are saying? Idiot!

          • How many people drive cars everyday compared to the number of people that fire a gun everyday? Run those numbers and get back to us Dr. Cranial Vacancy. You can start by using a closer number to the real amount of gun deaths per year. Say 30,000. You see most gun deaths are illegal, including suicide. Now fire up that calculator junior.

          • RobertCHastings

            While not all gun violence instances result in death, they DO result in related medical and employment costs. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study evaluating the annual costs of gun violence, and it is NOT a small amount. There is no movementby the current administration to totally disarm the American people, nor to confiscate any class of weapons. However, they would like to pass some reasonable measures that include a national database of ALL individuals who, through criminal or mental issues, should not qualify for gun ownership, just like state laws suspend or revoke driver’s licenses for DUI convictions.

          • Actually your facts are compiled from small polls that were found to be highly inaccurate. As for countries that have strict gun laws only changed the larger numbers of murders,home invasions, rapes, assaults, general crimes to different weapons and their crime rates DID go up and actually go look at actual crimes committed with gun in USA. Here is a link to posted FBI facts and figures,http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states, go check out how horrible the numbers are ,actually in a country with 310+ million people, gun crimes and death are so low its nearly insignificant. BUT then your claims are so idiotic its unreal. Guess how you keep kids safe with firearms, TEACH THEM not to touch unless supervised, how to make sure a gun is safe, how to safely handle one, why we dont point a REAL gun at people. I learned a long time ago like at about 4 or 5 that pointing my cap gun was ok but a REAL gun isnt and if I dont know difference, dont. But in this day and age, TEACHING a child is a crime. Instead let create FEAR of an inanimate object over teaching proper handling. How is it that as we create a gun free zone and gun fearing people, issue arise, yet when nearly everyone had guns, shot guns, were around them crime and accidents were fewer. As for “blowing through a clip with an AK-47” well that general falsehood is why you show your stupidity on the subject because for the most part, firearms owners are looking for accuracy, and placing 5 or 6 bullets in nearly same hole,,, NOT blowing through a clip, which can be fun, but let me take you to a REAL gun range and TEACH you how to place 3 or 4 round all real close together or all in same hole. Its call skill, and YOU are a sad excuse for the humans who knee jerk react and then recite so many false “facts” and claim superiority. I know my gun will NEVER kill a person. EVER. Know why? Because its an inanimate object. GROW UP

          • dtgraham

            I checked out the website on that link you provided. There’s something in those comparison numbers that I don’t think you’re considering. There were 32,163 gun deaths in the U.S. in a given year. Although that seems high, you do have to take into account the size of the population as you point out. Out of 314,000,000 people, that works out to .0102 on a percentage or per capita basis. Doesn’t seem like much at first glance but compare that to other countries. Australia’s gun deaths were 236 in total. Out of about 22,000,000 people (I had the exact figure) that comes to .0010 per person or percentage wise. That’s actually a huge difference Ernest. You are over ten times more likely to be killed by a gun in the U.S. than Australia. 10.2 to be precise. There were 155 gun deaths in the U.K. Based on their population that comes to .0002 per capita. You are 51 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the U.S. than Britain. Do the math as they say. The comparison numbers are similar with all of the other advanced democracies.

            I don’t see how one can look at the staggering difference in gun shooting stats between the U.S. and other countries that have more gun regulations, and not see a link to the lack of those regulations in America.

            This is a very difficult topic to argue due to the incredible passion that gun people have for their cultural beliefs. It’s to the point where they fill the internet up with their websites, all promoting false data and distorted stats. You have to wade through them to get to official police and gov’t data, and then you find that what you had been reading was all wrong. One example is Australia where gun homicides (and several other crime categories) definitely decreased after 1996 without a significant corresponding increase in other gun and non gun related crimes. Yet, the gun sites make arguments that toe nail clipper murders have now increased 130% or butter knife suicides have skyrocketed. They just make this stuff up and they don’t seem to have any problem doing it.

            Incidentally, concerning Australia’s gun homicide drop, to be fair you could make an argument that the rate was already falling before 1996 and the gun restrictions of that year made no difference. Possibly, although I don’t buy into that. That’s a little different argument though because it was the mass shootings that the Aussies were trying to prevent with their legislation of 17 years ago, and they were successful in that.

          • ruler777

            Bottom line is that we are not giving up our guns no matter what Obummer says. If you don’t like it, you can move to Britain or Australia so you will be less likely to be killed by a firearm. Then we will both be happy.

          • dtgraham

            He doesn’t want you to give up your guns. He respects the second amendment. He’s just looking for the type of internet and gun show checks that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those under care for serious mental disorders. The types that might use those guns on your family. You’ll also have a gun, but then you’re in a shoot out with someone. The President doesn’t want to increase the odds of your family being in that situation.

          • ruler777

            You are wrong. Several members of the administration have verbally stated that the ultimate, long term goal is to get rid of all guns.

          • dtgraham

            How many countries can you name where it’s illegal for everyone to buy a gun? Keep it within reason. North Korea and Vietnam I’m not sure about for example. Within the more advanced democracies, where is it illegal to have a gun? In most places they put up more barriers, and hoops to jump through, to get a gun (some more than others)…and then some are banned; semi-automatic and so on. No question there. However, the average law abiding person can still get a gun if they really want one.

            Also, can you tell me how many, in the administration, have stated that their long term goal is to get rid of all guns? You said that there are several, yet I’ve never heard of one. Can you give names? Obama and Biden aren’t two of them.

            Lastly, what do you think the odds are of being able to garner the kind of votes needed to change the constitution in order to take an entire amendment out of it?

          • ruler777

            It would seem that liberals would know what other liberals say, but they don’t even listen to them. I get so tired of educating them on what their own leaders say and believe.

            One of the lines that many progressives and TV talking heads are reiterating is that no one really wants to take away Americans’ guns. Senator Dianne Feinstein apparently missed that directive. She admitted as far back as 1995 that she does, indeed, wish to take everyone’s guns away from them.
            In a 1995 broadcast of CBS’ 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an “outright ban” on all guns.

            Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky
            Video blogger Jason Mattera has Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky saying that an assault weapons ban is just the beginning.
            She also says that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.

            Economist and author John Lott Jr. makes a shocking claim in his new book, “At the Brink.” According to Lott, President Barack Obama once told him that he doesn’t believe Americans should have the right to own guns. The stunning statement was purportedly uttered during a conversation the two had at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s.

            According to a Washington Times article, on a Wednesday conference call organized by “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” Biden referred to current anti-gun legislation and told his anti-gun supporters, “Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.”

            Here’s a surprise for you:
            I am in support of the NRA position on gun control.
            William J Clinton quotes

          • dtgraham

            Biden was referring to the failure of the background check bill as being just the beginning. In other words, they weren’t giving up on a similar bill. This is just the beginning.

            It’s impossible to say what Schakowsky was getting at due to the vagueness. At first it reads like she meant that background checks would stop some handgun sales to the wrong people. She may also have been referring to restrictions on only certain kinds of handguns, like Canada has. Saturday night specials for instance. It’s too obtuse but I think it’s fair to say that she isn’t a fan of handguns.

            I have to take Obama at his word regarding his 2nd amendment position. I can’t go on hearsay from one person of 20 years ago. Before Newtown, the only gun legislation that Obama ever proposed was to allow guns to be brought into national parks. Now he’s only talking simple background checks (formerly supported by the NRA) and not even trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban. His words and actions are too far removed from Lott’s portrayal.

            As for Feinstein, maybe she wants a complete ban, in her heart of hearts, although she has to know that there’s no chance of that. May have changed her mind though because she carries a gun now. Probably to protect her from death threats by gun nuts.

            By the way ruler777. I didn’t bother responding to your reply to me about CNN. My apologies. You were mentioning Piers Morgan as being proof of their liberalness. Got to thinking later. MSNBC has a 3 hour morning show hosted by a former Republican Congressman who loves to talk about his conservatism and his beloved GOP quite a bit. I don’t think that makes them conservative.

          • ruler777

            Just as I thought. You tried to refute everything I proved to you, and defend everything you had stated. There is no more proof of you being a closed-mind liberal than that. It doesn’t matter what someone says or proves to you, you will distort it to your liking. You are a waste of time.

          • dtgraham

            I did exactly the opposite. I looked into everything you pointed out. I’ve seen the video of Biden referring to the background check Senate failure as “just the beginning”. He was clearly talking about trying to resurrect it in the future. He was trying to rally the troops to not give up hope on it. That was the context in which that phrase was uttered, beyond question.

            It’s just impossible to ascertain exactly what Jan Schakowsky was getting at, in everything I looked at—-and Feinstein appeared to be saying in 1995 that she wished the 1994 assault weapons ban was a ban on everything, so you seem to be right about that. I said all of that in my previous post.

            As for Obama, all of his public words and actions on guns are completely at odds with this statement that he was supposed to have made two decades ago, which is really just hearsay. What am I supposed to think? I go with what seems more believable, as I told you.

          • ruler777

            You want to go with what seems more believable?
            I could name multiple things Obama said in the campaign that have turned out to be totally untrue. How can we trust this dishonest administration at all? Just wait until ObamaCare explodes later. The cost was lied about (maybe out of ignorance and not dishonesty). Companies are only hiring part-time workers because they don’t want or can’t afford to place their workers under it. Most are now saying it is cheaper to pay the penalty. Many companies are only allowing their employees to work 30 hours a week or whatever the limit is, so they won’t have to pay it.
            I saw a list the other day of over 2 dozen promises/statements Obama made in his campaigns that have turned out to be completely false.

          • labar

            How can any rational person take zero at his word when he has consistently lied about everything he’s done, no matter what it was about. No matter how small it was. He cannot help himself, but he does not know how to be honest with the public and just tell the truth about anything. Especially if it’ll make him look bad.

            The left accused Bush of lying, (which he didn’t), but deny that zero has ever lied, (which he has, is and will continue to do) because of a corrupt msm that gives him a pass on everything.

            The part of the media that calls him out for lying doesn’t reach the same number of households as the msm. So millions of people never know about how bad zero really is.

            Then, there are people like you who hear it, but refuse to believe it.

          • dtgraham

            It’s just an alternate universe now that the right have constructed labar. Look at what you said. Obama lies every time he opens his mouth and has lied about every single thing he’s ever done, no matter how small. How is that possible? Do you really believe that? No President and no human being lies like that. The world’s worst psychopath is occasionally honest. Yet, Bush never lied about anything huh. Not a thing.

            Nobody is a cartoon villain labar. He’s not the devil, or the anti-christ, or a Trinity murderer, and I can’t see where he lies any more than most other politicians. He never did close Gitmo and his health care plan doesn’t cover 97% of people like his 2008 claim that it would, and his bank reforms have been inadequate—although I’m not sure the latter constitutes lying. I can think of a few things that he hasn’t been honest about but I’d need to see a list of all of these lies.

            I think “the part of the media that calls him out for lying” has names like World Net Daily, Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck. They’re wackos and con men looking for mailing lists. Fox News may be the RNC’s official cable news network and sheer propaganda, but at least they keep it within some kind of reason most of the time.

          • Bullshark!!! He SUPPORTS the UN disarmament of civilians, Sheesh!!!

          • labar

            “He doesn’t want you to give up your guns. He respects the second amendment.” lol Oh yes, zero is just so concerned about the well being of my family and also preventing criminals and the mentally disabled from acquiring guns and using them against us. It upsets him so much that he hardly ever has time to play golf or take a vacation, I’m sure.

            digraham, if you believe what you said above is true, then you should go ahead and turn in any guns that you own, because the signs of mental issues are apparent.

            No amount of gun show checks, or internet checks will prevent criminals from acquiring guns if they really want them. They’ll either steal them or buy them on the black market, rather than purchase them from a place where there will be a paper trail.

            I understand the dangers of a person with mental issues having access to guns. It should be a point everyone can agree on. But with the reports of our military veterans being classified as mentally unstable, they are being stripped of their rights to own guns. The holder justice department and zero will just accuse all the gun owners of having mental issues, and then require them to be evaluated by a panel of experts (democrat supporters) who will conclude that yes, they are exhibiting signs of mental issues and therefore are not allowed to own a gun.

            California has just infused the state gun grabbers with $24 million dollars so they can began confiscating guns from people who originally bought them legally, but are now disqualified from owning a gun because of a criminal conviction OR SERIOUS MENTAL ISSUES!

            How do they know who’s illegally in possession of a gun since the government was supposed to discard the criminal background check applications that were filled out at the time of the gun purchase? And if we just knew how much more wk it would create for the government, we’d understand why they have no desire to keep a database “gun registry” of firearms and their owners.

            That’s the problem with everything zero and the democrat politicians do. They abuse anything and everything they can in order to achieve their true goal of disarming the public.
            Yet, they keep saying they’re not trying to take all of the guns, and you keep believing them! Pay attention to what they’re doing, not what they’re saying.

            The millions of guns that are currently in the hands of Americans throughout the land, and the fact that zero isn’t

          • dtgraham

            It would only keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, via internet sales and the 30-40% of those sellers at guns shows who aren’t licensed dealers. It would just make it harder for the wrong people to get guns, that’s all. At the moment, they neither have to steal them nor find a way to acquire them on the black market. It’s at least something.

            I think you’re projecting way too much as to what their motives are and what they might do in the future regarding any gun regulations. I am paying attention to what they’ve done and that’s why I’m saying this. I know the conservative media has Obama painted out as the Snidely Whiplash of gun confiscation but, in reality, he seems to be the worst gun grabber of all time.

          • lazarus062268

            There is your answer: move to Australia. Do us all a favor, commie.

          • lazarus062268

            Wow. You just make it up as you go, like your fearless leader Obie-wan. If you are representative of the left, Let’s start the Revolution now. There is obviously no room for discussion. Wonder who would win a revolution? How many guns do you have? I guess Homeland would be doing your fighting for you.

          • Paul

            if you like statistics so much… try reading the national crime statistics registry that states as fact that 84% of all gun related crimes happen in gun-free or prohibited zones by people who are not legally allowed to own or carry a firearm. Why would making a law abiding citizen jump through more hoops stop any of the gun violence already taking place… oh wait IT WOULDNT

          • Andrew,WOW – every time some liberal minded citizen makes a post, they re-affirm the your claims. Talk about cherry picking the facts or ignoring the truth, Jay Landon’s post is a prime example. These people are scary in the sense that they can vote like minded progressive thinking politicians into office to do their bidding.

          • RobertCHastings

            Alas,my poor Yorick, there is the rub, isn’t it?

          • RobertCHastings

            I seriously question whether you would know a fact if it actually came up and bit you on the ass.

          • lazarus062268

            Sweetie your choice of screen name says it all.

          • ruler777

            No, it is because the liberals are so close-minded and biased. They never listen and just like to yap!

        • Radical does not mean left or right, astonishing, right.? Radically means “departing markedly from the usual or customary.” I would be willing to bet you are real fuzzy on what sociolism is too. Hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is making up what words mean.

          • Joe Dutra

            Are you gay? Oh, I meant happy, not homosexual. Darned words! I certainly hope that you recall a smidgen of your Political Science 101 class. Radicals to the left and reactionaries to the right. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum, with the opposite pole being radicalism. Ah…I didn’t have to tell you that. You knew it. You were just messing with me. Your brilliance is on display when you play “stupid” like the brilliant mistress you hold yourself up to be.

          • Sand_Cat

            Most of us know who the stupid ones are here, and we don’t need you and a couple of the other ones to project your own faults on everyone else.

          • Joe Dutra

            I am humbled by your intellectual prowess and mastery of the English written word. I am backing away and groveling submissively before you as profuse apologies dribble from my mouth. May you and your litter box live in sublime Obama Land; eyes closed, ears plugged, and mouth muffled.

          • Sand_Cat

            Another infantile right-wing lunatic obsessed with excretory functions.

          • Joe Dutra

            Be sure to wash your paws before you eat that FLOTUS cake.

          • that from a zombie,at least you speak with understanding and personal experience on that “infantile” thing.

          • MarkVega

            Joe, you are wasting your time, Glenn Beck said it best in the title of his book, ”Arguing with IDIOTS”.. these people are obviously products of the public school system and the neo-nazi T.E.A., the younger generations will never know the truth because they will be brainwashed by left wing teachers.. good luck Joe.. ok english-teacher, grade my work but i warn you, i am also a product of the public schools, i just didnt swallow the koolaide…..

          • TexanPatriot2

            See above: NAZI = National Socialist.

          • RobertCHastings

            At least the kids will understand things like The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show), evolution, physics, chemistry, ecology, the SCIENCE of global warming, the art of critical thinking, and all the other things a good public school system should be eaching them.

          • That certainly explains why those with a public school education are functionally illiterate but know how great unions, government, and gay marriage are… Ever since Jimmy Carter established the department of education, quality of education has nose dived but teachers unions are doing great. Choke on that fact…

          • wow, and how old are you and how good is your public education Larry. You should be more exact. The Department of Education was created in 1867 by Andrew Jackson. Carter merely reorganized it, making it the smallest cabinet post in the bureaucracy.

          • RobertCHastings

            Aw, waah, waah, waah. Did you fail sandbox, or something? Just because apparently a LOT of people have ideas different from yours, you want to blame it one the public school system? What’s your alternative, if the current system upsets you so much? Can you offer any workable solutions to the current crisis in the public schools? Probably not, because you probably have no good memories of your school years. Sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on your head didn’t impress you much, did it?

          • jonisaacson

            radical right
            noun
            the faction representing extreme right-wing political views;ultraconservatives; reactionaries.
            Origin:
            1950–55
            Related forms
            radical rightism, noun
            radical rightist, noun
            Dictionary.com Unabridged
            Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

          • Joe Dutra

            Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky – Your Chicago god has spoken.

          • Joe Dutra

            Oh, and I did share a bottle of bourbon with my pal Saul. Fortunately I passed it through my kidneys first.

            If you would like to share a drink or two with Saul he can be found here:

            Zion Gardens Cemetery
            3600 N. Narragansett Avenue
            Rosemont (Cook County)
            Cook County
            Illinois USA

          • Or in the White House…

          • TexanPatriot2

            Nowhere did they mention HITLER or NAZIS…..oh, because National Socialism isn’t a “right-wing” philosophy.

        • Gordon Howe

          Are you serious, you really think the word “radical” onlyapplies to the “far left”? Please tell me you were home-schooled.

      • Virtually every mainstream media outlet is liberal and liberals whine about Fox News. Ah, if only free speech were limited to liberals, eh?

      • ruler777

        Yeah. Bloomberg and Murdock are just innocent little liberals that don’t try to influence anyone.

    • Ben

      Your PURE ignorance is scary! You are a PERFECT example of how stupid and misinformed we have become as a Nation. I pity you, and hope to the High Heavens you don’t have kids.

      • english_teacher

        Based on your comments, and responding in kind, you don’t appear as if you would add any great qualities to the gene pool, either. So, take your own advice about not having any kids.
        That said, it is obvious that you’re not interested in having a discussion. You are interested in bullying people. Your type should be ignored.

        • Joe Dutra

          The bully should be ignored? Wow! That certainly was a slip on your part. Teachers are among the worst offenders when it comes to enabling classroom bullies. Tell us more about bullies and how you ignore them.

          • joelhunn

            No, Scutt Farkas, I mean, Joe- please – give us first person info on bullies, as you are obviously one. I’m imagining you’ve been punched in the nose quite a few times in your life, after your victims finally had enough. Now, as far as words go, here is something you can understand: sticks and stones may break my bones…

          • Joe Dutra

            I would prefer that english_teacher answered for herself. You don’t need to bully your way into her business.

          • english_teacher

            No, it was no slip. I have no personal knowledge of teachers being the worst offenders by enabling classroom bullies. If that is the case, then disciplinary action should be taken against any teacher and administration that tolerates bullies.

          • Joe Dutra

            Apology accepted.

          • Yeah right – I see that happening.

          • ruler777

            My mother always said, “Never marry a teacher because they always want to be in control, and think they know everything”.

          • english_teacher

            That also describes a lot of right-wing christianist men who are frequently make public announcements about a range of topics.

          • ruler777

            That also describes EVERY liberal. They love to yammer out their opinions but never listen or consider others.

          • english_teacher

            Wow, I’m impressed that you know EVERY liberal! How were you able to manage that.

            Actually, I’d guess you know very few because I’ve found it’s generally the right-wing extremists who never listen or consider others. Of course, I don’t know every one so an exception might exist.

          • ruler777

            You are just like all the others….not exceptional at all. I don’t have to know all of the jackasses to know what a jackass is like.

          • TexanPatriot2

            The teachers ARE THE BULLIES. Disagree with their Obama is all powerful mantra….see what happens!!!!

        • max3333444555

          I hope ALL partisans stop feeding the gene pool. if you aren’t independent, you aren’t thinking!

          • idamag

            I am against political parties and think they should be disbanded. They have created the chaos and division that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson predicted. Instead of critical thinking we have a hatfield and mccoys thinking going on right now.

          • No, it’s not parties per se which are the problem – it’s the 2-party system…. It’s the rules that stack the deck against 3rd party start-ups, in favor of the neoconocrat uniparty.

          • Truer words never spoken, max.

        • The same could be appropriately said of you, you NEA dupe. What kind of English do you teach anyway Ebonics?

          • english_teacher

            Your comments are based on nothing other than my screen name. You know nothing about me and you’re not interested in the kind of English I teach. You prefer to make childish hit-and-run insults. Go play with the other bullies.

      • dtgraham

        Looks like I’ve ruffled a few feathers. Well the PURE and PERFECT jumped out at me anyway Ben, although I’m neither.

    • So anyone who disagrees with you is either weak minded, uninformed, or apolitical? And you don’t understand why we can’t have rational discussions? Brilliant.

      • TexanPatriot2

        Rational? Socialists? No such thing. Ever.

        • RobertCHastings

          Apparently you have the opinion that Democrats are socialists and irrational. Is that because folks like you, rabid right-wing nut jobs can’t understand what points we are trying to make? That’s understandable, considering the quality of education which, as a Texan, you have received. Don’t blame that on the rest of the country – blame it on George W Bush and Rick Perry.
          One parting shot. Define the term “socialist”. That simple chore seems to confound most Republicans.

          • shiloh

            You do come off as irrational or unreasonable. You attack the messenger instead of the message. You attack Texas and our education, even though our homeschoolers do far better in college than the average public schooler. Just throw insults to avoid the actual argument- YOU define socialism and explain how Democrats are NOT socialist. The Left is a communist agenda for the poor masses, while keeping the huge corporations, Big Pharm, Big Education ON TOP, keeping us enslaved to this invented reality.

            Liberals like to beat around the bush with their definitions of socialism and communism, it makes them feel educated. But when the govt. demands money from most people and redistributes it in the name of the common good, that’s socialist. And when you trust govt over people with the power to govern, you pool too much power in one place for corruption. Yes, public education and the post office are socialist institutions, and neither are necessary. The federal government should stick to it’s military obligations, foreign relations, immigration laws and international trade. This whole idea of “progress” is not progress at all for people. Its progress for govt. and NWO.

          • RobertCHastings

            1) the communist agenda, as personified in Stalin and Fidel Castro, could NOT care any less about the poor. In fact,their goal is to impoverish their entire countries in order to keep the state supreme (sort of like Paul Ryan’s budget plan
            2)The huge corporations donate pretty evenly to BOTH parties, overall. Some corporations (Pharma, Oil, Banks) contributemore to the Republicans, some contribute more to the Democrats. It all pretty much evens out in the long run.
            3) I have on more than one occasion given a definition of “socialism” in this forum, so either you are not that familiar with my postings, or you just don’t know how to read. Socialism is a system of government in which the central government owns the means of production and distribution of goods and services. There are INNUMERABLE industries in which the Federal Government has no ownership or control. However, as you may find in the Constitution, if you bothered to read it, the government has the right AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to regulate certain aspects of commerce for the good of all.
            4)NWO (New World Order) is a term used frequently by neo-nazi and other hate groups to define THEIR desire to create aworld based upon racial superiority, skinhead(pinhead?)
            5)where did you get your ideas? I’m sure the folks at DC and Marvel comics could really do some hellacious action comics with this stuff.

          • Yep, move to Texas, with one of the worst rankings in education, one of the highest rates of infant mortality, one of the highest dropout rates, some of the lowest wages, etc., etc.. Oh, and almost always, at least under Perry, have continuing budget deficits. And let’s not forget the great working conditions and the high regard for worker safety.

          • RobertCHastings

            Ouch! I coouldn’t have said it better. Thank you, Michael.

          • RobertCHastings

            So, apparently, you have no idea of what a definition of “socialism” might look like. Copnservatives just love to bandy about terms of which they have no comprehension.

          • Paul

            If you look at the top 10 nationally ranked schools (non college/university) you will see that 4 of the top 10 are in Texas… I guess their system is not so bad after all

          • RobertCHastings

            Dear Paul,
            Guess what! I just looked up the top to Universities and Colleges in the US in 2013in the periodical US News and World Report, a very respected current affairs periodical. You’ll never guess what I found! Among other things I DID find,I DID NOT find ANY college or university in Texas in the top10. Could I have made an error, or are we just not in the same periodical,because I will be more than happy to look elsewhere. And yes, their system IS so bad, after all.

          • ruler777

            Paul, don’t pay any attention to this moron. I attended 7 colleges in 3 states and have 3 degrees. It would be interesting to see what he has. I work at a healthcare facility that is ranked above any in his area (unless he lives in Baltimore). I would like to know who he got to read US New and World Report to him. There are many excellent schools in Texas. He probably lives in a state with a much smaller number of colleges and universities than Texas.

          • RobertCHastings

            If you are unable to access an online copy of US News and World Report, you must be posting from some country that monitors internet use, like China. If you don’t wish to accept proper evidence, there is no point in belaboring the issue with you.

          • ruler777

            I stand by my comments above. You are an uneducated idiot just trying to get a rise out of people. Go ahead and base everything on US News and World Report. They are a very reliable source. Not!

          • RobertCHastings

            Who would you prefer?

          • ruler777

            There are many better and more reliable sources for evaluating education than US News and World Report. Look at some of the industry standard evaluations instead of making a magazine that publishes an article on school ratings once a year your source.

          • RobertCHastings

            So you have no specific suggestions? And you fail to see any value in the evaluation posted by US News, even though it was based upon industry standard evaluatiions? Really?

          • ruler777

            Every year when magazines do these ratings of colleges, hospitals, etc. to sell more issues, it is general information at best. My hospital is rated 2nd in the nation every year by these magazines. However, the correct way to select a hospital is by what is wrong with you, and where they treat that best. So, if I had AIDS, I would not go to my hospital. We see few of those cases. I would choose a hospital where they see cases every day, like San Francisco or somewhere. It is the same for colleges. Duke is probably the highest ranked medical center, and also the highest ranked university in NC. However, I am sure you would get some protests from Chapel Hill. It depends on what area you are studying, I am sure.
            Texas was ranked 1st in teacher quality last year. I have no idea whether they meant college or high school. Explain that. I can’t because I don’t have enough details about the criteria.

          • RobertCHastings

            I seriously doubt that Texas was number one in teacher quality last year or, for that matter,in any ranking regarding the quality of their educational system except, perhaps, their ranking regarding dropouts. Ever since the beginning to the George W. Bush governorship, Texas has been ranked, along with other southern states, among the bottom tier for their quality of pre-college education. Bush pursued this distinction with a multi-pronged attack, including the reduction of Head Start programs, the Texas version of No-Child-Left-Behind, and huge reductions in state spending on public education. While to many the per capita expenditures per student is not that reliable a barometer, Texas always has managed to be among the lowest in this category. When I was in my early teens, we traveled from Illinois to visit my cousins in Texas, where for a few days I attended classes with my cousin, two grades ahead of me. I am not a gifted and talented student, but I was embarassed for him, for I was able to answer questions he and his classmates could not. This has informed my estimation of Texas education, although it occured over 50 years ago. From what I have seen, especially in the public personna of Rick Perry, this estimation is still right on.

          • ruler777

            It is funny how people take one experience and make it universal. In New York City, we have always believed that Chicago was a second-class city full of country bumpkins. On a trip to Mississippi, I sat in on a college class that was 75% blacks. The class was extremely easy, so I asked a white student if it was always that easy. They said, “Yes, because the teacher is required to pass the black students”. If I did like you, and thought it was that way everywhere, what would it say?

          • RobertCHastings

            In Mississippi, you say? Aren’t they still on the “preclearance” list for the Voter Registration Act? If what you say is accurate, then it is no wonder Mississippi is ranked where it is on most evaluations of publicschool systems.

          • ruler777

            What is happening in Mississippi is that the blacks are in the majority and dominate now. They are electing their own to political and law-enforcement offices. It is payback time there, and there is rampant discrimination against whites. Now that they run things, they are more blatant than the whites were in their day. It matters not that these blacks were not even born when there was slavery. They want someone to pay for what happened to their ancestors. Don’t they know that it was Northerners in the NE that brought the slaves over and sold them to the Southerners? Then they decided to free them without giving the money back.

          • RobertCHastings

            Man, do you ever have a warped grasp of history. Even if what you say is true, which I seriously question, having done a large amount of research on this myself, IF there is payback in the wind, it is much deserved. However, this would NOT meet with the leaders of the civil rights movement, many of whom are still alive today and still active, and have passed the torch to the next generation.

          • ruler777

            I know a lot of friends and relatives in Mississippi that it has affected personally. You comment about payback being deserved is totally asinine. If you really believe that, I hope it happens to someone in your family. Nobody in the present generation was even alive when the civil rights movement was going on, much less when there was slavery. Nobody in this generation deserves it. Of course, being a liberal, you are also most likely an atheist, so you think revenge and payback is fine.

          • RobertCHastings

            And just when do you think the Civil Rights Movement was? It actually began when black military began returning from WWII, in 1945. While the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of its high points, it did not signal the end of that movement, nor did it guarantee that all Americans had equality before the law. And if you want to be truthful about slavery, why don’t you find out what you are talking about. Why do you think blacks undertook the Civil Rights Movement, just to stir people up? Blacks in the Deep South (ie. most of those states covered in the “preclearance” clause of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) did not vote because of apathy, they did not vote because the whites would not let them. You are the one that said anything about payback. I merely responded that it would be justified, but that it would be against what the leaders of the movement had taught. If you want to criticize something, read it first, along with what you posted.

          • ruler777

            You are more full of crap than a Thanksgiving turkey, and argue like a typical liberal. Very predictable. I have read what all the other people have been writing to you. Does anyone agree with you about anything? You must be lonely. Were you actually anywhere while the Civil Rights Movement was taking place, or were you watching it on TV in Chicago? I was there, Baby!

          • RobertCHastings

            Well, I am glad we didn’t run into each other. When the marches and sit-ins were happening in North Carolina, I was a freshman in college at Chapel Hill. I am very happy that I never saw the aftermath of white stupidity and brutality. However, it was not exactly a Sunday walk in the park, and it is easy to understand why the Voting Rights Law of 1965 was needed, and why the “preclearance” requirement was imposed on much of the South, and why, should the Supreme Court eliminate it rather than expand it, that there will be some very upset people. Whether ANYONE else agrees with me is really irrelevent, isn’t it? Whether YOU agree with me is entirely inconsequential.

          • ruler777

            I didn’t know NC ever had any federal troops and real protests like we did in the real South.
            I hope you don’t agree with me. I learned a long time ago that you were a totally useless, biased closed-minded liberal. I just enjoy playing with you.

          • RobertCHastings

            As with most teenagers in this country, I was not granted that type of freedom of movement. I would much have preferred Illinois or Wisconsin. To be truthful, I was raised by a conservative father, and did not realize my mother was a closet Democrat for many years. I even canvassed, with my father, for Barry Goldwater in 1964, thinking I was doing something important (not to denigrate political activism). Not until I had a couple years of college under my belt did I realize the huge difference between Republican and Democrat idologies.

          • ruler777

            So you went to Chapel Hill because you lived in NC? I can still remember when the South was solid Democrat, and the Republicans were the bad guys.

          • RobertCHastings

            Then you know when that turnaround took place, and why.

          • ruler777

            Which leaders are you speaking of? That bigot, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson? What kind of research have you done on it? What a stupid lie? How much time have you actually spent in the deep South? Don’t try to include Virginia, NC, KY? They are not deep South, and FL is not Southern at all.

          • RobertCHastings

            Where in the hell do you live if you think North Carolina is not part of the Deep South? They had their own covens, their own lynchings, their own obstructionist senators(Jesse Helms), and pretty much everything Mississippi had. About half of North Carolina is still included in the “preclearance” clause of the Voter Rights Act of 1965

          • ruler777

            The fact that you are still alive with your attitude and beliefs proves it is not the deep South anymore and has been liberalized. Just kidding. You are talking about the past. The deep South now is AL, MS, LA, GA (except Atlanta), and SC. FL is a mix of NY and Cuba. Parts of NC and AR are still South. TX is more West, and TN is starting to fade. Actually, I have lived in Minnesota for the past 15 years. Obummer carried our state.

          • ruler777

            Robert, I found a place for you:
            And this comes from a California connection… actually a lot of Californians are not lock step in line with the liberals. Many businesses are leaving just for the reason of the liberal fiscal grip on that state — too bad; because it is an absolutely critical state on the Pacific coast and utterly beautiful!

            Oklahoma may be an option for relocation. It is far more American than the rest of America.
            OKLAHOMA!
            Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election.
            While everyone is focusing on Arizona’s new law, look what Oklahoma been doing!
            An update from Oklahoma:
            Oklahoma passed, 37 to 9, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake.
            Hey, this is a conservative state based on Christian values. HB 1330
            Guess what.. Oklahoma did it anyway.
            Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government and the ACLU; they said it would be a mistake.
            Guess what.. Oklahoma did it anyway.
            Recently Oklahoma passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102
            Guess what.. Oklahoma did it anyway.
            Several weeks ago, Oklahoma passed a law declaring Oklahoma a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana, and Utah as the only states to do so.
            More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Florida. Save your confederate money; it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
            The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I’m sure that was a setback for the criminals. The Liberals didn’t like it – But; Guess what.. Oklahoma did it anyway.
            Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL drivers’ license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma. you must read and write English. Really simple. By the way, the Liberals don’t like any of this either.
            Guess what; who cares.. Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

          • RobertCHastings

            The “religious Freedom” clause of the First Amendment is a double-edged sword, put into the First Amendment for a very specific reason. Prior to the Revolution, each individual colony had its own preferred religion, and required all residents to be adherents. The separation of church and state is a principle that is calculated to prevent any one religion or sect from controlling the government. IF you prefer a state in which religious values are the dominant political force, then take a good look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. When Christiians go to these places and try to proselytize, they should expect what happens, because that is what they want to happen over here. Whatever Christian sect you belong to, would you want to live in a community or state where that sect is outlawed and you are legally bound to adhere to a different sect?

          • ruler777

            Nobody wants religion to be the dominant government. However, you would hope that all the good values of Christianity would be used by everyone, religious or not. In fact, many of them are loved by liberals even though many of them are atheists. This bologna about Islam being gentle is a crock. You are an infidel to them, and they are to convert you or kill you. Christians are not allowed to build churches or follow their religion in many countries. This country was founded on Christian principles. Evidence of that is everywhere in Washington. It is on the buildings, it is on the money (so far), and it is in the documents. It does not mention all the different sects and religions you describe, but it is very obvious that it is Christianity.

          • RobertCHastings

            Read the Koran, much of which is borrowed from the Old Testament. In the Muslim Holy Book, Jesus is revered as a Prophet, and his mother, Mary, is equally revered. As we find in our own Bible, God has many names and, while Islam may declare that “there is but one God, and His name is Allah”, Allah, is in fact, but another name for God.

          • ruler777

            Our God does not tell us to kill members of other religions, and stone people if they commit adultery, and chop off heads, and blow up innocent people. You live in the best country in the world, and are obviously unhappy. Isn’t there any other country where you would be happier? I would even think about buying you a ticket.

            Here’s another cute one:

            Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim Terrorists are so quick to commit
            suicide. Let’s have a look at the evidence: – No Christmas – No television –
            No football – No pork chops – No hot dogs – No burgers – No beer – No
            bacon – Rags for clothes – Towels for hats – Constant wailing from some
            idiot in a tower – More than one wife – More than one mother in law – You
            can’t shave – Your wife can’t shave – You can’t wash off the smell of
            donkey – You cook over burning camel shit – Your wife is picked by someone
            else for you – and your wife smells worse than your donkey. Then they tell
            you that “when you die, it all gets better”?? Well no sh*t Sherlock!….
            It’s not like it could get much worse

          • RobertCHastings

            The many good values that make religion so important to all of us were developed long before the invention of “God”, and long before the ancient Hebrews lit upon the idea of one God. They developed because they were necessary for groups of people to live together in harmony in social settings when towns and cities were first developed. One does not need religion in order to lead a moral life for morality and ethical behavior are merely common sense. The various pagan deities represent various aspects of life and death, and unifying these aspects under ONE God was a simple and logical progression. Many countries that preexisted America were founded upon Christian principles, most of the countries that today are under the auspices of the UN were founded upon some religious principles, some universal understanding of the way the world works and what rules are necessary to keep it working well
            Your take on liberals and their seeming atheism is dead wrong. Just because we do not believe in some fundamentalist image of a great Creator who is guiding America to the land of milk and honey by no means should be interpreted as making us into non-believers, merely as people who believe differently. You yourself stated that not all people believe the same, nor do all people interpret Scripture in the same manner. Many people who refuse to believe in Creationism are not atheists, and many people who believe in the efficacy of Creationism are not Christians.

          • ruler777

            Robert, the UN is a total failure, useless, and should be eliminated. That would help our budget since without our country’s unfair share of payments to the UN, it would have been gone a long time ago.

            I can’t believe what an authority you think you are about everything. You have it all figured out. Religions and their history, the civil rights movement and its history, politics and past history. If I didn’t know that you were a liberal, I would think you were the most intelligent and astute person in the world.

          • RobertCHastings

            And I would think that you were the most opinionated and least informed person it has ever been my misfortune to cross paths with.

          • ruler777

            The one thing I have learned from you is that I am very happy none of my kids went to college at North Carolina. It should be tar brains instead of tar heels.

          • ruler777

            THE MUSLIMS ARE NOT HAPPY!

            They’re not happy in Gaza .. They’re not happy in Egypt .. They’re not happy in Libya .. They’re not happy in Morocco .. They’re not happy in Iran ..They’re not happy in Iraq .. They’re not happy in Yemen .. They’re not happy in Afghanistan .. They’re not happy in Pakistan .. They’re not happy in
            Syria .. They’re not happy in Lebanon ..

            SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?

            They’re happy in Australia . They’re happy in Canada …. They’re happy in England … They’re happy in France ….. They’re happy in Italy .. They’re happy in Germany ….. They’re happy in Sweden .. They’re happy in the USA….. They’re happy in Norway .. They’re happy in Holland …. They’re happy
            in Denmark .
            Basically, they’re happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!
            AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?
            Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.
            THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
            AND THEN; They want to change those countries to be like…. THE COUNTRY
            THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!
            Excuse me, but I can’t help wondering…How damn dumb can you get?

          • RobertCHastings

            That is SOOOO cute, and so simplistic. Christians are, in many places here, unhappy, and are continuously going overseas to spread their unhappiness. MANY Muslims are very happy in their homelands, as there are many Christians who are quite happy here. Muslims in the Middle East are unhappy for a number of reasons, just as Christians are unhappy here for a number of reasons. However, moderates, be they Muslim OR Christian, are willing to accept happiness where ever it may exist for them. The Tsarnaev brothers, the 9/11 bombers, insurgents in Iraq, Libya,etc. all seem to have one unifying theme in their unhappiness, however, and that is something Americans simply don’t want to admit, and that is American exceptionalism, the widespread belief in this country, especially among conservatives, that God is on our side to the exclusion of all “others”. When people fail to accept the truism that ALL peoples of ALL religions and ethnicities are children of God and, therefore, under His divine countenance, they lose sight of their own beliefs and understanding of God, making God a rallying cry for exclusivism rather than brotherhood.

          • RobertCHastings

            In the Montana University Billings study, Texas teachers were ranked highest. The factors they use are limited, and limiting. However, overall the Texas public school system was NOT ranked in the upper tier in any of the criteria for judging the efficacy of the system. The main factors involved in evaluating teacher quality appeared to based upon teacher autonomy, and the ability of local systems to discipline teachers, an interesting situation.

          • ruler777

            But Texas and Pennsylvania have the top high school football systems in the US.

          • RobertCHastings

            And how many high school football players will go on to get a career in football, as opposed to those who will complete HS, attend and graduate from a college/university, get a good job, without having participated in ANY athletics?

          • ruler777

            Sad, isn’t it. Some of those nerds might become members of Congress.

          • ruler777

            My original comment was a joke. I forgot who I was commenting to. I am sure that there will be a lot more nerds that go on to get decent jobs than football players that make pro.

          • RobertCHastings

            I live in a state that has one Medical Center more highly ranked than any in Texas, and many more highly ranked universities.

          • ruler777

            If you live in New York and are talking about Sloan-Kettering, M. D. Anderson in Texas passed it this year to become the top ranked cancer hospital in the nation. Also, my medical center is ranked #2 in the nation, second only to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

          • RobertCHastings

            Happy to hear that, and that clears up a question. My sister-in-laws nephew’s wife has cancer and she went to Texas for treatment (from Chicago). I couldn’t understand that one, now I gotcha. I have a cousin whose husband was a teacher at Johns Hopkins, now retired with health problems of his own. However, I don’t think the US News article was dealing ONLY with cancer centers. The hospital close to me is in Winston-Salem, NC where I had triple bypass two years ago – very happy with the results – I’m still alive.

      • dtgraham

        Read my reply to NO YB.

    • yeah and we see just what a liberal president has done for the country too-unemployment to the levels of the Carter administration, the highest number of food stamp use in history, the highest number of citizens on welfare in history, poverty poverty and even more poverty. Yeah you liberals really know what you are doing. yee haw.

      • RobertCHastings

        At least it isn’t as high as during the Nixon recession, when a CONSERVATIVE president instituted wage and price controls. Sound like non-interference from the government to you? Sound like free market economics to you? And one of his main advisers was Morton Friedman.

    • You very arguments are the essence of weak minded and uninformed. Any one who disagrees with your leftist baiting diatribe is a dupe for Fox News, wow that is some astute analysis. As for demagoguery, DemocRATes in general and the high priest Demo in the WH are masters of it.

      • dtgraham

        This is all you need to know. Fox News was taken to court in 1998 by two former employees who refused to report knowingly false information the year before. They were fired as a result. It’s the first time that whistleblower legislation was used as a legal defence against a media outlet for reporting distorted news.

        Fox made several offers of large sums of money to the pair to keep it from going to trial. The employees won their case but Fox appealed, not on the basis that they weren’t lying but, incredibly, that it didn’t violate any enforceable rule to do so. Although their argument was rejected by 3 other judges on 6 separate occasions, they eventually won the appeal and had the initial ruling reversed. In the end the courts decided that the FCC’s news distortion policy that Fox violated didn’t qualify as either a rule, law, or regulation that could be enforced.

        Fox basically argued that it was OK for a news network to openly lie, because it was permitted…and won. No one thought that a news network would ever come along and want to do that. They’re pioneers of lying propaganda.

    • ruler777

      What a bunch of crap you just wrote! I watch CNN all the time and nothing ever appears on there that is not completely liberal biased.

      • dtgraham

        Wow. That’s amazing how people of various political persuasions see the same thing so differently. I’ve read a number of comments from conservatives, about CNN, that mirror your comment. Too liberal they say. At the same time, you must be aware that many liberals refer to CNN as the conservative news network. Too conservative any more they think.

        To me, CNN seems to bend over backward to be fair…but that’s just me. They proudly proclaim, no bias no bull. Well maybe that’s why they have no ratings. Bias and bull are entertaining. I want my bias and bull now.

        • ruler777

          Have you ever watched Piers Morgan? He is the worst host on TV. If someone doesn’t agree with him (especially about gun control), he interrupts and insults. I can’t believe that they give him a show as rude as he is. CNN is liberal biased. If you think they are conservative, or even fair, you must be ultra liberal.

    • lazarus062268

      You make me want to weep for our country. I just pray you are one of a kind, but then we know you’re not. Don’t worry Christ will explain it all…before you join the goats.

      • dtgraham

        So let me get this straight. Christ is going to explain to me how wanting a tolerant compassionate society with a sense of egalitarianism, a concern for the poor, and health care for all not based on ability to pay—is now the highway to hell. I wonder how he’ll explain it? “You know all that crap I said in the New Testament?” “Well, it’s like this.” “I’ve been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio and I’ve kind of changed my mind on things Buckeroo.”

        • lazarus062268

          What is tolerant about abortion, and murdering babies, destroying an amendment to the constitution of the USA, and allowing unlimited immigration to undeserving illegals? People need to have a way to defend themselves, and guns are all that work against the welfare gangs you and other Dimwits have created with you supposed compassion. “He who does not work, does not eat.” is a Bible quote. Christ Himself ordered swords be taken to Gethsemane. When you come out against abortion we can talk. Otherwise, you’re just another demon.

        • lazarus062268

          My Lord also said in Romans 13:1, Everyone must submit to the governing authorities…. which our own president doesn’t do. All these foreigners are welcome to apply for citizenship, and get in line like everyone else. Frankly, if I could read, most of them can’t, I’d never come to America. Not under O.

          • dtgraham

            Wouldn’t the President of the United States be the main governing authority?

          • lazarus062268

            No. The office of the presidency is what God established. We, the sheeple, elect the man inside…along with all his baggage.

          • dtgraham

            I don’t think so lazarus. This kind of theocracy is what many escaped Europe for to come to America in the first place. The country was set up originally as a secular state, with full religious freedom granted to anyone who wanted to practice their faith in their private life as they saw fit. Thomas Jefferson was a man far ahead of his time when he talked about separation and a firewall between church and state.

          • lazarus062268

            Yeah, he was wayyyy ahead of his time. The Bible says in Christ, all things hold together. Conversely, without Him guess what happens? You’re living it. Think Jefferson ever imagined ISIS? Lets give them freedom of “religion”. No such thing, or shouldn’t be, as separation of Christ and state. Not as long as there are HItlers and Obamas in office, and any muslim at large. That was one bad idea. If Jefferson was really ahead of his time, he should have anticipated Islam and specified only “peaceful” religions allowed. Now even the “peaceful” religiions will have to fight for their existence. Evil eventually causes us all to become warriors FOR peace.
            Man’s progress is inevitably intertwined with his spirit, and his creator God. Separate them, and you get modern day government.

          • dtgraham

            Your last paragraph is exactly what radicalized Muslim fundamentalists say. You’re just substituting another Abrahamic faith tradition.

            So you say the United States should have one official state religion which would be presumably enforced. No other religions allowed, upon pain of what? Instead of Sharia law it would be old testament law that would govern the land. Christian observances would be mandatory like the Muslim call to prayer I assume. Women would be imprisoned for abortion and stoned to death for adultery along with homosexuals. That’s different from Iran and Saudi Arabia how again?

          • lazarus062268

            You obvioulsy arent’ familiar with Christianity. Christians live under grace, which is what Christ did for you and I when He died for our sins, and forgave them if you ask Him to. There is no stoning, or any old Testament practice implicated in the New TEstament covenant which supercedes the Jewish law in the OT.
            We would still have exactly the same sytem we had when America was founded, but violent religions which threatened harm in any way to anyone, member or not, would be forbidden.
            Our sytem of laws, still needed for society to operate are based on consequences for detrimental actions like crime. PUnishment would still be justified for state laws. I lived under that system as did you until the stinking, lowlife musloids began their pursuiit of the devil moon god.
            Things worked better than any other government that has ever existed. LBJ imparting the “gimme your stuff” rule, also ruined any work ethic we may have had.
            Just legislating basic decency and civil rights for women would keep Islam out. And FYI I believe in the death penalty for abortion. Abortion is murder and would be punished as any other murder.

          • dtgraham

            So only peaceful religions would be allowed huh. Who’s going to make that call? There’s no way that could ever be enforced in a free and democratic society, nor should it ever be tried for obvious reasons, and you have to know that. Anyway, at the rate that I see women’s reproductive clinics being bombed and their doctors being killed by professed Christians—and their patients and staff having to endure screaming, harassment, violence, and physical intimidation by bible wavers…you’d better hope that your religion isn’t called onto the carpet by the official government peaceful religion board and made to answer.

            You want law enforcement officials to get a warrant and search American’s homes if they suspect that a Koran or some other disapproved religious book may be in there. If it’s found, they’re arrested. Many oral contraceptives work by preventing a newly fertilized egg from becoming attached to the womb, and it gets flushed out with a woman’s normal cycle instead. That’s technically an abortion and you want that woman imprisoned and executed for that. If she’s desperate because you’ve outlawed most of her contraception, and she seeks an early stage back alley abortion from the little old lady on Chestnut street…same thing if she’s caught.

            You’re just slightly more tolerable and less brutal than ISIS, with a little “better” religion, but that’s nothing to hang your hat on. It’s the same idea lazarus. The same ideology, philosophy and mindset simply scaled back a bit. A little bit.

          • lazarus062268

            A woman’s reproductive right ends at conception. Then there are two rights involved: the baby and hers, and those rights are independent and equal under God. There is no need for “reproductive clinics”, or court decisions. “Thou shalt not murder.” You’d think and hope that a mother would know that.

          • dtgraham

            All right. The best estimate that I keep hearing is that 1/3 of American women have had an abortion in their lives. Those women would be fine in the developed world and the advanced democracies, who all make some provision for abortion. Where they wouldn’t be fine is in the Islamic fundamentalist countries and parts of the third world.

            Do you really want to execute American women that badly for abortion and turn the United States into Nigeria or Iran on certain social issues?

            What if she takes RU486 or some oral contraceptive that works in a similar way. Do you still want to kill her for that?

          • lazarus062268

            I don’t want to kill anyone. Espec ially not the babies. God put us all here for a reason. Imagine how he feels when we return them to the sender.

  • Such an apt name….

    • Ben

      “Bologna”!? Such an apt name… Dolt!

  • tax payer

    It looks like the writing of my doctor.

  • JDavidS

    “Flake”… well, the name’s appropriate.

  • David Turrentine

    truth hurts

  • Budjob

    If you say something often enough and long enough,eventually the people will believe you.That belief is from none other than Goebbels himself.These two birds want an autocratic form of government.AKA,a fascist government!

    • idamag

      Then the media can pick a segment of society and tell the people that that segment is causing all the problems and can take measures to teach the American People to hate that segment of society.

      • IVDAD

        Their doing it now by backing the administration without asking a relevant question about the agenda.

        • RobertCHastings

          Interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the media does not ask the current administration relevant questions. Is that what you are saying? Interesting, very interesting. I guess you don’t watch many press conferences, or read many newspapers.

    • RobertCHastings

      Both Mark Twain and Will Rogers used that one, as did Romney, in reference to his sons.

  • My Gosh – his base really IS old, white folks. Mercy. I don’t think he was rude to Ms. Teves, though. He just gave her an honest answer. Mr. McCain probably shouldn’t have called the man a jerk, but something tells me he probably was, .

    • And the MEEK(SHEEP) shall inherite the Earth.That would be all the OBAMA fans who are scrounging off the government who is scrounging off my hard earned taxs and social security and dragging this country down the crapper – me being a working middle class american.

    • gwsjr425

      So what if they’re old? So what if they’re white? Your lack of respect of your elders and the outright bigotry in your comment shows what kind of person you are.

  • idamag

    When the far right controls all the media, it will be easier to shape people’s thinking. It won’t be any different than when a right-wing nut controlled all the media in a country a long time ago.

    • Joe Dutra

      Or how the left controls today’s media.

      • plc97477

        Would you care to give an example?

        • Joe Dutra

          I’ll give you an example of how the left-leaning media fed upon itself when a loyal media soldier strayed from the cause. Juan Williams. There is your example. Still hungry for more?

          • RobertCHastings

            And where did Juan Williams wind up? He was welcomed with open arms at Fox News, where he should have been all along.

        • Ben

          NBC caught editing news tapes to fit agenda, BUSTED! NO Benghazi coverage, “what does it matter anyway”, right? I would go as far to bet, YOU have NO IDEA who Kermit Gosnell is either! I bet you think NBC, CBS, and ABC are “Right Wing” too. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life! Idiot.

          • english_teacher

            I don’t know about NBC editing tapes, Benghazi has been answered, just not an answer to your liking. There have been AP reports on Kermit Gosnell from the beginning. Continue with your insults. It just shows how weak in facts your case is.

          • gwsjr425

            Benghazi has been answered/ Really? What about:

            What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?

            Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?

            We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46”). Is that true? If not, please explain if so, why was the protocol not followed?

            Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.

            Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?

            Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?

            Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012?

            And What was the earliest that any White House official was aware? Please provide details

            What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?

            And Does this mean that the Administration would have used them if available?

            Is anyone being held accountable for having no resources close enough to reach this high-threat area within 8+ hours on Sept. 11 and has the Administration taken steps to have resources available sooner in case of emergency in the future?

            A Benghazi victim’s family member stated that Mrs. Clinton told him she would find and arrest whoever made the anti-Islam video. Is this accurate? If so, what was Mrs. Clinton’s understanding at the time of what would be the grounds for arrest?

            The Administration is reported to have asked that the anti-Islamist YouTube video initially blamed in Benghazi be removed from YouTube. If true, what is the Administration’s view regarding other videos or future material that it may wish were not published, but are legal?
            What is the Administration’s criteria in general for requesting removal of a YouTube or other Internet video?

            After repeated contacts, a White House official has indicated they will not be answering these questions.

            Additionally, months ago, CBS News FOI’d Benghazi info from State Dept, CIA, FBI and Defense Dept. None has been provided.

            Additionally, CBS News has repeatedly requested the promised surveillance video from Benghazi but it has not been provided.

            Please…..enlighten us.

          • Now, see, you’re just gonna go and confuse the leftists with details which PROVE the massive leftwing bias of most of the media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, Newsweek, WaPo, NYT, on and on and on)…..they have no details and no argument either – is that really fair to debate them like that?

          • Joe Dutra

            Did you follow any of the Trayvon Martin coverage? NBC got busted BIG-TIME for editing tapes. It must have slipped your mind.

          • english_teacher

            No, it didn’t slip my mind, I don’t watch television because I don’t have one.

          • Joe Dutra

            The NBC debacle was also covered on radio, in the newspapers, and on internet news sources. Let me guess; you don’t own a radio, don’t read newspapers, and do not have access to a personal computer.

          • idamag

            And you are probably better informed than those who have to have television shape their thinking.

          • You discredit your arguments with your own statements.

          • english_teacher

            You discredit yours with your bullying insults.

          • max3333444555

            Benghazi was answered? oh, please share. I missed that.

          • lana ward

            The MSM was forced to report on butcher Gosnell. Fox News reported on it from the beginning. Hillary LIED about Benghazi!! She and Obama murdered those four heros!!!!

          • WOW liberal ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Benghazi has been answered? Yeah with the statement “What does it matter anyway” – you really are blind.

          • You’re full of it…you CHOOSE to not know about NBC editing tapes, because there’s no escaping the inevitable conclusion which their blatant fraud would lead you to. Benghazi was a big coverup, including by the debate moderator, who pretended to have her facts mixed up.

          • english_teacher

            How would you know what I choose or not? You know nothing about me yet you choose to make insults, always a sure-fire way to “win” your argument.

        • lana ward

          The left controls Fox News. LOL!!!

        • MANY examples abound – its been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, through peer-reviewed studies, that there is a media bias against gun rights – that’s the most glaring example.

    • Sand_Cat

      You mean they don’t already control most of it?

    • lana ward

      Obama and the left control the media, except Fox News. That’s why they all hate Fox. Fox has more viewers than all MSM combined!! And they give all the news, not just what they want veiwers to hear

      • RobertCHastings

        You must get a different Fox News from the one I get, when I get drunk enough to watch it. What a bunch of liars! Hannity even insulted his foil, Colmes, when Colmes would say something sensible. O’Reilly’s response to someone who disagrees with him is “Shutup!” It’s really har to believe that they dumped Glen Beck and Sarah Palin; they were right on board with Fox policy – Fib, Obfuscate, eXaggerate.

        • lana ward

          They must be doing something right. They’ve been number 1 for over 13 years!! : ))

          • RobertCHastings

            No, Lana, they are doing something wrong, very wrong. You believe what you will, it will show down the years when you have to look in the mirror, and all you see is someone who realizes she has been willingly duped. You dislike President Obama so much you are perfectly willing to cite what you know to be a lie as the truth. When Newscorp is eventually in this country revealed to be what they have been proven to be in Britain, even then you will look at Fox News as “fair and balanced”. If you cannot discern their duplicity, that is one thing; but I think you can, and you refuse to disbelieve them because it suits your agenda.

          • lana ward

            I am right, and so are millions of other Americans. You are the one being duped. CNN, MSNBC,ABC,CBS and all other news outlets don’t report half of the news. They tell you only what Obama wants you to hear!! That’s why Obama hates Fox News, they report the truth about him and he wants to shut them down because of it. So you just keep being uninformed, I’ll stay with the millions who are informed.

          • RobertCHastings

            Yeah,whatever.

          • lana ward

            The MSM should all be hung for censoring the news. They are doing the public a grave disservice

          • RobertCHastings

            If you want truthful, accurate reportage, watch the PBS news Hour.

  • RobertCHastings

    If it were a mere lie, he could sooth it over with an appropriate apology. However, it is NOTa lie, it is the clearest example of legislative hypocrisy I have ever seen. To tell a grieving mother you support her in her grief and in her belief on how to ease that grief and make her loss meaningful, and then to turn right around and, basically, piss on her son’s grave, is hypocrisy.

    • he may agree with her but his job is to vote the way the people wish him to-get it now?

      • RobertCHastings

        Yes, that IS his job. However, since over 90% of folks in this country support universal background checks on the transfer of ownership of guns, it is a pretty big stretch to believe that he is voting the way his constituents want him to vote. The people who voted him into office, the voters in his political district, may NOT be 90% in favor, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that the majority are NOTagainst.

        • Yeah and over 90% of statistical quotes are made up.

          • RobertCHastings

            I hope you can do better than that. The “90%” quote was no more off than Romeny’s “47%” quote. The poll numbers came out a few days before Congress voted down universal background checks. Even you should be able to find that on CNN, NTY.com, Washington Post, whatever. If you can’t find the data, I will be more than happy to send you the links, but I seriously doubt that you have the courage or the sense to decide for yourself, rather than have Glen Back, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity make up your mind for you.

          • ruler777

            90% of all Americans do not agree on anything. It is a manipulated statistic.

          • RobertCHastings

            They may not agree on all of the specifics presented in the proposed legislation regarding universal background checks. However, they agree on the basic premise that much of the bun violence in this country can be eliminated by universal background checks.

          • ruler777

            Hell, even I agree that universal background checks is a good idea, and would have voted for that aspect. However, now that I know what else the proposed bill said, I am totally against it. I now understand why the NRA changed their mind. It was a typical pro-gun sham. Read the entire thing and even you might understand. No, I doubt it.

          • RobertCHastings

            I agree with you, that the bill as proposed falls far short of its promise, and is little more than what is already in place in existing gun registration requirements. But, as you indicate, you seem to be somewhat conflicted about your support of universal background checks. Why would you not support it if it implements universal background, however weakened?

          • ruler777

            As written, even loaning a gun to a friend or relative could put legal owners in prison. There were all kinds of easy ways for honest people to get in serious trouble in the bill. The background checks for buying from a dealer in his shop or at a gun show are already adequate. They just need to make the non-dealers that sell at shows (30-40%) do a background check. I don’t think you can buy a gun on the internet, but if you could, it can’t be mailed or shipped. You have to go pick it up at a dealer who does a background check. I bought a gun a few weeks ago. I had to go to the sheriff and get a permit to buy after he checked me out. Then, I had to take the permit to the dealer who checked out my identity and made me fill out a lot of paperwork. Then he had to call the BTF or FBI QuickCheck and check me out again. It is a pain, and no criminal is going to go through all that. It is my understanding that the stupid ones that do try it fail, but the laws we already have are not enforced, so nothing is ever done to them for the attempt.

          • RobertCHastings

            On the surface, it looks rather simple to find and purchase a gun on line. I did not, however, go through the process, and I have no idea if there are any registration requirements. But there are dozens of sites that do sell guns online. The process you went through when you purchased a gun sounds like a reasonable one to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, providing at least two steps along the way that should alert the seller. However, if the seller is not that concerned, I can see the opportunity for abuse or misuse, especially if he is not a legitimate licensed dealer who may be dealing out of the trunk of his car. Just saying. As is the problem with many laws, not just those regarding the purchase of guns, they are not always strictly obeyed or followed, as with people sliding through a yellow light. I remember a Jeff Bridges movie from the 80’s “Starman”, in which he was told that yellow meant speed up. It is a normal human thing to try to skirt or avoid regulation and control, and the honest are the ones who pay the price, while the dishonest get what they want, to the detriment of all. While adequate laws are in place, you are correct in stating they are inadequately enforced which opens up another can of worms.

          • ruler777

            Let me ask you a question. Do you base a lot of things on movies and Hollywood? That is even worse than US News and World Report. You said you have no idea if there are any registration requirements to buy online. However, I bet you have been shouting, “We must have new laws to cover gun shows and online purchases!” Are you aware that most purchases at a gun show are through registered dealers that set up there for the show? Sellers who are not legitimate licensed dealers dealing out of their trunk (as you said) are not going to be affected by any law you pass. They will keep doing that no matter what Congress passes, and few, if any, will ever be caught. The sheriff checked me out (Don’t you imagine he was honest and careful before giving out a permit to buy? If we can’t trust the ones who are supposed to protect us?) The dealer has to call the feds to clear a customer before he can sell the gun. Otherwise, he is breaking the current law and will also lose his license. We have enough laws currently. Criminals do not follow them, and will not follow the ones you pass in the future. Why don’t we just pass some more drug laws, and see if that stops criminals? That would be the same solution that liberals are trying with gun criminals.

          • RobertCHastings

            Iam a liberal and, as such, I DO NOT support more drug laws. This is one war we have flat out lost at a cost of untold billions and we should admit it. However, the “war on drugs” was not the idea of liberals, or it never would have become a war in the first place. The war against gun violence, or, for that matter, violence in general, SHOULD be everyone’s war. A major component of overall violence in this country is gun violence. When one portion of the population INSISTS that any attempt to control the proliferation of guns is a direct violation of their Second Amendment rights, then what can you do? Even the Manchin/Toomey bill got so watered down that had it actually passed it would have been a solid victory for the NRA (I’m amazed the DIDN’T support it). And yet the inescapable facts are that gun control actually controls gunviolence and hence reduces overall violence. In 1996 when the Australian PM pushed through legislation banning guns, it DID solve their gun violence issue. Gun violence in Australia today compared to pre-1996 levels is drastically reduced. And that is quite probably because the Australians do NOT have a Second Amendment. A recent study published in the JAMA positively shows that those jurisdictions which have the most stringent gun control laws have the lowest incidence of gun violence, although some of the more egregious instances of gun violence may very well occur in such places. As our media seems to focus on the more dramatic and not the everyday, we have lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of gun violence events involve only one victim, and many of those DO NOT result in death. So, what would make reporting such items interesting and garner more readership/viewership? Sadly, nothing. Until the focus is shifted from the event to something larger, the American public will not see the bigger picture.
            Yes, I watch a lot of movies, some of which are more factual than others. However, as with all such media, it is an imitation of life. What happens on the screen portrays various aspects of reality, either figuratively or realistically. All art imitates life.

          • ruler777

            If you read the bill, you would understand why the NRA didn’t like it. So, you say that violence in general and especially with guns should be everyone’s war, and you have given up on the drug war. Are you aware that a great many of the gun deaths are connected with drugs or done by someone on drugs? Even a great many robberies are to get money for drugs. So winning the drugs was would eliminate a lot of gun violence, gun deaths, and robberies. 3 in 1.
            You might like living in Australia. Have you ever thought about moving there? Just remember that it was originally a prison farm for criminals from England. You won’t move, because you know you already live in the best place to live in the world, and other places wouldn’t allow you to do your liberal bitching.

          • RobertCHastings

            The drug war was stupid when it was first begun. It has cost this country tens of billions of dollars and has only worsened, primarily because people are going to get what they want regardless of the violence it causes. And the war on drugs has caused much more violence than it has prevented. WhenMexicantowns on our southern border cannot even get sheriffs to run for office because they know they WILL be killed, is it any wonder that there is drug- related gun violence in that area. Every major city, and many smaller ones, have severe gang problems,and the gangs are established for the proliferation of drugs, an illegalized commodity from which many people can reap vast amounts of money. And it is the users who take the brunt of prosecution and punishment. Where is the sense in incarcerating an otherwise upstanding citizen for ridiculously long times for the simple possession of relatively small amounts of drugs, especially if he is black. As you know, the penalties for possession of small amounts of cocaine are based upon its form, one form having been determined to be the kind that blacks use, the other form being the drug of choice for middle and upper class whites. Guess which one gets the more severe penalty. Incarceration for a mere user is stupid, UNLESS he is put through mandatory rehab. But the American prison system sees no value in working to make inmates better citizens once they are released. So it is apparent that the system is creating an underclass of petty criminals who, because of their convictions, will be unable to even get a job,much less hold one. The liberal stance on this issue is one of common sense and reason. I won’t stoop to explain my desires for you.

          • ruler777

            Look at what you just said, “people are going to get what they want regardless”. That was true about alcohol during prohibition. That is true about drugs now. That is true about guns, also. As far as Mexico is concerned, who can we blame in our country for illegally selling guns down there????
            I don’t even smoke, but if they would legalize pot, it would do more to fix violence and crime than gun laws would, and it might even help Obama’s deficit disaster.

          • RobertCHastings

            I just answered one of your posts that had an entirely different slant. Do you have a twin or a doppelganger? Once again you talk before you research, something you have in the past loved to accuse me of doing. Regarding “Obama’s deficit disaster”, what disaster? The budget deficit has dropped during the Obama administration faster and farther than during the presidency of anyone else.

          • ruler777

            I just enjoy playing with you. It is fun to get you going. Look at these two posts by veterans:

            Bill Garwood · Top Commenter · Franklin Academy, Malone NY
            Want something to add to the argument? I was IN Iraq, 04-05 We FOUND the gas canisters, and gas bombs on Buried fighter/bomber planes in the Sand! the same crap Syria is using now! President Bush was Right! the WMDs were there, not nukes, but the facilities to produce them yes. But the Poison gas Was! Wow Truth what a concept!

            Jeff Hughes

            yep, I too was there in 04, saw the many remnants of WMD, came home and spread that word but i’m not a hollyweird actor, not an accepted liberal bloviator…….so I get NO “cred” or play in todays society

          • RobertCHastings

            I shouldn’t say this, but I will, anyway. Those guys, thank them for their service and sacrifice. We ALL owe them a big debt of gratitude. HOWEVER, the complaint about liberal bloviator, etc., those guys have been so indoctrinated about voting and believing Republican. They cannot see that it was the Bush administration who squelched their stories (I believe in 2004 the he was president?), and who also decimated the services they should have received when the got back home. At least Obama is trying to get some of those services restored, in the face of strong opposition from, of all people, Republicans.

          • ruler777

            Please explain to me what possible reason Bush would have for squelching their stories since they would have proven that Bush really had a reason to invade. Your statement makes absolutely no sense at all. liberals just babble.

          • RobertCHastings

            If you can’t figure out something as obvious as why the Bush administration would have squelched such stories, then I can’t help you that one. However, consider this – in 2004, who was president? If it wasn’t Bush himself who squelched the stories, it had to be someone close to him, like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. If the stories were not squelched by any of the people I mentioned, could it be that the stories were not, in truth, factual. It is well known that prior to the invasion of Iraq, we had identified over 600 sites as repositories of WMD, and yet when we invaded troops were NOT sent to those sites to secure them. Why do you think that happened? Maybe they weren’t really there and the Bush administration did not want people back home to find that out, in fact he didn’t want people to find out that his whole premise for the invasion was bogus, just like his claim about yellow-cake in Niger, and the one about a nuclear arsenal, or any one of a number of other lies. The best way for your “friends” to have made a lasting impression upon the war in Iraq would have been to take their stories to the New York Times, or perhaps some conservative newspaper. Seeing as how they DID NOT, a reasonable assumption would be that they did not see what they claimed to have seen. By failing to report their supposed findings, they did either George W Bush a great disservice, or the American public.

          • ruler777

            Look at this news:
            “New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has not made a peep about gun control since news came out that firearms-related deaths were way down. President Obama has ignored it and continued to pursue more gun-control laws. Their reaction shows how this news screws up their agenda to keep the decline in gun-related homicides a secret from Americans so that they can pass restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

          • RobertCHastings

            And your point is?

          • ruler777

            What do you think it is?

          • RobertCHastings

            Perhaps to fire an aimless bolt, having no idea whither it will land.

          • ruler777

            You are right. If it were up to the liberals the “war on drugs” would have never become a war in the first place. Why? Because they are all potheads and druggies!

          • RobertCHastings

            So your ability to insult settles the matter? You apparently see no reasonableness in at least the decriminilization of some recreational use, to keep mere users out of jail, let alone the gross unfairness of imprisoning one group and not imprisoning another group, depending upon the form of cocaine they use. The hype about marijuana is just that, hype. Marijuana is NOT physically addictive like narcotics, and there ARE useful derivatives that help many different medical conditions, such as chronic pain, migraines, side-effects of chemo, etc. Sorry you can’t come up with something a little better than your sophomoric name calling.

          • ruler777

            Give it a test. I think that you will find that you cannot buy a gun online (unless you can find an individual to sell you one because no dealer will). Also, the government can’t buy guns, so they are buying up all the ammunition. So far they have bought up more than enough for several Iraqi wars. All the stores are empty. Thank goodness a lot of people have equipment to load their own ammunition

          • RobertCHastings

            Have you read what this kerfluffel is all about – much more smoke than substance. I have no need, and thus no desire to attempt to purchase a gun online, nor anywhere else for that matter.

          • RobertCHastings

            Okay, I read the Mother Jones critique, and I get your point. Existing laws are better than what Manchin and Toomey managed to get into the bill. In fact, the Manchin-Toomey bill seems to weaken some already existing provisions. It is ceratinly a victory for the NRA.

    • ruler777

      Lawmakers are not supposed to legislate based on emotion. They are not supposed to legislate based on what they personally believe or desire. They are supposed to legislate based on what the people that sent them to Congress want. They should not even consider what people in another state or area want them to do.

      • RobertCHastings

        I believ ethe operative term in your post is “supposed to”.

        • ruler777

          And many of them did. They ignored the false liberal polls and statistics and voted against the background checks like their people back home wanted them to. It surprised the liberals!

          • RobertCHastings

            What surprised the liberals is that they DIDN’T vote for the Manchin-Toomey bill that would have given the NRA a real feather in its cap. Amazing how you folks just pick and choose what polls you want to listen to and what you want to glean from them. Rove and Romney believed their own polls,until they proved them wrong, clearly demonstrating that they should have listened to the polls that put Romney behind. Yes, some polls are seriously flawed, and some are generally pretty close to right on, the majority of the time.

          • ruler777

            Do you mean the way you only believe the sources you choose like US News and World Report and not Montana? You are the pot calling the kettle black.

          • RobertCHastings

            Read my post, please. I DID NOT say that I did not believe the Montana study, only that the factors they used were not really adequate for the job. They used only three factors, and two of those were regarding the autonomy of the teachers and their superiors to make decisions. I did NOT state that I disagreed with their conclusions, but, as you, I do not have enough data.

          • ruler777

            So, you are saying that you did not really disagree, and Texas actually could have the best if they are correct?

          • RobertCHastings

            So you’vechanged your tack and are nowreacting with reason and calm, not pure emotion? Yes,that is exactly what I said. However,based upon the Montana study solely, Texas is not among the upper tier in any other categories they studied, if the study’s data is correct.

          • ruler777

            Robert, I have read your responses to others on here about a variety of subjects. You would be voted one of the most disliked and disagreed with persons on the whole board. You are a rabble-rouser. You are so opinionated and biased, but that is only half of it. You MUST have the last word even if it means you have to be a devil’s advocate. It is essential for your self-esteem. As I said, you are a waste of time.

          • RobertCHastings

            Really sorry you feel that way. The purpose of forums like this is to get people discussing issues, and,hopefully, do some research and get personally involved in some cause. Sorry all you can see is people disagreeing with you and being distasteful toward you.

          • ruler777

            What I see on here is people disagreeing with you and being distasteful toward YOU, and then you being rude to them. It seems that most people on here disagree with you. You are definitely in the minority. With all the Obama problems now, are you seeing what I meant when I said he is a Chicago politician?

          • RobertCHastings

            A Lot of folks have been Chicago politicians. It is a big city. I am not on this site to win friends, or even to influence enemies, but to expressmy opinions, just like everyone else on here. If you don’t like getting your feathers ruffled, that is unfortunate. Perhaps you shouldn’t get on sites like National Memo.

          • ruler777

            Robert, my feathers don’t get ruffled. Do you really think that when I converse with someone who is so biased and close-minded that it matters to me what they say? You give yourself too much credit. On sites like these, it is unusual to find anyone with enough intelligence to hold your interest. Most of the time it is just playing a game to see what nonsense you can get someone to write. It is just entertainment.

  • Why are we being so easy, we asked for the smallest concession and against the will of the people, were turned down once again.The battle should now go to repealing the second amendment, nothing less than that should not be acceptable. It’s over, the love of the gun for the necropheliac congress is over!!

    • Yeah good luck with that Pete!

    • Ben

      Pete The Anti American Moron! Let’s do it in order, let’s take away YOUR 1st Amendment right FIRST! I’m wondering if you know, to “repeal” the 2nd amendment, you need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States to vote to repeal ANY constitutional amendment. Good luck with that commie. You should ask yourself, Why do you HATE America and American citizens?

      • Elliot J. Stamler

        Everyone in this column to whom you have written a retort you’ve called a moron, a commie, a fool, uneducated, an idiot, fat, drunk, stupid, misinformed ,and a dolt. And you and folks like you wonder why you lost the last two national elections and will lose the next one too. Others reading all this can make their own judgment about you. Mine is you are a pathetic, immature, fanatical schmuck with a loser job, a loser personality, an emotional cripple, a sexual zero, and on top of all, with no money. Have a nice day.

        • there’s only one word why we lost the last two elections….FRAUD

          • RobertCHastings

            Exactly. The RNC could not get enough fraud to occur in key locations, so they were unable to manufacture enough false votes.

          • That’s true – fraud by Romney in the R primaries – Paul would have wiped the floor with Obama.

        • english_teacher

          He’s probably getting paid for each inane comment that (s)he makes.

        • gwsjr425

          Big deal, the GOP lost one seat in the last two presidential elections. However you need to look at the picture beyond that central government control box you dwell in.

          At the national level the balance of power remains the same now as it did the day before the election. At best you can call it a wash.

          The state level the GOP with strong TP support, took control of two more state legislatures and three governorships. 24 states now have GOP controlled legislatures along with Governors, the most in US history. The rest are a mixed bag of GOP/Dem legislatures and governors.

          The local elections where worse for the D ums than the 2010 mid terms where at the national level nearly all of it due to TP candidates and support. The protest part of that movement is over and now the work is underway.

          Change from the bottom up is coming, and it’s just not the kind you think. Enjoy the ride while it lasts because when ZeroCare kicks in, there isn’t a social issue the Dums can resurrect from the dead that will be able to cover the disaster that is going to be. 2014 will be a single issue election…..Obamacare.

        • And he speaks unmitigated truth.

    • You know what? If you can get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, more power to you. That’s what the law is all about. But this administration is trying to void the law, and even you should be against that. If you’re afraid of what (you think) the right would do if they got in power, those same laws protect you.

    • max3333444555

      pete,
      you live in a dream world. you will never get the states to agree and the states are what matters, not the feds, when it comes to changing the constitution.

      • No, don’t say that Max… that may or may not be true… don’t discourage the blissninnies from following the correct, established legal process to change the Constitution… by all means, they should charge forward with that idea, rather than attacking the right with illegal laws. Nothing would possibly be better for us than the leftists hoplophobotards attempting to repeal or modify the 2A – it would bring the debate about the original REASON for the right to the forefront…. and the REASON for the right is frankly, to provide a means to overthrow the gov’t when it gets out of control and violates the constitution – never before in our history has the fedgov done so many illegal acts in such as short period of time, with the last two criminal presidents we’ve had and all their cronies/cabals – illegal wars and drone killings, Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA, illegal spying, etc. Never have we been closer to actually possibly NEEDING to use the doomsday provision of the 2A potentially within our lifetimes. When that debate about the real meaning of the 2A comes to the forefront, they will lose so badly it will set the victim disarmament movement back many decades – it would be a defeat even far more stinging than what they recently experienced. I really think they should pursue that avenue!

    • It wasn’t against the will of the people… this PROVES the media bias – all the leftists actually believe this 90% nonsense because the liberal MSM kept repeating it – so your surprise in reality shows that you were lied to – yet you keep believing the lie, even though the public – the PEOPLE – soundly rejected any and all forms of additional civil rights restrictions (aka “gun control”).

  • Lovefacts

    No news here except that it’s the same-oh-same-oh. This includes the stupidity of writing lies to a mother who experienced this horror or stating on the Senate floor before a camera provable lies. It isn’t the message; it’s the lies or cover-ups that are killing politicians. Given how Colorado has changed and passed a stringent gun control/background check law, you’d think this Senator would be aware of the changing climate in his state. I doubt he’ll be re-elected.

    • Ben

      I think the term is “same old, same old”. What “LIES” are you referring to? Need to change your name to “LoveToNotHaveFacts”, or “PartisanHack” would suite you well too.

      • Lovefacts

        What you have to say would have more creedence if not for you name-calling. IMO, discussion is critical, however personal attacks serve no purpose except to undercut your position. However, you’re right about the “same old, same old.”

        • When the attacks are deserved then they are apropos and adds some light humor to the mix. Your post proves you are a moron, so here is another little truism for you – if the shoe fits, wear it.

      • RobertCHastings

        The lie to which “Lovefacts” was apparently referring was Senator Flake’s statement “strengthening background checks is something we agree on”. Apparently, based upon the way he voted on the universal background check bill, he did NOT agree with her. That appears to be a lie. I don’t know, but I would have to say that either you did not read the article, or you could not read the senator’s handwriting.

        • Not necessarily true – to Mr. Flake, “strengthening” a check could mean “coordinating with the states the adjudicated-mentally-incompetent records, in order to make sure that the data is used in the current NICS check, without expanding which sales that NICS must cover” – so it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a lie – it’s arguable, anyhow… He didn’t say “I agree that private sales should be covered by NICS”….did he?

          • RobertCHastings

            And where in Mr. Stoner’s letter did you parse that? He told the grieving mother that he agreed with her, period. If she had been a man, he might as well have kicked her in the crotch. AFIS, CODIS, and NCIC all gather data to be used for the apprehension of criminals and to solve criminal cases. Originally, these bases were used primarily for federal cases. Now they are shared with local and state authorities to solve local cases and many cold cases, as well as exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals. Why aren’t folks upset about that? If they allow the federal government to continue collecting DNA, fingerprints, etc., they will have eventually collected enough data to solve all crimes from a laptop. The next step will be to solve crimes before they even happen, a la “Minority Report”. It is just so strange that people have little or no problem with the collection of this data, but go bananas over collecting data from universal background checks. Hello! Is anyone out there?

    • gwsjr425

      What lies? Sen. Flake may still feel that expanding background checks into registries is the way to go. The vast majority of his constituents felt otherwise and that is what he is there to do….listen to his voters and he did.

    • alien5

      Colorado will be going the way of Kalifornia

    • First off lame brain the saying you so stupidly referenced is same old same old meaning the same old thing just occurred. Second what happened in CO was an egregious affront to law abiding and liberty loving citizens throughout the state. Many of the key liberal politicians who pushed this heinous legislation are being subject to recalls and others will face their comeuppance in the next election cycle. Sen. Flake was paying attention to his constituency in voting how he did. You are truly ignorant and a moron.

  • Elliot J. Stamler

    This is what you should expect from conservative Republicans. Remember it when you next vote.

    • Ben

      Keep your head in the sand, fool. I’m guessing you are probably watching American Idol or Survivor instead of educating yourself.

      • Elliot J. Stamler

        If you, Ben, lived ten lives, you not only would not be as well educated as I am, you would barely approach the intelligence of one of your idols, the brilliant and incisive Sarah Palin.

        • You may be educated (your claim only) but you’re still dumb as a stump. Your post demonstrates that you have no concept of how our Republic is supposed to function.

        • BarryBarry

          There is an inverse relationship between the claims of being smart and the reality of being smart.

        • SoWhatBubb

          Let me guess, you’re very proud of your GED.

    • gwsjr425

      This what we expect…to do what his constituents tell him, not what he feels like doing. All legislatures should do it more often.

  • Nevadavoter1

    It’s clear that we don’t need a two party system… let’s just let the lefties rule and everything will be peachy keen! Ban guns, ban all media except MSNBC, ban voting… who needs it. Utopia here we come. Let’s ban terrorists while we’re at it, then there would be no terrorism. I can hardly wait!!!!

  • fewiz

    This is what it looks like when a propagandist blatantly lies to readers expecting to see an unbiased news report:

    “Just days before the vote to MODESTLY expand gun sale background checks…”

    and:

    “Flake’s FRAUDULENT answer to Teves…”

    To believe any background checks are “modest,” one has to, first, believe the people administering the checks, and if you believe this administration, you’re a fool.

    To believe Flake’s answer was “fraudulent,” you have to be a close-minded partisan propagandist.

    Do you see a POS in the mirror?

  • gwsjr425

    The hack that wrote this piece doesn’t seem to understand that law makers are not there to do what they want. They are there to do what their constituents tell them to do and the vast majority of Flakes constituents said no to expanding background checks into registries.

  • munchma cuchi

    The Dems did not want this matter to come to a vote either. Nobody wanted to face the wrath of the lock and load crowd on election day. So they cooperated in sinking it. This way, nobody goes on record with an antigun vote and they get to blame the repugs for being heartless meanies.

  • You guys specialize in reductionist arguments these days, don’t you? If you think we need healthcare reform, you must be for THIS bill. If you think we need immigration reform, you must be for THIS immigration bill. And you can’t be for improved background checks, and still be against this gun control bill. It’s a classic propaganda technique.

  • Senator Flake may support additional requirements for background checks, just not the ones proposed in the recent legislation. The, ahem, “author” of this article, with a typical liberal mentality, states that if Sen. Flake didn’t support the recent legislation, he is against any additions to background checks.

    I don’t support any of the legislation recently proposed. I do support adding dangerous mental patients info into the background check process, to a limited degree. If a person has had any sort of adjudication due to mental illness, or if they are so mentally deficient that they can qualify to draw a disability check, then include that into a background check.

    • max3333444555

      one point – if the government already has information on your mental state because you applied for benefits – fine. you offered the information. if, as in the proposed law, therapists must report people who are suicidal to a government database, big issue. doctor patient confidentiality can not be violated without due process, which is a 14th amendment issue.

      consider that, if you ever see a therapist because you are depressed enough to be suicidal you now are in a database that may never be purged. also, the law does not restrict the checks to gun purchases. it purports the use for gun purchases but never specifically denies the information to be used elsewhere.

      once you are in the database, good luck getting a job or passing a background check for any other reason…

    • John Deaux – The problem I have with you viewpoint lies in your statement “If a person has had any sort of adjudication due to mental illness” – Perhaps you haven’t considered the leverage this gives the Police State in oppressing it’s citizens. How hard do you think it would be to get some lackey judge to make such an adjudication. This could be used against anyone if the State truly wanted to make a final effort to abolish gun ownership? This is a very slippery slope and empowering government to make such determinations is another step towards tyranny.

  • “although the legislation specifically banned such a registry”

    More Dem BS. The proposed legislation specifically banned the Attorney General from keeping such a registry. It would replace language in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 which forbids any executive agency from compiling or keeping such a registry. So, instead of banning the feds from keeping a registry, this proposed law would prevent only the Justice Dept from doing so. Let’s see, who does that leave? Homeland Security is an obvious possibility. Janet N. would doubtless jump at the chance. Maybe even Health and Human Services would want to join in. And of course there are other government departments which are perfectly capable of keeping lists and registries.

    Was this all merely accident, or did somebody want to put a back door in there? There would seem to be reasonable grounds for suspicion.

  • Jack_Kennedy

    I see where all the zerobot America haters hang out………….out hating on the Real Americans like Sen Flake and defending that America hating obamaliar

  • BH

    Modest increase in background checks? It’s interesting it was stated they way. I would have said, Voting on another step toward limiting a Constitutional right. Liberalism always operate on the “cooking a frog” theory. Knowing they can’t throw the frog (the US citizens) into a boiling pot (eliminating all guns), they put the frog into cool water and turn up the heat (one small bill at a time) until the goal is reached. Ahh, you have to admire the dedication, even if it is unconstitutional.

  • Seems to me the whole of the left is socialist running to communism.
    All the BIG GOVERNMENT programs Obamacare is a joke and the left will jump in and save the sheep. Bailing out automakers was a ruse to give government ownership of industry. Amnesty will give the left millions of votes so they can amend
    The Constitution and keep Obummer in office indefenelty. On and on Lies and more lies No facts only guesses. WE THE PEOPLE are finally waking up to the left and we will take this country back. WE THE PEOPLE defeated the gun grabbers not the NRA.
    GOA was a bigger help than NRA and WE THE PEOPLE will defeat OBUMMER!!
    Impeach the commie bastard .

  • gooms

    WRONG. The Democrats are the reason the bill never passed because they
    are are so scared and cowardly of the filibuster they never structure a
    vote using the simply majority 51% threshold. Why? Because they know
    with many bills, they will FAIL to get the 51 DEMOCRAT votes and then
    they would have no way to blame the Republicans. Which is EXACTLY why
    Harry Reid didn’t structure the background check gun control bill that
    way. He didn’t have the 51 DEMOCRAT votes and had to send it up to a 60
    vote threshold so he could blame it on the Republicans.You libs do not
    even know how a bill is structured and brought to a vote. And you call
    us Conservatives stupid. You are a bunch of idiots who know NOTHING
    about what you rail about.

  • Gary Schaefer

    Give me a break, politicians lie its a fact of life, party has nothing to do with it.

    It’s all about them. ( the politician )

  • MarkVega

    I applaud Senator Flake for standing up to the liberal scumbags. Jeff, Keep up the good work you will be rewarded at the polls…. as for mccain, you need to find another job, you are an embarrassment to our state…

  • JBnID

    “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

    Sen. Flake voted according to his oath of office. It’s a shame they all don’t.

  • USMCJock

    Jon, you mean like the 3 yr old who shot the infant? Or the cop showing off his gun to a friend, and a bullet went through a wall, killing an infant? Or perhaps, you meant the father who left his loaded gun where his young son could find it and shoot another child?

    Or perhaps, you and James PURPOSELY did not comment on John Adams (another OV story on this site) who was killed by two young cops, busting down his front door because they got the wrong house for a drug ring? Mr. Adams, who was protecting himself, his wife and house, was armed and STILL got shot dead….Mr. Adams WAS an active shooter and got blown away by two ignorant 20-something cops! Talk about “most publicized incidences” !!!!! It really IS that simple!

    There are just three examples of being an active shooter. James, you think Jon’s “argument” or response makes “perfect and rational sense” now?

  • Bobbie West

    The guy’s last name is “Flake”….what could we possibly expect from him BUT to flake off.

    • Good “argument” – that’s the best the left has to offer folks.

  • EMW

    This is why we need to get rid of dems and reps because you waste so much time telling each other that “you are stupid” nothing gets done. Let the Libertarians in that recognize the constitution of this country and show clear thinking and some of this will get fixed!

  • It is illegal to use tax dollars for abortions by planned parenthood but they still do it. So when Dems say there would be no gun registration, we all know they are full of crap. There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda with liberals. Always, without exception. Liberals will say anything to get a law, like Obozocare, passed and then everyone finds out they are screwed. Love the Democrat version of immigration whereby the DHS secretary gets complete say on who gets legal status, without any oversight. Just another liberal ploy…

  • A child’s life is worth saving. You must pass a background check for most jobs before being hired. You must pass a driving test before getting a driver’s license. I believe if you want to carry a gun you should have to take a gun safety course and have insurance for that gun as you do for an automobile. Background checks are necessary and reasonable. I also believe all gun related crimes should carry increased jail time. You are RIGHT. No criminal will follow the law, but we need real laws to separate the honest citizen who has the right to responsibly bear his or her weapon and the criminal. Real biting laws do not infringe on a citizen’s right to bear arms. Only if they become involved in criminal activity. Gun safety should be taught prior to receiving a weapon. No more stories of a 5 year old boy playing with his weapon he got as a gift and then he kills his 2 year old sister. That is NOT bearing arms – that is just plain old STUPID!!! You can not defend it.

    • BarryBarry

      Do you have to pass a test before you stand up in front of the City Council and make a statement? Petition your elected officials? How about passing a test in order to go to church?

      Didn’t think so.

      And no one gives a five year old gun and allows him to play with it, loaded, unsupervised. if they do, they they should be in jail for child endangerment.

      There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There is intentional and negligent.

      • SoWhatBubb

        You say, “There is no such thing as an accidental shooting.”.
        Let me guess, your clouded mind must be the product of a public school education, right?

        • BarryBarry

          There is intentional and there is negligent.

          If you can’t understand what that means, then you evidently didn’t attend school of any kind.

          Just to save you the trouble of straining your brain…the parents of this kid should be charged. It was their negligence that resulted in the death. It was a negligent shooting.

          Read it slowly. Then read it again. Then go watch Sponge Bob Square Pants for a bit to ease the hurt in your brain.

          Repeat until you actually understand.

    • odin63

      The gunman at Aurora, where Teves’ son was killed, passed four background checks.

      • The gun didn’t belong to him. He was just another crazy who didn’t care one darn thing about the law or human life.

        • odin63

          The firearms used in the Aurora shooting did indeed belong to the gunman. You are probably getting Aurora CO confused with Sandy Hook in Newtown CT.

    • Do you realize Susan that we already have a system of background checks in place in this country. You cannot buy a gun in most states without it. Furthermore, additional classes and permitting are required before one can carry such a weapon… otherwise that new guns sits at home on the bedside table. The system that is being contemplated is different in that data will be gathered and archived for use at a later time when confiscation can be considered. None of this additional regulation will keep another Newtown or Aurora from happening. Look carefully at the circumstances around these shootings and you’ll see what I mean. Adam Lanza killed his own mother before stealing her guns and going out looking for trouble. Had there been armed personnel at that little school there would be twenty seven fewer deaths to deal with today! The same thing goes for the shooting in Aurora, CO. A few armed people in that movie theater would have kept the loss of life to a minimum. And the shooter didn’t own his weapon either! We live in a violent society. There are some very crazy people out there who want to do you harm. If they can’t find a gun they’ll use something else, but they will hurt you if they choose to. Why would you disarm yourself, or your neighbor, from defending the loved ones you care for the most? It makes no sense at all!

    • ruler777

      You are right. It is stupid parenting……very bad parenting. Nothing to do with guns specifically. The object of bad parenting just happened to be a gun this time.

  • BarryBarry

    Sorry, but it would have expanded background checks to private sales and also gifts between friends and families. Otherwise, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT?

  • StarTripper

    None of the proposals from the Dems for gun control would have stopped the gun-free zone massacres. That is not the intention of the gun control advocates. The intention is to step by step disarm the population and change us from citizens to subjects.

  • Flake’s position evolved on that issue. Oh, I forgot, only Dem politicians can
    evolve on issues.

  • ruler777

    Do the liberals that keep whining that someone will just drive into the next state and get a gun understand that you can only buy a gun in the state where you live?

  • cslagenhop

    Mr. Flake didn’t fall for the trap we set for him. Now we will push harder. Eventually we will get background checks- then we can add most people to the list such as veterans, people with any prior contact with the police. We can also complete our database of names of people that we need to visit when the final push comes. Don’t give up- universal gun registration is coming, followed by banning guns that are scary looking, with voluntary surrender, then mandatory surrender, then eventually we will win. We will not stop until there is no guns, except for our guys.

    • There will be no mandatory surrender of any kind. Haven’t you ever considered that nonconformance may be the next logical step. Forty three to fifty five million households have at least one gun on hand. These numbers are about three years old, and since the election of 2008 it’s estimated that another twelve to fifteen million households can be added to that number. No one is going to get away with a gun grab like that. There will be revolution before that ever happens. What you lefty’s should be looking at is the growing number of people in this country who are fed up with the clowns in DC stomping all over their Constitution. It may be just an old piece of paper to you marginal Americans but there are real American patriots out here who are willing to fight for everything that great document means.

  • lazarus062268

    OMG. We have naive children running the country and voting for them. Without Godly values we are doomed. Even Jesus had Peter take a sword to Gethsemane. Self defense is a primary instinct and human right. Guns make that possible for everyone. Sure there are a few nuts in there, but there always will be. Look at the killling of 56 million babies just in the USA since RvW by the same idiots. Where is their defense? A reckoning is coming.

    • dtgraham

      You told me to move to Australia…or somewhere. Godly values huh. You know who emphasises this don’t you. Islamic fundamentalist countries. The west is based on secular liberal values which includes freedom of religious practice in your private life. If you want an entire society run on “God’s values” you may want to consider Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Yemen.

      • lazarus062268

        They worship a false idol, not God in those countries. Godly values: Jehovah’s values,, come directly from the HOly Bible. The only source of truth anywhere.

  • GoneWithTheWind

    Those congressman that voted to infringe our civil rights should be the one’s who are ashamed. If you think a background check will not lead to a national registery I have a bridge to sell your sorry ass.

  • Archie’s Boy

    Jeff Flake is not only a flake, but a lying prick as well…

  • lndependent

    Perhaps his unpopularity is not all about his gun control vote. He and McCain are both members of the gang of eight.

  • JohnRNC

    The 2007 “New Life Church” shooter (referred to above by Jon Stignani) was taken down by a former police officer “acting as security” for the church. She was warned of impending danger because the shooter had already fired his weapons in the parking lot. She only acquired her target only after he entered the building and began firing (killing 2 inside). Yes, she saved many lives. AND her presence as trained security was intentional. I don’t think a bunch of trigger happy amateurs would have been so effective. I certainly don’t think that amateur gun toters in a dark movie theater would do anything other than increase the body count and create more confusion at the scene.

    Criminals live outside the law, but that doesn’t mean there should be no law. Because the sole purpose of weapons is to inflict bodily harm the laws regulating ownership and operation should be at least as stringent as the laws for owning and operating a car – complete with routine license renewal examinations AND national tracking capability.

  • the_other_paul

    There was nothing in the law the Senate rejected that would have required additional background checks on anybody at any time. What the law did was authorize the executive branch (led by President Obama) to write rules stating who could and couldn’t purchase a gun.