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

WASHINGTON — Is Congress on the verge of turning away from the lessons of the slaughter in Newtown even as Connecticut enacts sweeping laws to curb gun violence? Is the gun lobby hellbent on aligning our country with such great friends of liberty as Iran, North Korea and Syria by opposing efforts to condition international gun sales on the human rights records of buyers?

The gun lobby seems to want the rest of the world to look upon the United States of America as a nation so crazed about guns that its supine Congress will always collapse before the National Rifle Association.

The bleak future envisioned by the gun extremists was laid out for all to see by the small town of Nelson, GA. Its town council voted Monday to require all its citizens to own guns. The town says it won’t enforce the measure, but Nelson sends us a dark message: Guns matter more than freedom. The right not to bear arms can be infringed freely.

The vote in the United Nations on Tuesday for a global convention to keep conventional arms out of the hands of human rights violators, terrorists and organized crime figures was overwhelming, 154-to-3, with 23 abstentions. North Korea, Iran and Syria provided the no votes, while China and Russia were among the abstainers.

It will be years at best before the treaty is implemented, and the NRA (of course) wants to block it in the Senate — in effect preventing background checks for human rights violators. But we can be proud that the United States ignored the weapons fundamentalists and voted yes.

Meanwhile, on a bipartisan basis, the Connecticut Legislature was moving to pass a broad background check bill that would also regulate the private sales of shotguns and rifles, ban high-capacity magazines and expand the list of prohibited assault weapons.

Connecticut Republicans should lobby members of their party in the U.S. Senate. These days, the GOP is all about trying to improve its image. But on guns, it may prove once again that when it matters, extremists rule.

Only one Republican senator, Mark Kirk of Illinois, has had the courage to work with Democrats for a meaningful background check law. Sen. Tom Coburn has shown some boldness in negotiating on a bill with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). But the Oklahoma Republican has yet to close a deal that wouldn’t severely weaken its requirements. Otherwise, GOP senators have declined to engage seriously.

There has been much speculation about whether President Obama should have moved even faster after Newtown. And yes, it would have been better if gun-control advocates had united two months ago behind a focused agenda that the president could have pushed immediately.

But contrary to the seventh-inning analysis you’re hearing, the game isn’t over.

  • Opposition to effective background checks is influenced by the distinct probability that it would reduce arms sales and impact arms industry profits. Regardless of how ineffective background checks may be in curbing the out of control violence that exists throughout the USA, it is the least we could do to restore a semblance of civility in our society. Suggesting that trying to determine whether or not a person is mentally stable, does not take behavioral drugs, and does not have a criminal record is an infringement on our right to bear arms is tantamount to suggesting the government is infringing on our “right” to murder fellow Americans.
    Assault weapons and high capacity magazines must be banned, background checks must be an integral part of the process to have a well regulated militia, and gun owners who do not keep their weapons in a safe place and whose weapons are used to commit a crime must share responsibility with whomever commits the crime.
    The Second Amendment was put in place at a time when there was a distinct possibility the British, or some other European power, were going to come back. I doubt very seriously it was designed to allow Tom, Dick and Harry to run around carrying lethal weapons to shoot innocent people in elementary schools, high schools, colleges, movie theaters, places of worship or anywhere else. What the NRA, and its sponsors, the arms industry, are pushing for is mayhem, and they are using fear to achieve their irresponsible and greedy goals.

    • rpg1408

      Mr. Villa:
      You say it so well! Too bad Congress, Harry Reid, the troglodytes on the Extreme Court much less the spokespersons for the NRA do not think as clearly.

    • stcroixcarp

      I would trust the UN over the NRA any day. Besides, the US runs the UN. Did you know that the UN doesn’t make laws for anyone?

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      You fail to point out the clause in the “affordable care joke” that forbids gun registration. There are already laws in place to use against people that use guns in crimes. Mandatory jail sentences. Why havent those worked?

      If the genius’s in washington are so concerned about guns, why are they not as interested in rebuilding the mental health system that the republiCONs destroyed with the “for profit” health care system they created in 1982?

      That goes back to the question, why is Obama so intent in forcing another failed republiCON policy on us with this health care joke?

      By the way, the 2nd Amendment was also written to make sure our government was able to be put into check by the citizens. As you know, today we have a government that thinks we are supposed to work for it, not them working for us. Another reason why a law was passed forbidding the government from using the Army on our soil.

      They got around that with the Homeland Security, a branch of government Hitler would love.

      • Sand_Cat

        The 2nd Amendment was written for the reason it states: to assure a “Well-regulated militia” to quell rebellion and defend against foreign invasion.

        • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

          The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

          The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose,[1][2] scope,[3] and effect[4] of the amendment has been controversial[5][6][7] and subject to numerous interpretations.[8]

          In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that “[bearing arms for a lawful purpose] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”, but also stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government”, as the amendment had not yet been ruled to limit the power of the states.

          • leadvillexp

            You are so correct! We were subjects of King George at that time, making him our government. We revolted due to his treatment of us. He then tried to take away our muzzle loaders, (Which were state of the art at that time). Our founding fathers saw that this could happen again and wrote it into the Bill of Rights. They were far ahead of their time. Today M16s are state of the art and i’m sure they would agree the citizens should be able to own one. A well regulated militia back then also took care of fires, floods, military needs and any other civil danger. Most adult men were members.

          • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

            If the cops can have them, we should too.

          • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

            I once drove over mosquito pass. that required a big glass of vodka in the first bar we could find in leadville.

          • leadvillexp

            Might have had a drink at that bar in the early 70s.

          • Too much BS to waste valuable time debunking. Total crap, no fact / all fancy post. Read a little history, quit listening to what makes your undersized weenie happy.

          • m8lsem

            The Crown did not try to take away weapons from colonists prior to the Revolution. And the Amendment in question is in the context of the Whiskey Rebellion and other like civil unrest, and was designed to make sure that we had local, trained, State militias to act against such things.

          • leadvillexp

            The arnories you refer to were civilian. The local government required every able male citizen to keep a weapon, but being afraid of an armed populace so they also required that they be kept in a central location. The local government would then loan them back in times of need or to some that were on the frontier. The Crown sent out parties to remove these arms in Boston, Lexington and Concord as well as several other cities thus disarming the local population.
            The Second Amendment established an individuals right to be armed. As for the militia that is just one part. It had been established even before the Revolution that the people had the right to be armed to protect themselves from external forces, internal forces, protection of religion, personal assault and from their own government.

          • m8lsem

            Gee … and what of hunting and protection of the animals from predators? The folks had guns at home. That’s how it came down to me from Dad’s family that had been here from GB in 1630 in part, and earlier in part.

          • Where did you read history? Speaking of obscure and arcane views of English common law. Pretty much the same for Cruikshank. And guess what? If you are right then guns can be totally banned without appeal to the Extreme Court. Same as now, the wack job opinion of the crazy minority must be taken as gospel truth by all. I like your name. What comes to mind is this hypothetical quote: Both parties suck, so I vote straight ticket republican. Never met one that didn’t . . .

      • You have intentionally steered yourself far off course. It is more like what Sand_Cat very simply said. . . . I like the bit about “to quell rebellion.” That is the far-right gun crazies and the NRA leadership in spades. And they are as close to rebellion as one can be without actually fire a shot.

    • leadvillexp

      I am a Republican, Life Member of the NRA and I voted the last two elections for President Obama. I am not against background checks but am against any banning of any weapon or magazines. There are better ways. How about licensing all firearms owners and users? It could be done like Hazmat is on CDLs. Put on the drivers license with a five year background check. It would not effect the Second Amendment as it would not be gun registration, My license (CDL-Hazmat) allows me to drive gas tanker or explosives truck. Do you think I should not be allowed to own the firearm of my choice? This type of license would also help regulate ammo as it would have to be seen at each purchase. Good legislation takes time and is not done on emotions caused by tragedies.

      • I like your ideas, except no one in our citizenry needs a weapon that can kill an entire classroom in 2.1 seconds, or even faster. However, the Democrats are not as excited about gun control as many would like, BUT, what chance do you think you would have with your own chosen parties. Really, we should have licensing and training and liability coverage, but these are the very things repubs and the nra has worked tirelessly to destroy. ANY and ALL gun solutions have been heavily assaulted with increasing vehemence AND success in recent years. Please realize I am not being overly harsh. I do indeed like the sound of most you have said. What you propose would bring this entire country back to sanity. Unfortunately, that is the problem. The insane WANT and NEED all the guns. They seem incapable of coping with the world without them.

        • leadvillexp

          So I have to much BS but you like my ideas? The Second Amendment was written at a time when muzzle loaders were state of the art. Today M16s are state of the art. It was written to give the citizens the power to control the government. They work for us not the other way around. When a government disarms it’s citizens they are at the mercy of that government. Do we need licensing and training? Yes. Insurance for people that have never caused a problem? No. The NRA assults every turn because most gun control associations won’t stop at reasonable solutions. They want to ban all guns. When the police can no longer protect you it is time for you to take some responsibility and protect yourself.

      • Why should I be subject and have to pay for a background check when buying a gun or ammunition? I do not need a background check when I get on an airplane. How do we keep bad people off our airlines? We have a no fly list. Do the same with firearms and ammunition. Have a no buy list.If you are a convicted felon or have mental problems or other conditions that prohibit your ability to own a firearm you are put on a no buy list. This is the computer age and a list like this can be done efficiently and with less work than background checks performed on each transaction

        • leadvillexp

          First with a drivers licensc ID it would take less time. A swipe of the license and it would come back right then yes or no. You talk about the no fly list. Where do you think that info comes from? A background check. How many people with the same sounding name are on the no fly list that have no reason to be. The no fly list is a very poor way to conduct checks. The license thing has been tried in some states for cc licensing. If you are carrying it also lets a police officer know you have that right. As for ammunition it would keep unlicensed people from buying it. Again it would be only a swipe. This would not record your purchase only tell the seller it is ok to sell to you.

  • itsfun

    I don’t care if one is a Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Socialist, or whatever, I don’t think we can have the UN making our laws! We are our own nation and must remain that way. The next thing is telling us what kind of house we can live in, what we can eat, what we can drive, etc. GM will be making the people’s car and be told what it sells for and how many to sell and who to sell to. Ford will get the same orders from the UN. I didn’t go to Vietnam so the Cubans, or British, or whoever can tell me how to live.

    • You just failed the mental health test. Please report to your local PD & turn your weapons over now.

    • the UN treaty will be forced down our throats now with the way Obama chose to set it up for us.. giving up our citizens guns is a huge part of this agenda thus disarming all americans and these fools can not see it either by choice or ignorance. we are no longer free

      • Sand_Cat

        Look, let’s not get into name-calling here and try to have a rational discussion: when has the UN ever passed anything binding the US opposed? When has any UN action or any international treaty – other than, perhaps, some of the “trade agreements” – ever inhibited or otherwise affected the rights of any U.S. citizen in the United States? What power does the UN have to force anything down anyone’s throat without the approval of the US? What evidence – not unsupported claims you made up or found on the Internet – can you present to indicate that Obama, or any other U.S. president, for that matter, is prepared to let the UN or any other international organization – again, possibly excepting some trade organizations – impose anything on U.S citizens in the United States? What evidence can you point to that all of the other nations of the UN put together would be able to forcibly impose anything on the U.S. without risking catastrophic harm and almost certain failure in return?

        When you can give clear, unequivocal, and rational answers to over half of those questions, then you deserve to have your opinions seriously considered by sane, intelligent, and well-informed people.

    • Sand_Cat

      See the answer to LaRae Bailey. When you can answer those questions, I might actually consider taking you seriously.

  • tdm3624

    I don’t disagree with some of the gun control laws, provided they (1) keep weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people (2)without being unduly burdensome on the rest of the population.

    • Allan Richardson

      How “unduly burdensome” is the regulation of automobiles and driver licenses, compared to just buying one wherever you want, no tag needed, and anybody can drive anything they are willing to try? That is the situation with guns in most states today, and the situation the NRA is trying to put into effect in the remainder of our country.

      Most people do not buy or sell a car every week, or renew their licenses more than once every two or four years, and most people do not buy and sell guns at a high turnover rate (although a few do). We accept that the registration of cars (so the police could decide to confiscate every car?) and licensing of drivers is necessary for safety, so we tolerate that amount of paperwork.

      With guns, unlike cars, made for the PURPOSE of killing people if it should become necessary, isn’t it reasonable that we take the extra time to make sure every person who legally owns one is competent, both in skills and morality, to make that extreme judgement? And to make sure every gun is INSURED by its owner against misuse by others who may “borrow” or steal it? Gun owners who have liability insurance on their guns, which only pays off if they make reasonable good faith efforts to report loss or theft, will be more careful with their inventory, since their MONEY is at stake.

      • tdm3624

        Thank you for giving me your perspective and for not engaging in name calling. I appreciate that.

        The difference between car ownership and gun ownership is that the former is a privilege, the latter is a right. I can’t argue against restrictions on gun ownership, as long as it holds up to the same strict standards that laws limiting our other rights are held to.

        I disagree with the concept of liability insurance for gun owners because it puts the burden of reparations on the owner of the object, rather than the criminal who stole and misused it. Criminals should have to adapt to societies norms and values, society shouldn’t have to adjust to their actions.

        • Allan Richardson

          True, but a gun owner being irresponsible and not REPORTING a theft, while not technically illegal, is borderline tort-liable. The concept is the “attractive nuisance”, like an unfenced pool that attracts children who THINK they can swim to take dips unsupervised. The liability insurance, like that on a car, would protect the owner whose gun is stolen DESPITE reasonable efforts to secure it, and might discourage too large a gun collection, since insurance companies would audit such a collection before quoting a rate. It would also, in addition to putting the background check on private gun sales, discourage straw man purchasing.

          • neeceoooo

            That would have helped in the Adam Lanza collection of guns that his mother had.

          • neeceoooo

            I do like your thinking

          • tdm3624

            Would the insurance companies get to be the ones who define what “reasonable” efforts are or would the legislature? If insurance companies define the parameters of safe gun ownership I believe they would approach it from a dollars and cents viewpoint, not from a civil liberties point of view.

        • neeceoooo

          But don’t you think that if a liability insurance was placed on the gun owners, precautions would be taken to insure that the gun is not stolen or misused by a family member.

          • tdm3624

            I think most gun owners do take precautions to keep their guns safe; after all, their guns are expensive and something they wouldn’t want stolen. I wonder though (and maybe you have some ideas), what type of precautions an insurance company would demand and would those demands have the effect of chilling or curbing people’s ability to own guns? If they did, I think it would be unconstitutional. We don’t have to purchase liability insurance for our keyboards, Microsoft Word, inkpens, paper, ipads, or any other device that allow us to express our viewpoints freely, even if those viewpoints end up hurting others.

    • CPAinNewYork

      In other words, you’re wimping out. I’m an NRA member and I can assure you that there’s no sane reason for the sale of automatic weapons to any civilian.

      The NRA leadership’s financial support comes from the gun industry, which doesn’t give a damn about public safety.

      • tdm3624

        There’s no sane reason for us to own a lot of the things we do, 🙂 but we live in one of the freest countries in the world which allows us to choose how we want to live and what we choose to buy; as long as we’re not hurting anyone else.

        To answer your second paragraph, it is ironic to me that all the energy the NRA spent trying to send President Obama to defeat should have been spent trying to get him elected (if their sole purpose was to raise sales for the gun industry). Never in my life have I seen such a shortage of ammunition and modern semi-autos in the stores; not even when President Clinton proposed his assault weapons ban. If I were the NRA, I would support Bloomberg for President. Then watch the gun sales soar. lol

        • one person here talking sense these guys sound like Bloomberg parrots and this country is so far from being a free country anymore it has become pathetic. very few seem to have any correct knowledge of the true values and programs of the NRA

          • Are you a paid shill, or are you just boringly repetitive and untruthful by nature?

        • If I live next door to a right-wing, gun-nut, mentally challenged, anti-social gun owner, that has made it clear that I might die if he is not allowed to do as he pleases, (that is not restricted to, but includes me and mine) AM I REALLY ENJOYING FREEDOM?

      • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

        Then there should be no reason for the police to have them either.

        • CPAinNewYork

          Yes there is. The police should be fully armed to combat the nutcases who are increasingly infesting our society. I know that the liberals dislike a well armed police force, because they’re generally distrustful of the police.

          I don’t get into very many arguments with liberals any more, but when I did, I would respond to their criticism of the police by saying “The next time you’re in trouble, try calling a hippie.”

  • Lee Trevino

    I have as much respect and need for the NRA as I have for used toilet paper. We need to stop listening to Mr. & Mrs. Bubba and start listening to reason. There are only 4 million of them and we have 312 million more normal folks who can and should overrule these idiots.

    • lana ward

      I’ll keep my gun, good luck with your sissors

      • rustacus21

        If that were the choice of course. It’s a far larger, more complex set of circumstances, but understand that in CO., over 230 dangerous felons were apprehended after trying to pick up purchases after doing (gun show) background checks – places where the largest ‘holes’ in the law now exist. As such, I’ll stick w/logic, reason & SANITY AND my guns. We need not sacrifice safety so crazies can have access…

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      So, you dont use toilet paper?

      That is one hell of a statement. You must hang out with Independent.

  • OMG!!!! Just found out that ACLU is concerned that both privacy rights and civil liberties will be threatened, including universal background checks. You and your ilk don’t give a damn about freedom. I just watched a CO congress women try and tell a forum once the rounds are fired in a magazine that it is then trown away, the bullets are gone. This is typical ignorance of the left. Pathetic. Just like Obamacare they voted for something they had no idea what was in it. NM just wrote that the AFFORABLE CARE ACT isn’t affordable.

    • Sand_Cat

      Sorry, but you -like a great many other people in this country – suffer from the misapprehension that there is any political “left” in this country aside from a few thoroughly marginalized individuals and small groups. If I were like you, I might suggest that your ignorance is “pathetic,” or that you write inflammatory posts on subjects about which you know nothing, or less than nothing, and I might even draw the completely unrelated conclusion that you and your “ilk” hate the United States, despise freedom for anyone other than yourself, and like suffer from delusions on a variety of topics.

    • What a terrific idea! Thanx!
      Disposable magazines; I must call a patent attorney ASAP.
      Maybe we could make them out of Vegetable byproduct & after they are emptied eat them.

      • We both should be smart enough to know you are wrong. So I guess stooopid is your controlling force. Magazines ARE disposable. For thrifty gun owners that take care of their equipment, magazines are reloaded. BUT psycho killers are neither that organized nor rational. So you have just signed off as a supporter of a provable lie.

    • Mike Smith, for practical purposes, the magazine IS thrown away. No shooter with more than one mag is going to stop to restrip a used one. And a mass murderer is NOT going to come back for one. If he is well organized, he will stick it back in a bandoleer, but organization is not typically exhibited by these individuals. You are so interested in making your warped point you fail to realize that only the stupid fall for it.

    • neeceoooo

      If allowed to work like it is designed to, is is affordable.

  • adriancrutch

    Land of the Free, Home of the Psycho.

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      And a lot of them are right here.

      • And what the right-wing minority refuses to consider: With a small group of crazies pointing guns to control the dissenting majority . . . do we still have freedom?

  • do any of you really know what the NRA does? any of the free programs they have? the money they raise and donate to boys scouts, girl scouts, eddie eagle gun safety program, range improvement, the list goes on and on. they are only interested in gun safety and second amendment rights of the people. no government shall impose their selfish will upon the free people… it is one of the only things making this country any different from cuba, korea, russia, any of the islam counties, ect. we will become the jews if we give up our gun rights to our government or any other government

    • Sand_Cat

      Maybe they could come up with another fund for buying coffins for children and law-abiding adults murdered with the weapons they have assured are freely available to all.

    • Allan Richardson

      The NRA has a split personality. At the local level, they teach gun safety, etc. but their leaders do not take orders from their members (most of whom are “mail order” members; do they have local chapter meetings, elect their officers, and vote on the national officers after discussion? or just send out proxies like mutual funds do for their board elections?), they take orders from their DONORS, the gun makers. And the gun makers inflate their “membership” by including dues paid membership cards in gun purchases.

      The aim of the NRA is not to get 100 percent of the population knowledgeable about guns AND the moral responsibility of owning them; it is to get more guns sold each year than the year before, and more ammo and accessories also. Whether it is because of more people buying them (does the manufacturer care whether they are selling to a stable, law-abiding citizen, or a criminal or crazy? does Frito-Lay care whether they are selling too many chips to someone already overweight?) or because of existing owners stockpiling more of them, the manufacturers do not care and neither do the NRA officers they put in office with their donations.

    • Yes, I do know what they do. BUT, in your own words, the NRA does NOTHING for America . . . unless there is a gun to be worshiped. And, the average Jew does not pack a gun. So what rights are they giving up again?

  • docb

    Of course, the repub baggers of CONGRESS have CHOSEN NRA arms dealer PROFITS OVER AMERICAN LIVES!

    • lana ward

      I’ll keep my gun. Good luck with your sissors!!!

      • rustacus21

        U said that already… Now address why the Congress is frozen by NRA lobbyist cash? Then we can have a debate…

        • lana ward

          Congress knows that any kind of gun control that Obama wants is the first step toward gun confiscation

          • No Lana, no one with normal reasoning skills knows that. You let your bigotry, bias, and hate color your thinking. There are no facts behind your statement. You just want us to take your conspiracy thoughts as face value facts. You are like a well polished car without an engine. You can fool the simple minded that look only at baubles, but there is nothing under the hood to make your useless jalopy go.

          • lana ward

            Your a racist!! You would fit well at MSNBC

          • neeceoooo

            So sorry you had to deal with Ms. Ward. She is a perfect example of someone who should never have a gun, she is dangerous.

          • rustacus21

            … that is, ‘confiscation’ from those “PROHIBITED” from ownership, I believe U mean to say. Only the crazies on the conservative side believe in ‘universal’ confiscation, which is against any and all laws current AND past. Confiscation is perfectly APPROPRIATE, per my intro here, so come now, U don’t mean U’r defending the 2nd Amendment rites of the Newtown or Colorado or Texas or Chicago, etc, psycho killers are U?

          • lana ward

            After Obama confiscates all law abiding citizens guns, criminals will still have theirs

        • lana ward

          I said that to two different people

      • docb

        I have both scalpel and weapons…No thanks to idiots who lie about the 2nd Amend lies to serve the arms dealers of the nra and the lobbyists!

      • What do you think would happen if someone wishing to harm you with those “sissors” were to approach you in a very smiling and friendly manner, AND then bury those scissors up to the hinge in the side of your neck? Would the gun that was still in your pocket save you? And then took your gun and shot a school kid as his next pasttime. Admittedly, I have exaggerated, OR have I? Statistically, and they are numbers based on real life cases, not lies. That gun will have more likelihood of being used against you, or against a loved one. i.e. and accident, or lost or stolen, and used against someone else, than ever it will save you from harm. Even with training, in a combat situation, the odds that you can even present and cock your weapon are steep. Unless, of course, you were already bent on premeditated murder yourself.

        • lana ward

          You have talked yourself right into gun grabbing–like I said, I’ll keep my gun, you can have your sissors

        • There are no statistics that support your claim. However there are statistics that show a vast amount of crime prevented by law abiding citizens who have guns.

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      And Obama decided to pursue gun initiatives over a jobs plan.

      • One thing, a very simple, easy to understand point. Every thing that Obama says is vehemently opposed by the Teanderthals and Idiot Fringe Republicons. NOTHING can ever pass out of that morass that we have for a Congress. This issue should have been solved, and could have been with minimal compromise. BUT it has not AND will not be as long as these temper tantrum throwing mental midgets remain seated in Washington. Any idiot can understand the concept of getting things done AND THEN MOVING ON to the next project to heal the nation. BUT NO, the repunks think they are fighting another Verdun. So again, you sound good to the mentally challenged, but the truth is much different and more complex.

        • neeceoooo

          They are trying their best to make sure the President does fail and then in the next election, they can boast how wonderful they are.

      • docb

        Sorry, suck, but the evidence is that he did BOTH…simultaneously..plus DOMA, and Sandy hurricane relief and trying to get the congress to act on the sequester!

  • Chrysippus

    The U.S. Congress should follow the path blazed by Connecticut. There is no reason in the world not to have strong background checks. I applaud those Congressional GOP members–McCain, Alexander, et. al. who are courageously combatting the tea-party nuts in their Party and telling the NRA that it doesn’t run Congress.

    • rustacus21

      Agreed. CT & CO, as well as NY can very well be the model emulated by the eventual Federal law. What we really need however is a Congress – minus NRA stooges, who are paid to block much needed regulations & laws (lobbyists) while simultaneously being paid to vacation the rest of the session (taxpayer dollars on their salaries)! This is what 2014 NEEDS to be about. Far too many legislators are worried about lobbyists & corporations than the citizens voting for them & dependent on the fact that at some point, they’ll uphold their God-sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. They haven’t & if not recalled NOW, replaced in 11/14!!!

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

      Looks like Obama should have read the “Obamacare” law before he signed it, OR he was so eager to get “Obamacare” that he didn’t care about the “gun owners” clause that was in it!
      So, Obama was either stupid for not reading the bill OR knew the clause was necessary to get his “Obamacare” passed, so that his ego could soar!
      Wednesday, it was discovered that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare, there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
      It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
      According to that amendment, the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.” This means that the government CANNOT mandate firearm registration. No registration, no confiscation.
      Poor ol’ Joe Biden, he spent the last couple of weeks focusing on making a law requiring registration. Good thing is though, the amendment also states that not even an executive order can override the amendment. CNN is now referring to it as “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that’s exactly right. He says he personally added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010.
      It looks like Harry Reid actually helped out firearm owners without even realizing it. Thanks Harry!!

      • Chrysippus

        Dear “bothsuck”: It appears as if you’re the one sucking eggs on this one. When you say that Dems are trying to “cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people,” you show your true colors. In fact, The Affordable Care Act,” which right-wingers labeled “Obamacare,” is a good first step toward a single-payer system–which is what most civilized countries now enjoy.
        I suggest that, if you don’t like Obamacare, why don’t you move to India, which has much the same health-care system as what we had before the Affordable Care Act was passed. You sound like a drone for the health-insurance companies, just picking away at what’s irrelevant. Please educate yourself instead of showing your ignorance for all to see.

      • You misuse the verbiage, and the intent of the law, to the point of being an obnoxious liar. Point, this was a “rider” put on by special interests that had nothing to do with the law. Special interest = right-wing extremist lobbying group’s congressional stooges.

  • option31

    Newly released court documents confirm that ‘Batman’ shooter James
    Holmes was taking the anti-depressant drug Zoloft before he conducted
    his massacre in an Aurora theater last July, underscoring yet again the
    prevalent yet underreported connection between psychotropic drugs and
    mass shootings. Why IF people are concerned about stopping these tragedies are not these anti-depressant drugs not part of the debate? Lanza also was taking a mind altering prescription drug. Their is a direct connection but I guess big pharma spends too much on media buys and campaign contributions to hold them accountable. I see drug ads all the time but cannot remember seeing a firearm ad. people you are being lead around by the nose on this.

  • Why should I be subject and have to pay for a background check when buying a gun or ammunition? I do not need a background check when I get on an airplane. How do we keep bad people off our airlines? We have a no fly list. Do the same with firearms and ammunition. Have a no buy list.If you are a convicted felon or have mental problems or other conditions that prohibit your ability to own a firearm you are put on a no buy list. This is the computer age and a list like this can be done efficiently and with less work than background checks performed on each transaction

  • m8lsem

    I am so puzzled why anyone thinks that arming everyone is anything other than a proposal to import the Wild West into every corner of the nation. Imagine the shootout at the OK Corral being reenacted at Newtown. When everyone is armed, but the event continues until the arrival of strangers (such as police) who do not know who’s the good guy, and who’s the bad guy, the risk of collateral damage is huge. Who knows, in the resulting confusion as teacher B is shot by the police who think he must be the bad guy, the bad guy can sneak out the side door and look for another school. Zealous neighbors riding to the rescue can wind up shooting each other in error.
    Why are we going for chaos? Viet Nam for everyone, where the good guys and bad guys look exactly alike, and someone unseen by you started it.