ThinkFast: April 19, 2007
ThinkFast: April 19, 2007
78: Percentage of Americans who believe immigrants now in the U.S. illegally should be given a chance at citizenship, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, showing “the American public appears to have reached a consensus on the question.”
Senate conservatives “blocked legislation yesterday that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.” Eighty-five percent of Americans support such negotiations.
“For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates. … On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the division’s Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans.”
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no” Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
“Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’ as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.”
Terrorism strikes the poor in Iraq: “While Baghdad remains in shock over the massive bombings that targeted…the poorer areas of the city, and caused hundreds of casualties in crowded marketplaces and neighborhoods, Iraqi politicians who inhabit the safe, guarded quarters of the capital are busy in their attempts to fortify their positions in the political system.”
A senator has placed an “anonymous hold” on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee today in a “make-or-break appearance” about the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge. Four legal experts, including ousted U.S. attorney David Iglesias, pose questions they would ask Gonzales.
“Children in Sudan are press-ganged, coerced to join armed groups, raped and used as forced labor or sex slaves, according to a new report by humanitarian groups.”
And finally: Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) can’t get any of female congresswomen to join her morning walks on the National Mall. “They’re all guys,” she said of her companions. She likes to walk because, “I eat chocolate and I eat chocolate and I eat more chocolate. And I love it,” but quickly added, “Diet is part of it, too.”
09/24/2005 US Statistics:
Major Cardiovascular Disease DEATHS: 936,923
Motor Vehicle DEATHS: 43,354
Unspecified Non-transport Accident DEATHS: 17,437
Firearm DEATHS (all including by police): 28,663
Most people die from HEART problems. I’m sure pollution & smoking attribute to a good portion of those deaths.
In the same period of time there were 28,663 firearm related deaths. This number is the total for all ages, races, sex and includes deaths from POLICE shootings, suicide, accidental (like playing, cleaning, falling).
43,354 deaths in 2005 were driving related (nearly 50% of that number was DUI related). 17,437 were related to cars and the automotive industry (like pedestrians that were run down). So in 2005 there were 60,791 TOTAL DEATHS that had something to do with CARS/TRUCKS….
As far as I know the US Constitution does not even mention CARS being protected.
I hope you don’t have a heart attack but; FOR THE GREATER GOOD CARS NEED TO BE BANNED SINCE DIRVING LAWS DO NOT WORK!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:03 amSenate conservatives “blocked legislation yesterday that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.†Eighty-five percent of Americans support such negotiations.
Why do Republicans hate the “Have-Less”?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:04 amBioweapon Infects Researcher at Texas A&M, Goes Unreported while Def. Sec. Gates was President there. Such Incidents are Common
04/18/2007 - A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

A student researcher was infected with the bioweapons agent brucella more than a year ago during a Texas A&M experiment, but the university illegally failed to report the incident.
The researcher was cleaning a chamber that had just been used to expose mice to the bioagent when the bacteria entered her body, probably through her eyes.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:05 am
E-mails obtained by Sunshine Project reveal that Texas A&M officials knew they were required by state law to report the exposure, but they failed to do so. At the time, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was president of the university.

…Texas A&M is on the short list of bidders for a $451 Homeland Security Contract to build and operate the proposed National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, which is expected to bring in up to $6 billion over 20 years.

The government is not only allowing places like Texas A&M to play with dangerous bioweapons without any regulation or accountability, it is encouraging them to do so. “It is common knowledge in the biodefense business that lab accidents with bioweapons agents are routinely buried in order to avoid negative publicity and endangering funding,” said Sunshine Project Director Edward Hammond.
For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.
This is the true scope of the problem. Chimpy may vacate the office at the end of his term, but the neocon machine has been busy insuring that there will never again be a real election in this nation.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:06 amOh, good, another consensus.
So what these 78% are saying, essentially, is “yeah, go ahead and break our laws, we’ll let you stay and become citizens”.
Wrong. Get out of the country, apply for *legal* residency, I’ll welcome you with open arms. Immigration is one of the factors that helped make this country great. *LEGAL* immigration, that is.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:11 amMontana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no†Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
Kudos, Brian. Glad someone’s decided to put their foot down on this issue.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:14 amI’d go walking with Rep Sanchez.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:15 amGoodbye Gonzo! Take your lies, your weird desire to promote torture, and your rape of the U.S. Constitution and go back to practicing real estate law at the law firm that brought us Enron.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:16 amDale sez:
Wrong. What these 78% are saying, essentially, is “yeah, we should change our laws to help you stay and become citizens”.
Implying that the 78% advocate lawless behavior is dishonest, Dale.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:17 amI hope you don’t have a heart attack but; FOR THE GREATER GOOD CARS NEED TO BE BANNED SINCE DIRVING LAWS DO NOT WORK!!!
Thanks for the red herring. Now, do you actually have something to contribute?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:17 amLETS GET READY TO RUUUUMBLLLLLLLEEE! ALI G TAKES ON CONGRESS IN5 MINUTES!this should be good. I don’t have to work today until 2pm!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:18 amFor all of the folks who are against any form of gun control (because they only memorized the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment and ignored the 1st half), I am wondering how they would go about keeping guns out of the hands of paranoid sociopaths.
Yeah, I know, guns don’t kill people, criminals kill people. Fine - what about the mentally ill? How will we go about keeping guns out of their hands to avoid repeats of Virginia Tech? (which obviously could have happened anywhere - a mall, a church, a WalMart, a baseball game, etc.)
Of course you know that when this Iraq fiasco is over, we will have many thousands of additional psychological time bombs walking among us - probably worse than after Vietnam. And they will be very skilled in the use of firearms and explosives.
Thanks, GWB.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:19 amhey Dale,
your opinion is meaningless no one cares who you will or will not welcome. the “legal” immigration you refer to was also unrestricted. take a trip to NYC and read what the stature of Liberty says. And if you’re going to start deporting people, make sure the first one sent back is that illegal alien spawn alberto gonzales.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:20 amTrekkie sez:
Thanks for the pointless jab. Now, do you actually have something to contribute?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:21 amBut any aliens in this country illegally are already, by definition, breaking the law. If they are not punished somehow, then they’ll be ‘getting a pass’ for the law-breaking. And if XX% of the people say “sure, help them stay here”, then those XX% are giving the illegal aliens a pass on their law-breaking.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am#13, uh, Alberto Gonzales was born in the U.S; making him a citizen.
And as far as “your opinion is meaningless”… I thought *every* U.S. citizen’s opinion was meaningful? You mean mine isn’t? Because I don’t agree with you?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:25 amSenate conservatives “blocked legislation yesterday that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.†Eighty-five percent of Americans support such negotiations.
Thanks, Repukes. It heartens all Americans to see you’re still siding with big pharma’s financial rape of us consumers. 85% means many of your own party favor negotiating lower prices, but that doesn’t matter when you’re a Bushlicker.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:26 amI don’t know how you guys sleep at night. Maybe large quantities of alcohol & sleeping pills?
Do you really think this is the ‘right thing’ to do? Really?
You’re already bankrupting our country with your trade policies, Iraq, and a myriad of other bad policies & decisions.
Is the real plan to crush the middle class? Well, congratulations, ‘Mission Accomplished’!
Uh, #12, I think you’re being rather unfair, comparing “paranoid sociopaths” to the mentally ill. Mental illness covers a wide range of maladies, yet you’ve just lumped them all together with paranoid sociopaths.
Nice.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am#1 — Idiot alert.
Who are these people who equate dying at say 75 years of age from a heart attack vs. an 11 year old girl being shot to death by stray gunfire while doing homework at the dining room table? And what’s with the stupid comparison to automobiles? The latter are essential to modern life in a modern economy. Guns aren’t. The rest of the developed world has shown that.
Handgun deaths in countries like Japan and the UK are measured in 2 and 3 digit numbers, not 5 digit numbers. What do you have to say about that?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 amCar drivers are licensed, and cars can be tracked. Drivers must take at least some form of test before being allowed to drive (I, for one, would be in favor of making standards for driving cars a bit stricter).
Why do we have higher standards for driving a car than we do for who can own a firearm?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:28 amDale sez:
Excellent point, except that they’re already ‘getting a pass’. They’ve been ‘getting a pass’ for some time now. Helping them come into compliance with the law by altering the law does not place the onus for ‘giving them a pass’ upon those who wish to help them come into compliance.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:28 amBut any aliens in this country illegally are already, by definition, breaking the law.
Dale, technically you are correct, they are breaking U.S. law when they enter the country illegally. But we could define anything to be illegal, then use it to call people criminals. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, for example? It doesn’t mean they have a criminal mentality. To the contrary, once they are here most of them are very careful to follow the laws for fear of deportation.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:32 amDale, you’re proposing the same thing. Per your own comment, it’s fine to break the law and then become a citizen, just so long as you leave the country first. Your comment in no way implies one must first pay for the crime committed. No, that person gets a veritable pardon by leaving the country he broke the law in and then applying for citizenship.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:33 amFine Dale, since you’re a mental illness expert - maybe you can enlighten me as to which specific manifestations of mental illness are safe when mixed with firearms and which are not. Then tell me how we keep firearms away from only the folks who should not be allowed to have them.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:33 am“Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’ as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.â€
Spineless, gutless, corporate owned, charlatans!!!! Let’s go ahead a leave everything the same except ensure that blackwater and halliburton ca continue to swim in Americas hard eared money! ARRGGG! This so pisses me off. It is no wonder people vote Rep, the Dems are weak little cowards who can’t seem to DO anything! Except maybe Kucinich…. keep walking the talk my good democratic man!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:34 am#20 Excellent point. If handguns were regulated as tightly as cars, the NRA crowd would flip out.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:34 amComment by lw — April 19, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Here is the first half, it applies to a milita (a citizen or volunteer force)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Here is the second half. It applies to the people of the United States.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What was your point?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am#16………. Dale
the phrase was illegal alien SPAWN, as in, the progeny of illegal aliens… hate to nit pick………..
April 19th, 2007 at 9:35 amI think if we look at immigration like a foreign policy issue we’d have better dialog. For example, what is our combined foreign aid to countries that are our allies? If we give 30 Billion to just Israel and Egypt alone what’s the big deal with treating Mexico and Latin America like special allies and allow a more open immigration policy with them. Instead of giving them cash we give our states money to assimilate the immigrants and make them taxpaying citizens. No one would argue there is a benefit from immigrants but at some point the cost to the states has to be considered. I gladly await to share the wonders of our tax code with our new citizens. Raise your right hand and pledge to the flag and pay your taxes, how’s that.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:36 amSome humour to start your morning
Was sent via email, so hope ya’ll haven’t seen it.
If so, my apologies in advance
NEW BUMPER STICKERS FOR 07
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That’s OK; I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let’s Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President.
7. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
8. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
9. Impeachment: It’s Not Just for Blow jobs Anymore
10. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
11. They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It
12. Jail to the Chief
13. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
14. Bad President! No Banana.
15. We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language
16. We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
17. Is It Vietnam Yet?
18. Bush Doesn’t Care About White People, Either
19. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand basket?
20. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
21. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
22. Pray For Impeachment
23. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
24. What Part of “Bush Lied” Don’t You Understand?
25. One Nation Under Clod
26. Bush Never Exhaled
27. At Least Nixon Resigned
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amThat’s simple. Just give Bush everything he wants:
Under the “compromise” Bush can continue to send kids into a war zone without training, equipment, weapons or ammunition. He’s been given a green light to attack Iran. And Congress says to Bush “It would be terribly decent of you if you would please bring our kids home sometime before the next election. But if not, well, at least we asked.”
Surely the voters will understand. The Democrats asked…they really asked…the President to bring our kids home. It’s not their fault if the President continues the War.
Democrats and Republicans are showing themselves to be two sides of the same coin.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amtimetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’
As in “nonbinding”…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amYou know, everyone keeps saying that the Repubs keep digging themselves holes that they are not going to get out of and will ensure a Democratic victory in the next election. I am not so sure because the more and more that the Dems don’t do is sure pissing me off. You can bet it is other people, too. And that is going to push those undecied/independant right back over to the dark side.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:39 amThanks DRxJ
April 19th, 2007 at 9:40 amBob,
April 19th, 2007 at 9:42 amI made my point quite clear. Sorry you managed to miss it. How would you keep guns away from folks who should not have them because they are too psychologically unstable to be trusted with them?
Comment by Larry from C
What happened to the researcher?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:43 amAt Least Nixon Resigned
Comment by DRxJ
That’s because Nixon was apparently a man of integrity. **choke**
Wow. Never thought I’d miss that old crook.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:44 amlw sez:
How do you keep these same people from getting behind the wheel?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 amComment by Bluedahlia — April 19, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Which is why we should be creating a Progressive Party right now. It may take 10 years to have a significant impact, as it took the Christian Coalition, but, assuming we’re still here in 10 years, it would be worth the effort.
I think it is somewhat ironic that those who profess to follow The Light and The Way have plunged this country into darkness.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:46 amZooey sez:
Indeed. You know things are bad when you pine for the good old days of Nixon…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 amA senator has placed an “anonymous hold†on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.â€
What the hell? When we find out who that Senator is, his or her campaign finances should immediately be investigated. Just sayin’
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 amComment by lw — April 19, 2007 @ 9:42 am
No, what was your point about the second amendment?
As for keeping guns out of the hands of those that are too psychologically unstable to be trusted with them (where’s patrick?) that would require violating someones right to privacy.
First, manditory 7-10 waiting period. Do away with the insta-chack system. I like guns, but I can wait a week to get one.
Next, everyone diagnosed with a psychological disorder could be entered into a national database (much like NCIC). When the check was ran, they would be flagged.
OOOPS, we just violated medical privacy rights. Can’t do that one.
See one of the issues.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am“How do you keep these same people from getting behind the wheel?”
I already said right up front that I would be in favor of tougher driving standards.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:48 amhow they would go about keeping guns out of the hands of paranoid sociopaths
Comment by lw
Well if they have on record things like arrests for violence or being in a mental hospital then it should be harder to get a gun…. but this is the REAL WORLD … not a fantasy world and in a real world shit happens and bad people get weapons and hurt people… its been going on since there were humans get used to it… and stop trying to blame inanimate objects… Just like with all other controlled products (drugs, explosives, air craft, etc…) if the laws filter out known bad actors then everyone else can have their guns… the criminals will have them also regardless… and everyonce in a while someone that is not a known bad actor but is one anyway will get a gun and go kill people. Thats life.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amAs to the illegal immigrants, well, they wouldn’t be coming into this country if someone wasn’t willing to give them jobs.
We keep getting upset over the illegal immigrants breaking the law by coming here, but turn a blind eye to the employers who break the law by hiring them, giving them a reason to come here in the first place.
If we started to enforce the law against the employers and throw them into prison, illegal immigration would dry up overnight.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amSo is no one commenting on the Democrats’ sell out on the the Iraq spending bill because it’s what everyone expected to happen?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amTMM:
With less weapons around, it’s far easier for the police to control the potential danger, gun stealings and dealers who sell weapons without background checks.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:49 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — April 19, 2007 @ 9:46 am
I know I am ready to follow someone who will do something besides pose for photo ops and wear designer closthes while doing NOTHING!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:50 ambob, mentally unstable people can be added to some sort of list to prevent them from getting a weapon so long as it doesn’t state why
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 am#30 DrxJ: Thanks for that! They’re funny cuz they’re true.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amWhat was your point?
Comment by hacker bob — April 19, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Two questions:
Why does the NRA have only the second half of the amendment engraved above the portal to their headquarters?
Why doesn’t the NRA ever pursue a Constitutional challenge to gun regulations based on their interpretation of the amendment?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 amHow would you keep guns away from folks who should not have them because they are too psychologically unstable to be trusted with them?
1) Expand the mandatory background check to include mental health records. This can be done without compromising existing medical privacy laws. Anyone who has been classified as a danger to themselves or others in a mental health adjudication would be red-flagged.
2) End the practice of no background checks at gun shows.
3) Re-authorize the assault weapons ban that made high-ammunition clips (such as the ones used at Va. Tech) and high-powered military-style weapons illegal.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 amI already said right up front that I would be in favor of tougher driving standards.
Comment by lw
Then you are in favor of government sticking its nose into everyones private lives and being a big daddy to us all which will drive a large majority right back into the hands of the republicans/libertarians/etc…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 amMontana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no†Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
I like Schweitzer. It’s good to know where someone stands. :D
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am#36…The researcher was infected with brucella after partially climbing into the chamber, which had been used to expose mice to the bioagent, according to Texas A&M documents supplied by the Sunshine Project. She was in the process of cleaning and disinfecting the chamber when she was infected, Hammond said, noting that A&M officials later determined the bacteria likely entered her body through her eyes.
The woman was home sick for several weeks before formally being diagnosed by her doctor in April 2006.
from TheEagle dot com April 18 07
April 19th, 2007 at 9:54 amSo is no one commenting on the Democrats’ sell out on the the Iraq spending bill because it’s what everyone expected to happen?
So what are BnF and I, chopped liver? ;-)
April 19th, 2007 at 9:54 amlw sez:
So you did…sorry…I missed that post. Let me address it now:
As are gun owners.
As can guns.
As do prospective gun owners.
Offhand, I’d say that’s because driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, while bearing arms is a constitutionally granted right.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:56 amI’ll welcome you with open arms. Immigration is one of the factors that helped make this country great. *LEGAL* immigration, that is.
Comment by Dale
Oh, the law argument is just beautiful. I love this pathetic people that says: Hey, the law, blah, blah, blah. But defends that US has invaded dozens of country illegally.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:57 amComment by Evil Spaniard
And who is going to protect us from the cops when an out of control government declares martial law?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:57 amSo what are BnF and I, chopped liver? ;-)
Comment by Bluedahlia
Yeah! She really doesn’t look like chopped liver, so don’t be treating her that way! :-)
April 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am“Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ‘advisory’”
Chicken-shit cork soakers!
knuckling under to the fascists, way to go.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:58 amEvil Spaniard sez:
With less weapons around, it’s easier for a corrupt and criminal government to oppress its citizens.
Sorry, but until my faith in our government has been fully restored, I’ll just hold onto my weapons.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:59 amThe Dems are already beginning to walk backward from the line in the sand regarding the Iraq war - Cheney predicted it would happen.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:59 amDems would diss their constituents in the hopes of gaining a few repugs - that won’t work any more.
We all know that repugs do not, will not, compromise on anything. They wield their power with impunity blessed by Bush&Co. Should the Dems give ground on this, they will lose some of their base and any favor they may gain from a few repugs will be short-lived — until the next challenge, when the repugs will force the same game to be played again.
My point about the second amendment was that the last half is quoted publicly much more often than the first half in fighting any form of restrictions on guns - even assault weapons. But the first half of the Second Amendment creates the context for the second half. Without ANY restrictions at all, people would have a right to own their very own tanks and nuclear weapons. So we all know that we have to have some restrictions on “the right to bear arms”. The question then is how strict do those restrictions need to be to reach a reasonable balance between allowing us to individually protect ourselves vs protecting society from folks who cannot be trusted with firearms - like the guy at VT?
Personally, I believe in the right to arm bears.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe problem with the immigration question is that it is, in fact, amnesty and will only encourage more illegal immigration. It is taking the easy way out of a long and complicated problem.
The thing is, no politician is going to agree to this even if it was the best idea. They either rely on illegal immigrants to provide their rich buddies with slave labour or they think the problem can be solved through police enforcement without actually hiring more guards.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe researcher was infected with brucella after partially climbing into the chamber, which had been used to expose mice to the bioagent, according to Texas A&M documents supplied by the Sunshine Project. She was in the process of cleaning and disinfecting the chamber when she was infected, Hammond said, noting that A&M officials later determined the bacteria likely entered her body through her eyes.
The woman was home sick for several weeks before formally being diagnosed by her doctor in April 2006.
And most in this counrty do not recognize that to other countries, stuff like this makes us worse than Iraq or Iran. We HAVE the bioterror agents. We invade and occupy other countries. If I lived in a country that wasn’t an ally to the US, you can be damn sure I would be worried about us.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amhacker bob:
OK, let’s not violate medical privacy (no matter that PRIVATE insurance have access to your medical records to DENY you the insurance, thus having your data without having an effective bussiness deal with you, you never become insured with them).
OK, use the leval tools we already have (approved by the sanctimonious Rep GOP). Inscribe all the persons that have guns or access to guns in a PERMANENT Homeland Security Data Base, starting by the proud NRA members, all the military and ex military personnel, security workers, and private owners and ex owners of weapons. Don’t let gun shows slip out. Wiretap them. Do secret searches in their homes. Put them in no-fly lists. Check the books he asks in the Public Library. After all, they are a potential risk to Homeland security, as are random foreing nationals with suspicious names (Cat Stevens anyone?).
Every time a firearm is shot, weapon caliber has to be determined, and everybody related with such caliber weapons is candidate to being investigated.
Perfectly legal in your country, and very feasible in the actual legal scenario.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 amDid anyone read of Sen. Rockefeller’s outrage and indignation at the double cross by the repugs in the Senate - who, after negotiating a compromise with the dems - at the last minute reneged on their gentlemen’s agreement and went with Bush who sent word to the repugs that they better toe the lie or else.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 amSo much for the gentlemen of the repugnican party. So much for compromise from repugs. So much for negotiating in good faith.
Values! Morals! Ethics! Foreign words to repugs - they neither know them, nor abide them.
This isn’t how American government is suppose to work. It’s time to bring all of the actions by anyone at the Federal level out into the open, including the WH. If this was attempted at any other level of government, the voters would running the elected officials out of town. “Secret holds?” No way is this what open government is about.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:03 amMorning Zooey!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:04 amHow goes school? Only one of my professors mentioned the VT incident at school this week. At first I thought it odd, then I thought it was odd the rest didn’t. heh
My Commentary/Editorial For This Morning:
These attacks on the victims (alive and dead) being cowards has me quite upset. Why would anyone pull an armchair quarterback and blame the students?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:04 amThen it dawned on me while debating (pfft!), um educating Patrick1.
Most college campuses are considered liberal, whether warranted or not (education and free thinking scares the bejebus out of the extreme right)
So, what better way to smear the left, the majority, by generalizing and attacking the victims as a group of anti-gun, anti-war, wussy liberals.
It’s almost a Rovian tactic, and it’s disgusting, as the far right media, and our trolls, have imbraced it as fact.
But be forewarned (Patrick1, firehead, Roger_Roger, nully..etc), everytime you attack the VT victims, you attack all victims of crime, including the hijacked passengers of 9/11 whose planes did reach their intended targets
How dare you blame the victim of rape (Jake), how dare you blame the cashier who was robbed at gunpoint, how dare you blame the family whose house was broken into, and how dare you blame our deceased soldiers!
Following lock and step from a right wing propaganda, without basing your own opinion, is quite scary, actually, as it approaches the citizen mentality of Germany during the rise of Hitler!
I, for one, pray for the victims, as well as there families, and hope the survivors can heal (physcially and mentally). There is only one person to blame at this point, and that is Cho.
“while bearing arms is a constitutionally granted right.”
It’s a constitutionally granted right WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a maintaining a “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. That’s the point I made earlier, and that distinction has been made by the Supreme Court over and over in our history.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:06 amComment by Wilco — April 19, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Thanks Wilco. But how long until there would be a legal challenge.
Comment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 9:52 am
I don’t know, I’m not a member of the NRA.
And who is going to protect us from the cops when an out of control government declares martial law?
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Now someone has stated the reason for the second half of the second amendment. Not only to protect us from foreign governments, but also to protect us from our own government.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:06 amindividually protect ourselves
Comment by lw
The right to bear arms isnt about individually protecting ourselves nor about hunting… it is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:08 amThe Second Amendment does guarantee the INDIVIDUAL the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has said as much on several occasions. That means, today, there is no constitutional right to bear arms. Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise it will remain the law. Don’t cite a Texas District Court case in trying to argue otherwise because it’s not precedential.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:08 amZooey sez:
Wow. Never thought I’d miss that old crook.
Indeed. You know things are bad when you pine for the good old days of Nixon…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 19, 2007 @ 9:47
Nixon’s mis-deeds seem so tame now don’t they? The Bush admin has set the bar so low I don’t think that even Hermes (Futurama) could limbo under it!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:10 amGonzo thread above.
The games begin….
April 19th, 2007 at 10:10 amThis “advisory” position on a timetable of troop redeployment is a last democratic cave. A gift to the DLC and the republicans alike? At this point in time, such a decision has got to be some form of payback.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 amHaven’t We The People some little say?
The whole system of democratic representation seems in jeapordy.
To the ones that defend the right to bear arms, just in case the GOP goes martial law:
You’re almost in a martial law now, but USA people continues giving opportunities to Bush and the “due process of law”. The USA people has become one of the more conformist politically that I know, yet you keep defending your right to bear arms based in an mostly uthopic revolution.
Modern french (and many other countries) students and sons of immigrants are far more revolutionary than you, and don’t need weapons to fight the armed police.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 amFollowing lock and step from a right wing propaganda, without basing your own opinion, is quite scary, actually, as it approaches the citizen mentality of Germany during the rise of Hitler!
Comment by DRxJ — April 19, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Well said sir. I urge people to read Seduced by Hitler: The Choices of a Nation and the Ethics of Survival by Adam LeBor and Rem>oger Boyes.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:14 amI think you will find chilling parallels between the attitudes and culture of Germany during Hitlers reign and that of the US now.
If you do not study history, you are doomed to repeat it.
You folks mean well but I believe that AUTOS are far more dangerous to people than guns at this time. Since your intent is to prevent DEATH the best place to start would be to reduce heart disease by being a ‘more’ fit nation. Since we cannot tell people how to eat or what to drink we can do more good by BANNING ALL CARS.
Car ownership is not protected under the US Constitution and the operation is considered a PRIVLAGE not a RIGHT. I did not present all the statistics year by year but the range is between 30 and 50 thousand a year DEAD directly related to driving.
Pedestrians are quite often run down at intersections and still more are injured from cars that have fuel system faults leading to fire. I don’t even mention the property damage or maimings in this. AUTOS cause more damage to the USA than GUNS!!
AGAIN WE MUST FOR THE GREATER GOOD BAN ALL CARS SINCE IT IS AN EASY WAY TO PREVENT ABOUT 70,000 DEATHS A YEAR & REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING
April 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am“The right to bear arms isnt about individually protecting ourselves nor about hunting… it is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.”
Gotcha. In that statement I was not so much thinking of Constitutional rights, but of the reason many people in our society want to keep guns in their homes, which I personally think is fairly valid - though debatable as to how effective it really is vs how dangerous it is.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:15 amA senator has placed an “anonymous hold†on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.â€
What the hell? When we find out who that Senator is, his or her campaign finances should immediately be investigated. Just sayin’
Comment by Zooey — April 19, 2007 @ 9:47 am
i’d bet (if i did) that it’s LIEberman for his BFF mcCAVE…
just a hunch…
this is so underhanded, dirty… doesn’t seem like it ought to be permissable… how can it be?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am…
Comment by Evil Spaniard
The American founding fathers waited decade after decade trying to use diplomacy to solve their problems… revolution shouldnt be a knee jerk reaction… it is the last resort.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am#81. How about we end the Iraq War? That’s directly caused a few hundred thousand deaths in the past four years.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:16 amlw sez:
First of all, how are you defining “a well regulated militia”?
Second, nowhere in the Second Amendment does it require that gun owners must be members of this “well regulated militia”. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a militia that meets your requirements for being “well regulated”, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:17 amCouple of questions: Why was the massacre not called an act of terrorism? He was basically a suicide bomber wasn’t he? Next, is the government not responsible for allowing drivers with suspended licenses or driving with faulty equipment when deaths are caused because of those circumstances? Bad things happen to good and innocent people all the time , especially on our Federal Highways, specifically deaths, why do we have a zero tolerance policy with regard to violent crimes while using a weapon but not on our highways? What are the odds of being killed by a psychopath with a weapon relative to dying innocently in a vehicle?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 am#9 - I disagree entirely with your post.
Coming here illegally is a crime; there is a citizenship path. Yes, we could change the law; but we already have the most liberal citizenship pathway of any country in the world. In that light, and for other reasons, I believe that changing the law - indeed essentially voiding the law for the benefit of those who for some reason can’t seem to follow it - would be irresponsible. Citizenship in the United States is a privilege and it comes with certain benefits. Giving citizenship to ‘anyone who can essentially get here’ completely obliterates the privileges and benefits of citizenship. It dilutes the meaning of citizenship; a meaning that should be protected by this country.
I agree that a mass deportation would be unmanageable - but at a bare minimum, I believe that those here illegally should get nothing more than a grace period during which they can get off their ass and file the citizenship papers and follow the proper steps to acquire that citizenship. I, like many of us out there, manage to file my taxes each year via a defined process; immigrants need to learn that following the rules and laws is a responsibility that comes with earning and receiving citizenship. If they can’t learn that, then in my opinion they are here illegally - and as illegals they are criminals and have no rights in this country - bottom line.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 amit is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Which you have done…say… never?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 amComment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 10:02 am
ES, I think maybe you misunderstand my implied sarcasm.
Personally, I agree with Wilco. There SHOULD be a “flag” in the background check if someone is mentally unstable. But I know there would be groups that would challenge that saying that it violated medical privacy laws.
I would love to see a more comprehensive background check system. I am all for 7-10 day waiting periods. I would require that gun shows use the same background check system as regular gun dealers (again 7-10 days). I think it would be great if ALL gun owners had to go through a training course and requalify annually, just like I must in the military.
But this is all “perfect world” hope. What do you do about the guy (or girl) that has no history of crime or mental illness? Someone that has owned and followed the all the gun laws for years and then suddenly is handed a life tragedy and “snaps”. How do you prevent that person from doing something like what happened at VT?
You can’t.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:19 amBnF, and others - yea… go for it…
go start your “progressive party”…
the republicRATS will thank you for it…
just sayin’…
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 amBloody Day in Iraq: 313 Killed, 302 Hurt
All because you are still occupying Iraq - get out
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 amThe terrorist state protects a terrorist!
On April 6, 2007, a terrible injustice occurred in the United States of America. A federal judge in El Paso, Texas granted freedom on bail to one of the world’s most notorious terrorists — a man by the name of Luis Posada Carriles.
By shielding Posada and his crimes from judicial scrutiny through a crafty legal maneuver, the U.S. has told the world once again that it protects terrorism as long as the terrorist is on their side. For the people of the world, the Posada episode is confirmation of what they have known all along — that the U.S. has no qualms about resorting to the most brutal forms of terrorism if it serves its interests. This is why a lot of people now realize that the U.S. ‘War on Terror’ only serves its own nefarious agenda of global hegemony.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 amThere is not an unlimited constitutional right to own and bear arms. If there were, you can bet the NRA would have brought many lawsuits against common regulations such as background checks and concealed weapons bans. But the NRA never pursues this kind of constitutional challenge. Why? Because NRA lawyers know darn well that a government can legally impose a wide range of restrictions on ownership and use of guns. Hacker Bob is flat wrong when he arbitrarily separates the two clauses in the amendment.
As for this notion that gun owners are going to protect us from an abusive government, this is fantasy. Quite the opposite will happen. If there is ever a breakdown of order in this society, it most likely will involve a fascist leader like Bush trumping up a case for martial law, supported at the street level by your basic NRA vigilante types.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:23 amModern french (and many other countries) students and sons of immigrants are far more revolutionary than you, and don’t need weapons to fight the armed police.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 19, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Right on!! The working class conscience in Europe exceeds in million years the pregressive thinking of the US working class although the latter is more powerful. 3 million people went out to the streets each day in France to prevent a law that would allow companies to fire without justifications workers under 26 years. Not a single gun, and the law didnt pass. The argument of defense against whatever is STUPID.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amIf we started to enforce the law against the employers and throw them into prison, illegal immigration would dry up overnight.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 19, 2007 @ 9:49 am
exactly… what i heard thom hartmann say:
we don’t have an illegal immigration problem as much as
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amWE HAVE AN ILLEGAL EMPLOYER PROBLEM
.
#86 - idiot alert!
this was not called an act of terrorism because this country does not need to go down GW Bush’s route of fear mongering by characterizing every single incident as terrorism. terrorism should be narrowly defined; it should not include a mentally ill student going crazy on a college campus. a similar incident happened a year ago at UNC-Chapel Hill when a student drove a car through a heavily populated area of campus (pedestrians). It was NOT labeled terrorism either - b/c it does not fall within a narrow interpretation of terrorism.
I argue for a narrow interpretation and usage of the phrase ‘terrorism’ because we’ve all seen what happens when it is allowed to be used broadly and thus justify an unfocused, never-ending ‘war on terror’.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by Tobey Tall — April 19, 2007 @ 10:20 am
So is GB.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 amWhich you have done…say… never?
Comment by Juan C
Well this country was born in its first revolution.
Hopefully there will never be another, but I dont live by faith nor hope.
As I said above the founding fathers waited decades trying to resolve their differences peacefully. Only primitive people turn to the gun everytime they have a grievance… which kinda explains why the neocons acted the way they did after Afghanistan.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am“78: Percentage of Americans who believe immigrants now in the U.S. illegally should be given a chance at citizenship”
100: percentage of legal immigrants who currently receive a chance at citizenship
Why does TP want to reward criminals who take jobs away from poor Americans?
Is it too much to ask that all immigrants follow the legal process we have established?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am#
it is about collectively protecting ourselves from invaders and our own government.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Which you have done…say… never?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 10:18 am
The mere fact that it hasn’t yet occurred does not obviate the possibility that it could, and it does not change the law.
The Founding Fathers apparently thought that allowing the citizenry to retain their weapons was a good idea…probably because they had seen what happens to societies that deny their citizenry this fundamental right.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:26 am#21, I hear what you’re saying, am I’m not opposed to immigration; in fact I’m very much for it. But the thought of someone coming here illegally, then being allowed to stay (and under some proposals, being exempt from taxes, etc, for a number of years) just turns my stomach. On top of that, illegals, in most cases, are *not* paying taxes, which means they’re sucking up resources from others who need them (like the poor)
The biggest problem, IMHO, is large businesses who employ illegals. Yeah, yeah, I know, I’m an RNC operative so I’m automatically for big business.
But it’s my opinion that *any* company caught employing illegals should pay VERY hefty fines.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:26 amBnF, and others - yea… go for it…
go start your “progressive partyâ€â€¦
the republicRATS will thank you for it…
just sayin’…
Comment by katy — April 19, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I think I have figured it out. You are only about 17, aren’t you?
If the only thing you do is knock progressive posters on a progressive site, maybe you should be renamed a troll.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:28 amAs for this notion that gun owners are going to protect us from an abusive government, this is fantasy.
Comment by VerbalKint
It wasnt fantasy 200 years ago.
And you cant see the future so your comment is basically useless.
Also restrictions can become defacto violations of the Constitution by over restricting… where is the line one restrictions for Freedom of Speech for you? How about for a NeoCon? The same question can be made of guns… it is better to have exactly the number of restrictions as reasonably makes since and no more than that.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:29 amYes, I saw that, but because Mr. Gonzalez was born in Texas, he’s a U.S. citizen; yet the poster wanted to deport him because of his parents… isn’t that contrary to progressive values?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amIf personal ownership of guns is a right, not a privilege, then why are there thousands of laws on the books at every level of government regulating their ownership and use? How can most states ban people from carrying them around except unloaded in a locked case in a car trunk? How did Congress manage to ban certain types of weapons, even though the ban selection criteria were arbitrary and silly? Why doesn’t the NRA just take it to the Supreme Court and get all these laws overturned?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am#46 wilco
So is no one commenting on the Democrats’ sell out on the the Iraq spending bill because it’s what everyone expected to happen?
Which Democrats? It’s not Reid or Pelosi. They’re keeping the bill intact and letting Bush veto it. It’s not Murtha. Obviously, it’s a group of spineless, clueless Democrats. But, who is it, specifically? Reid already said that Carl Levin is out of step and his idea for a sellout isn’t going to fly. Is it the Ellen Tauscher, DLC, “Blue Dog Democrats”? It probably is. And those idiots need to be run out along with their GOP pals in ‘08.
Find out who it is and swamp them with phone calls and e-mails. But, don’t start bad-mouthing people like Pelosi and Reid. They’re standing their ground on this.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amWell this country was born in its first revolution.
Comment by ggibson
Just like hundreds of others. In fact, it was the aid of France that allow you to become independent and the fact that George III didnt care too much about the 13 colonies as he did care about Haiti (much more commercial significance in that country). It was in the battle of Yorktown that the Brit general gave his sword to the French General, not to Franklin (as I recall, I can be wrong).
The fact is that, this self-preservation argument produces two things: Columbine, VTechs, etc and big money to gun companies.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:35 amHacker Bob is flat wrong when he arbitrarily separates the two clauses in the amendment.
Umm… So is the DC appeals court then.
Gun Law in District Overturned by Appeals Court
March 9, 2007 - 8:22pm
WASHINGTON - The District gun ban has been overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:35 amOn Friday, the court stated that prohibiting a person from keeping a firearm is unconstitutional. Judges cited the Second Amendment, which states, “…a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
#103 Gun ownership back then was culturally very different than today. I generally find that people who talk most about guns for self-protection are far more likely to hold vigilante attitudes than the average American, and often hold Rambo-like fantasies that I find to be absurd.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:36 amIf personal ownership of guns is a right, not a privilege, then why are there thousands of laws on the books at every level of government regulating their ownership and use? How can most states ban people from carrying them around except unloaded in a locked case in a car trunk? How did Congress manage to ban certain types of weapons, even though the ban selection criteria were arbitrary and silly? Why doesn’t the NRA just take it to the Supreme Court and get all these laws overturned?
Comment by VerbalKint
How?
The same way the brits put unreasonable taxes on tea and how they stationed red coats in American towns and even peoples homes.
A government creeps closer and closer to tyranny as time goes on and then needs to be put in check… just as Thomas Jefferson personally said.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:38 amprobably because they had seen what happens to societies that deny their citizenry this fundamental right.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 19, 2007 @ 10:26 am
WEre all seeing this.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:39 amThe fact is that, this self-preservation argument produces two things: Columbine, VTechs, etc and big money to gun companies.
Comment by Juan
One thing and one thing only produced Columbine, VTechs, etc .. and that is the human nature. It didnt start with the invention of the gun and it takes a short sited person to thing otherwise.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:40 amComment by VerbalKint
My guess has always been if the NRA people voted mostly democrats there would be no argument at all about the 2nd amendment… but since alot of people that are racist or overly religious or just southern dipshit tends to be what comes to mind when you think of the NRA and not all the other people in the NRA then you tend to project that onto the idea of gun ownership.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:42 ambluedahlia - you’re the chicky here… and a newbie at that…
get off your knee jerkin’ high horse… i am not your enemy
so quit picking on me…
put your energies to eliminating the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and
April 19th, 2007 at 10:43 amthen you can be assured of all the political parties you want…
that’s just the way it is… sorry…
.
Comment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is powerful as it does 2 things fundamental to the survival of the Constitution. 1st it says that each state made of citizens is responsible to establish a militia. It goes on to say that THE PEOPLE (citizens) HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AND TO CARRY THEM AND TO USE THEM IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION OR INDIVIDUAL. It ties that together is stating that both Militias and GUN OWNERSHIP SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!!!!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amHacker Bob, tell me when this case is validated by the Supreme Court. Besides, I don’t see any language to indicate that the appeals court treated the clauses separately in its decision. I don’t know the legal basis for this decision, but I will be surprised if it isn’t somehow limited in scope. Now answer my question in post #105. Isn’t it amazing to you that these thousands of laws regulating and limiting gun owndership are allowed to stand?
I am not advocating a ban on guns. I believe in reasonable regulation, preferably something with national uniformity. But let’s not frame the debate with false assertions about constitutional rights. And let’s also not frame the debate with false claims that widespread ownership of guns saves lives. It doesn’t, at least not in the aggregate. The epidemiological studies of excess deaths are compelling and the data is irrefutable.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amWe need to negotiate Medicare drug prices. Why do the Right Wing Nuts Republicans think they know best when 85% of Americans want congress to Negotiate drug prices. I guess the drug companies need to get rich on the backs of Seniors. We have Senior Care in WI and our Governor Doyle wanted an extension of this program and Old Bush said a flat out NO. The Government would save money if they did this. The Congress and Old Bush work for the American People.
I can not believe that their 78% that think the illegals should become US citizens. Here is an idea if they want to become US Citizens they should have to enlist in the Military and go over to Iraq.
We need a timetable for withdrawer from Iraq. As far as I am concerned we should not be in an this Illegal war. Democrats need to stick to their guns on a troop timetable.
Gonzales need to be impeached and than prosecuted for lying as they had done to Clinton.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:46 amA government creeps closer and closer to tyranny as time goes on and then needs to be put in check… just as Thomas Jefferson personally said.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:38 am
This is your personal philosophical belief of how governments should ideally behave. Fair enough. But constitutionality is not decided according to your personal ideals. It is decided by courts. And the courts in this country, which have grown very conservative, have not made broad rulings in favor of private gun ownership. The legal challenges are almost always based on other legal claims, such as jurisdiction to regulate.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am#96
“terrorism should be narrowly defined; it should not include a mentally ill student going crazy on a college campus.”
Terrorists that walk into a cafe in Baghdad ARE mentally ill just like Cho was. Terrorism is defined many ways. Cho had a purpose in doing what he did. He didn’t just snap. He planned this VT attack for a long time.
http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html
April 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amTHE SURGE OF DEATH IN BAGHDAD
Thursday 19th of April 2007
by Jay Randal
At least 198 Iraqis were slain in Baghdad, yesterday, as four large bombs exploded across the city, so surge of death is occurring under Pres. Bush’s phony plan.
Surge of death is occurring for American soldiers too, but some in the US Congress are still deaf, dumb, and blind about it, so members intend to fully fund fiasco.
The Bush Regime has willfully gone completely insane, but nobody understands why some members of House and Senate have gone nuts, so war of stupidity continues.
American public are beginning to notice that control of Iraq’s OIL reserves seems to be the sole reason for misadventure and some in Congress benefit from it.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has stated to the press that if she becomes president, then she intends to keep the troops in Iraq to benefit BIG OIL CEOs making more profits.
Someday the World Court, at the Hague, could indict Pres. Bush and VP Cheney for war crimes, but some Senators like John McCain and Joe Lieberman as well.
(Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
PS: Contact Reps and Senators in DC to end Iraq Fiasco War now!
April 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amIt didnt start with the invention of the gun and it takes a short sited person to thing otherwise.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Except that yours is the country that has more homicides by gun fire in the world. So, I guess guns has a lot to do.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amTerrorists that walk into a cafe in Baghdad ARE mentally ill just like Cho was. Terrorism is defined many ways. Cho had a purpose in doing what he did. He didn’t just snap. He planned this VT attack for a long time.
http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html
Comment by Tracy
Thats right… terrorism isnt something you wage war against… it is a tactic used by those that usually do not have the power to take on their adversaries one on one.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:56 amMontana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no†Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.
I’ve been thinking about moving to Montana for awhile now. I live in red-state Florida, and it’s probably easier to get struck by lightening than it is to find a fellow liberal Democrat here. While I’m aware that Montana is “red” also, it’s interesting that their governor is a Dem…and especially one like Schweitzer. Gives me hope. Plus I like the wide-open spaces. My part of Florida is too crowded, too much traffic, too much development….and way TOO many Republicans.
A senator has placed an “anonymous hold†on “legislation moving through the Senate that would require lawmakers’ campaign finance reports to be electronically filed, meaning quickly made public.â€
I bet this is Sen. Stevens (Alaska), Mr. “the internet is a series of tubes” guy.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:57 amThis is your personal philosophical belief of how governments should ideally behave. Fair enough. But constitutionality is not decided according to your personal ideals. It is decided by courts. And the courts in this country, which have grown very conservative, have not made broad rulings in favor of private gun ownership. The legal challenges are almost always based on other legal claims, such as jurisdiction to regulate.
Comment by VerbalKint
Its not my personal anything.. it is a lesson of history… in fact it is THE lesson of American history… and it is the justification people like Thomas Jefferson used to wage war against their own government.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am#109
I totally diagree. Those who talk about guns, i.e. NRA members and such, are the ones who are most likely to have the MOST respect for firearms and their lawful use. In many of these national tragedies like Columbine, the VT massacre, ect… the perps were not members of the NRA or some other right to bear arms advocacy group.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:58 amComment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Regulating ownership an allowing ownership are not the same thing.
I am not the most eloquent so I will put this in “dumb hacker bob” language.
The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms. The regulations do not infringe on those rights. They establish the legal parameters for ownership as well as protect the public safety.
If someone is convicted of a felony, they lose certain Constitutional rights as a result. They lose the right to bare arms, for instance, because they are now considered a threat to public safety.
Also there is a little history for the reason that the people were given the right to bare arms. To make it short, in order to have the “well regulated militia” you had to have armed men. The Government could not afford to arm the militia. In 1775, in order to be a Marine, you had to be a good seaman and own your own rifle. Without the citizenry being allowed to own weapons, they could not raise a militia. Now that may seem like an antiquated reason, but lets carry it forward a little on why it stayed on the books.
If the Government can take away ONE right, they can take all of them.
Wow, what a rambling statement.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:01 amExcept that yours is the country that has more homicides by gun fire in the world. So, I guess guns has a lot to do.
Comment by Juan C
We also move more traffic deaths than does the Congo and we have fewer malaria deaths than the congo… I would bet there are places in this world that has more stabbing deaths than does America… Its the reality of life and trying to solve the problem by blaming inanimate objects is stupid… it is like how alcohol was baned and even baned as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution instead of trying to help people not become alcholics… The problem is human nature not guns nor alcohol.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:02 amPersonally, and this is again, just personally. (God, am I really stepping into this?) In my home I tend to favor the statistics that it is more likely that my child will find a gun and harm either himself or another person more than my counry will be invaded by another or that my government will declare marshal law. Those are my husbands and my reasons for not owning a gun. My husband served both in the Army as an MP and in the air force as an officer. Him and I both know how to use a gun, but we don’t keep one for my reasons stated above.
I don’t think taking peoples guns away entirely is going to solve anything. There are alway nutjobs who will find a way to do what they want regardless of the laws (and no matter which laws). And there will always be people willing to go underground to get what they want if a ban is effected. ALWAYS. I think this creates the need for normal people to want to defend themselves. (Catch twenty two? oooh another gun analogy) BUT, laws do help when it comes to mostly normal people caught up in an angry moment/time in their lives.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:04 amI would be amazed if anyone here has not at some point or another acted in a completely irrational way when angered/hurt. And it is probably good that at that point, I would venture to guess, that they weren’t packing heat either.
Just my 2 cents
Comment by VerbalKint — April 19, 2007 @ 10:50 am
However:
…shall not be infringed. This tends to bring about a constitutional issue! Since the government already regulates ownership, taxes, use & transport.
Autos cause more deaths in the US than guns PERIOD
Since AUTOs are not constitutionally protected like guns are AUTOS SHOULD BE BANED.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am#122
What Cho did, according to the definition of terrorism, was a terrorist act. BTW terrorism as a tatic is the most cowardly on of all. Just because you don’t have the power to take on your adversary one on one doesn’t make it justifiable to attack civilians.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amThere is NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS GRANTED IN THE CONSTITUTION. This has been found several times by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never been overturned. It is the law until the Supreme Court overturns it. And a cite to a case in a Texas District Court certainly doesn’t change it.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amand it is the justification people like Thomas Jefferson used to wage war against their own government.
Comment by ggibson — April 19, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, but thats really lame. Since those times, there hasnt be the urge to fight your own government, and I think there is not going to happen anymore. You live in the most propagandized country in the world, thats why there is has not been coups in the US. Your governments dont need to repress US population with the military. They already do that with American Idol and Fox News. Why dont you have slaves like Jefferson did in his times? It was a right, then, right? Really, really lame. So far, guns have been used to kill people and has nothing to do with making revolutions or going against the government. Thats simply stupid.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:07 amHow do you put the italics, BTW?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:08 amHow do you put the italics, BTW?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Juan,
April 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amUnless your format is different from ours, above the box where you post your comment should be some tabs that say bold, italic, link, blockquote, and close tags.
Clicking on the italic either by highlighting your intended message or before and after your intended message works.
But since it is right there, I am going to assume that your format is probalby different than our. :)
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — April 19, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is powerful as it does 2 things fundamental to the survival of the Constitution. 1st it says that each state made of citizens is responsible to establish a militia. It goes on to say that THE PEOPLE (citizens) HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS AND TO CARRY THEM AND TO USE THEM IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION OR INDIVIDUAL. It ties that together is stating that both Militias and GUN OWNERSHIP SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:13 amCome on TP! Another post deleted pertaining to gun control with nothing offensive or antagonistic. WTF?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amBluedalia…thanks. I have the box. But they dont seem to work. I was trying to remember what was the code: and then or something like that?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:16 amJesus, Do I have to save everything before I post because it might be deleted by the moderator? WTF! Why hasn’t my post been put up?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am#86 - idiot alert!Comment by chris — April 19, 2007 @ 10:24 am
April 19th, 2007 at 11:18 amWhy am I an idiot? I just threw out an idea. i try to bring different ideas, not reinforce group think consistencies. I don’t call you names because your suppositions or thoughts seem contrary to me. Ever hear of the White Rose?
Comment by Juan C — April 19, 2007 @ 11:16 am
There seems to be an issue with IE7 and those buttons for BOLD, etc. Type them manually like this (take out spaces)
Text
April 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amNM, added after my later ones were. That always throws me.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amThe woman was home sick for several weeks before formally being diagnosed by her doctor in April 2006.
And how many people would she have infected (if it was transmissable) in those weeks? Trips to the drugstore, contact with family members… imagine…
If it was a superbug with a high transmission rate, half the country could be dead before the lab would admit there had been a breach.
Like “The Stand”.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:21 am#136. The Supreme Court of the United States says otherwise, and that is the current law.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime…[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man.” Burger also wrote, “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon…[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special’ or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms…”
April 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am