Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
politics
Guns to Kill D.C. Voting Rights Bill?
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats postponed on Wednesday a bill that would seat the District's first voting 
representative in Congress because of threats by chamber Republicans to attach to it a gun rights amendment.
According to The Hill, "Republicans want to add a provision to the voting rights bill that would wipe out most of the gun laws that remain in the District after the Supreme Court tossed out its handgun ban last year." House Democrats, by contrast, largely oppose the amendment, which the Senate permitted and passed earlier last week.
Although the majority party currently possesses the votes required to override the provision and approve the original bill, Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., hinted on Wednesday morning that such an outcome would not come without its consequences. Recent threats by the National Rifle Association to "score" -- or rank and note publicly -- the procedural votes of House lawmakers have forced some moderate- and conservative-leaning Democrats to support the amendment, contrary to the rest of the party's wishes. For that reason, House Democratic leaders have opted to postpone debate while they devise a way to satisfy the party's two equally important fractions.
So too has the proposed amendment tempered hopes among the District's local lawmakers. The D.C. Council, which had previously and vocally supported the voting rights bill, told Washington Post reporters on Wednesday that they would be unhappy with, if not totally unsupportive of, any law that further undermined their ability to regulate firearms. Local residents at community meetings echoed those concerns earlier this week, reportedly noting that the amendment would have them "opposing [their] own interests."
However, even if House Democrats discover an effective way to mobilize against the gun lobby and defeat its corresponding amendment, its exclusion from the voting rights bill is still all but guaranteed. In order for the legislation to reach the president's desk, both the House and Senate must pass identical bills -- which means a conference committee must reconcile the chambers' legislative differences. In other words, because Senate GOP support is contingent upon the gun amendment's inclusion -- and Senate Democrats need some cross-aisle support to pass the voting rights bill -- D.C.'s first official seat in Congress may be inexorably (and somewhat serendipitously) tied to a gun reform provision the city nominally despises.
representative in Congress because of threats by chamber Republicans to attach to it a gun rights amendment.According to The Hill, "Republicans want to add a provision to the voting rights bill that would wipe out most of the gun laws that remain in the District after the Supreme Court tossed out its handgun ban last year." House Democrats, by contrast, largely oppose the amendment, which the Senate permitted and passed earlier last week.
Although the majority party currently possesses the votes required to override the provision and approve the original bill, Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., hinted on Wednesday morning that such an outcome would not come without its consequences. Recent threats by the National Rifle Association to "score" -- or rank and note publicly -- the procedural votes of House lawmakers have forced some moderate- and conservative-leaning Democrats to support the amendment, contrary to the rest of the party's wishes. For that reason, House Democratic leaders have opted to postpone debate while they devise a way to satisfy the party's two equally important fractions.
So too has the proposed amendment tempered hopes among the District's local lawmakers. The D.C. Council, which had previously and vocally supported the voting rights bill, told Washington Post reporters on Wednesday that they would be unhappy with, if not totally unsupportive of, any law that further undermined their ability to regulate firearms. Local residents at community meetings echoed those concerns earlier this week, reportedly noting that the amendment would have them "opposing [their] own interests."
However, even if House Democrats discover an effective way to mobilize against the gun lobby and defeat its corresponding amendment, its exclusion from the voting rights bill is still all but guaranteed. In order for the legislation to reach the president's desk, both the House and Senate must pass identical bills -- which means a conference committee must reconcile the chambers' legislative differences. In other words, because Senate GOP support is contingent upon the gun amendment's inclusion -- and Senate Democrats need some cross-aisle support to pass the voting rights bill -- D.C.'s first official seat in Congress may be inexorably (and somewhat serendipitously) tied to a gun reform provision the city nominally despises.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- Thanksgiving Facts and trivia
- Community mourns death of sophomore
- County indicts Miami student
- Sultry, sulky 'New Moon' cast sucks talent out of film
- Something Wicked This Way Comes with "Hello Hurricane"
Recent Comments »
Page 1/4
Post Your Comments Below
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments
Ang
6:22AM 6:22AM Mar 5th 2009
*Sigh* guns are bad, right? Gun = bad, gun ban = good, House Democrats = holy! It could be...people = bad, therefore House Democrats also = bad...if not a gun, another weapon will suffice in the hands of a violent person. Have you never watched a beat-down on YouTube? Yes, you CAN WATCH IT...it's online! We should ban violent videos from YouTube as well! But THOSE videos, which depict real people suffering real pain dealt by the hands of other humans, might have the same ideologues who want to ban guns crying "censorship!" Inmates make deadly weapons out of POPSICLE STICKS. Crime must be horrible in D.C. to where its citizenry wants to try its hand at regulating criminals who don't follow the law right now...and that's why they're called CRIMINALS! Go ahead and make all the laws you want. The only ones who will FOLLOW those laws are the law-abiding citizens. Career criminals don't follow the law to begin with, so they will merely sneer at any attempt to be controlled.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
sisteddy
12:56PM 12:56PM Mar 6th 2009
Guns are no more "bad" than autos or drugs. But they are dangerous. In a crowded city, dangerous activities need to be regulated -- drugs from a pharmacy, autos only if registered and driven by a licensed driver, guns only to a licensed user. That way, when damage is done by misuse of that dangerous item, the victim(s) have something besides charity to look to for help in repairing the damage. When we allow dangerous activities to be unregulated (think heroin, cocaine, prostitution, etc.) we encourage the formation of a criminal class dealing in these dangerous things, because the danger adds to the price. No training or qualification is needed to engage in illegal activities. In our cities, we need to regulate, license AND TAX almost all illegal activities, for the safety of those who do not engage in those activities, and to spread the costs to those who do. That is justice. Punitive laws are not.
Rating :
Report!
Kris Marshall
8:00AM 8:00AM Mar 5th 2009
When will people wake up and realize that the US is far more dangerous thanks to the proliferation of handguns and other non sport firearms? Firearms allow people to make lethal attacks at an impersonal distance making the use of force far easier. While it is true that a knife can kill a person, very few people, even criminals, are willing to get "up close and personal" enough to use them. When was the last time you heard about a drive by stabbing? How likely is it that a depressed student could wander among his schoolmates stabbing people to death at random? How often does a knife misfire or fire accidentally in the hands of a 4 year old? The numbers are irrefutable, the US has the highest rate of murder, accidental shootings, and gunshot suicides of the industrialiazed world. And the differences are not minor. A comparable sized population as the US in Europe could expect to have a few hundred deaths a year at most. We routinely accept the deaths of nearly 30,000 per year in this country. That is a numbing death rate, far exceeding our losses during the Viet Nam or Iraq wars. It is time to restore the Constitutional requirement that guns be in the hands of a "well regulated militia".
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Michael
10:49AM 10:49AM Mar 5th 2009
Ken,
Do you think the monsters that do Drive bys care whether or not their weapons are legal? DC has one of the highest hand gun crime rates in the nation---all the while ownership of handguns (until recently overturned) was illegal. Hand guns are tools that can be used in the commission of a crime or the prevention of a crime. To criminalize gun ownership for law abiding citizens in the face of criminals that don't care about the legality of their weapons is an exercise in the absurd.
Finally---if you are going to quote the 2nd amendment---quote the whole amendment, not just the part that suits your argument.
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.
Rating :
Report!
SemiAutomaticFirearmsEnthusiasts USA
11:02AM 11:02AM Mar 5th 2009
look at the recent stabbings in China(where guns ar illegal) a tourist group was attacked and several members killed and injured by an INSANE individual.
In britain (where guns are banned) stabbings and beatings are common especially where alchohol or robbery is involved. the laws also prohibit self defense.
tools are just that. Hammers are deadly as are knives axes forks pens and automobiles. hollywood has really given you people the wrong impression.
you can drive a truck into a crowd and kill far more people than you can with a gun(already happenned in China and Israel). ever see a rampant semitrailer.
Thanks to the RNC for your support of the 2nd amendment
It will not and will never be forgotten by us 2nd amendment advocates.
SemiAutomaticFirearmsEnthusiasts USA
"promoting safety and dispelling ignorance"
"preserving our constitutional rights"
Rating :
Report!
cyclone06gto
12:19PM 12:19PM Mar 6th 2009
You and your type are disgusting......And the pussification of our once great country continues.
Rating :
Report!
Glenn
9:11PM 9:11PM Mar 6th 2009
The Second Ammendment guaratees our Right to bear/keep arms. Not for sport, against tyranny, which is what is starting to go on in my country. The Country I love, went overseas and risked my life, not being corny. This is not a commie stae, what is wrong with your thinking?
Rating :
Report!
TB
8:35AM 8:35AM Mar 7th 2009
anything I put in my hand can be used as a weapon. Educating people about the proper use of guns should be the starting point. I truly enjoy target practice with my pistols, which is my RIGHT. Just a thought, how many people have been killed by someone talking on a cell phone while driving or walked into traffic while reading a newspaper? Let's ban everything!!!
Rating :
Report!
Lynnwood Clay
12:39PM 12:39PM Mar 7th 2009
It is obvious that you do not understand the Second Ammendment. It's intent is to allow the citizens to protect themselves against transgressors, especially their own government. This was based onthe rights of Englishmen which were denied colonists by an overbearing government. The interpretation of this right belonging to an established militia is erroneous. It makes the establishment of a miltia possible. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Right to Bear Arms is an INDIVIUAL right. Do your homework.
Rating :
Report!
Louis
8:34PM 8:34PM Mar 7th 2009
saying that guns cause our crime rate to be so high is equally as stupid as saying the proliferation of cars cause drunk driving. It comes down to personal responsibility and good upbringing. And for those of you who are so quick to urge gun owners to give in on the second amendment, will you be so quick to give up your right to vote or freedom of speech?
Rating :
Report!
Ten Bears
12:47AM 12:47AM Mar 8th 2009
Very ignorant if not downright asinine comments. Where did you get your facts? Canada? Kennedy? Sarah Brady? Guns SAVE lives every single day. Doctors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US; guns don't even make the top 100.
Rating :
Report!
John
10:56PM 10:56PM Apr 3rd 2009
Priscilla Ford drove her car into a crowd in Reno, killing 7 people and maiming a dozen more. Want to ban cars? And Japan has an epidemic of random stabbing attacks. Ban Knives?
Rating :
Report!
brandon
9:23AM 9:23AM Mar 5th 2009
OH NOES! THE GUNS, THEY ARE BAD!!! No. People are bad. People kill people, be it themselves or someone else. Its a natural fact. You can make a weapon out of anything. You can kill someone with a knife, hit and run with a car, rat poison, or even a sharpened pencil! Hey, since all of those things are potentially dangerous to all, lets ban them too! That will fix everything!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
John McIntyre
11:55AM 11:55AM Mar 5th 2009
Mothers that drive cars with children into lakes should be banned,bricks and stones should not be legal in Tyler and Dallas,women with dentist husbands driving autos should be banned and mothers using water in bathtubs should be stopped, because women and mothers are Killers when they drive,bathe babies,touch bricks,etc.The Constitution provides for states to be added if you want dc to have representative and senators.Obamass taught constitutional law in chicago,can he explain why the constitution should be disregarded.Amend it or obey it.The Indonesian/Kenyan dictator already committed high crime by secret negotiations with comarad putin and hamas via hillary.Articles of impeachment should be attached to every bill for a complete Conyers type open investigation of Treason.Pay to play with gregg and obamas and replacing gregg with a republican by a democrat governor calls for obamass to apologize to blago.Indict rahmbo for coconspirators since he set these deals up with gregg.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Kris Marshall
12:13PM 12:13PM Mar 5th 2009
The arguments made by the progun lobby just serve to prove the arguments of gun opponents. Apparently the gun lobby and its supporters envision a nation gripped by gangs marauding the streets in tractor trailers running down competing gang memebers. We will all be endangered by burglars entering our homes with rat poison to control us. Nonsense. At the same time, the NRA and its ilk argue for the universal right to own "cop killer" bullets, military assault weapons with no civilian use other than domestic terrorism. They oppose banning guns in schools, carried by 12 year olds. They have used the COnstitution to create an anarchic society of uncontrolled violence instead of the noble goal of the 2nd amendment, the establishment of a well regulated militia. The reason for the exception, incidentally, is that the US is constitutionally barred from maintaining a "standing army" for more than 2 years. It was therefore necessary for citizen soldiers to have weapons available in the event of invasion or insurrection. We now evade the constitutional prohibition on standing armies by automatically reauthorizing the Armed Forces every two years. Today our "well regulated militias" include not only the major armed services, but the national guard, sheriffs, police, FBI, DEA, ICE, and dozens more. The 2nd amendment does not apply to gangs, survivalists, the KKK, Aryan brotherhood and others. It certainly does not apply to individuals bent on crime or terrorism. The gun rights lobby, given their way, would eventually allow every lunatic, criminal, terrorist or insurrectionist the right to carry weapons whereever they chose, including planes, churches, schools, workplaces, your home. Imagine normally rebellious teens armed with AK47s roaming the halls of your school. Sound good to you? Perhaps you wouldn't mind the passenger next to you carrying an UZI on the plane, but I would. As for the argument that "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns." That is true, by definition. But it is also been demonstated over and over around the world and in the US that when guns are illegal, there are far fewer guns. In the US, there is a direct correlation to gun violence and the proximity to a state with little or no gun control. (ie: Washington DC's guns come from Virginia, not DC.) For this reason gun control must be a national effort, not a patchwork thing as it is now.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
T. J. DAVIS
5:52PM 5:52PM Mar 5th 2009
* Individuals who support gun control fall into three categories;
The first category ( # 1 ) is represented by individuals who have suffered some form of trauma and have, as a result, become paranoid to the point of having become self-indulgent of their own personal phobias and fears to the expense and disregard for the rights and liberties of others. Such persons will happily surrender some portion of their liberty to secure what they imagine to be some form of personal security. It is not that such individuals do not believe in America or in the concepts of liberty... it is that they are "unable" to believe in it. They have come to fear liberty. Their personal views and actions are not based upon sound reasoning or rational perspective. Their fear and phobic condition is so deep seeded that they can seldom be reasoned with rationally or logically. It begs the question; -should you trust in those who do not trust in their fellow Americans?
The second category ( # 2 ) of gun control advocate, is represented by the misinformed and ignorant (both historically and politically). Some come by their ignorance through nature, but more often it is through their pure apathy. Ignorance is the single greatest threat to the rights and liberties of all people. Such individuals have little or no grasp nor even a basic understanding of the importance of effectively armed citizens as a safeguard against tyranny of government and the preservation of liberty through the ever-present and coercive power of a well-armed population. The right to keep and bear arms is the insurance policy... indeed, it is the "survival-kit" for the U.S. Federal Constitution (Bill Of Rights). Free citizens are armed... slaves and subjects are not. History bears witness over and over again to one fact, that one of the first acts of any despotic or dictatorial government is the heavy restrictions of... and the eventual abolishment of... all privately owned arms, or of any arms of relevance to political resistance of tyrannical government. These "disarmament" policies are usually accomplished under the very deceptive disguise of "public safety" concerns and "anti crime" laws. The key word here is "deceptive", and like any good con-job, the idea is to make you feel civicly responsible and secure as a citizen while you are being cheated out of your civil rights and political say. Without the "coercive force of arms" being in the hands of a nation's people, the civil-rights and liberties of that nation's people is doomed and any "bill of rights" will become subject to the "will of the state" and is there-for not worth the price of the paper that it is written upon.
The third category ( # 3 ) of gun control advocate is comprised of three types. The first are government officials and representatives who will readily cater to fear, ignorance, and stupidity to preserve or gain political office and any benefits attendant to such political positions of power. They and their supporters will advocate the use of lies, the spreading of lies, and will purposely confuse and misinform (dis-information) anyone who will listen to them in their obsessed efforts to achieve their goals or agendas. In short, they are at their core dishonest having little regard for truth or facts as they really are... the ends justifies the means. They regard themselves as being more aware or as simply being above everyone else, and just "know" what is in the best interest for you and everyone else because they are serving a "higher cause". They see themselves as being on some kind of mission or crusade. They are zealot to their personal cause to such an obsessive point, that they regard the truth as being expendable should it get in the way of their personal and political agendas. These cynical and self-righteous zealots see no ethical problem with manipulating the courts of our land with groundless civil actions aimed at holding the manufacturers of firearms responsible for what an individual does with their product. Let me see now... this means that if I decide to deliberately run over someone killing or injuring them with my car... the Ford Motor Company should be held accountable for "my" actions? Does any sane person see this as rational or honest thinking? As citizens, are we truly expected to actually respect such individuals or groups, let alone trust them with this nation's social and political future? Anyone or any organization that would support or perpetrate such base ethical dishonesty against their fellow citizens are the enemies of any freedom loving nation and its people. Individuals are at blame who abuse the liberty of bearing arms... not guns nor those who own or make them. Anti-gun rights zealots are at best, corrupt opportunists, and at their very worst... traitors to the very foundation of our free republic. They are the real face of evil, and are far more dangerous to the public's well-being than all of the privately owned firearms in America combined. They are worthy of deep contempt.
The second type is made up of celebrities and certain wealthy socialites who would sell-out their own country if it gained them an extra minute in the spotlight or helped to polish their public image with the press. They are not in the least interested in liberty or in human rights (however much they claim to be). What they are deeply concerned with is, staying current with the latest trends and respecting the leftist political boundaries of the communities they are a part of. In Hollywood, there are still "black-lists" kept today, only it is the left-wing that seems to be drawing them up and enforcing them these days having now done so for decades. If you are a movie or musical celebrity and make a very strong pro-gun rights statement in a public interview, you can consider yourself on that black-list. These people make the late Joseph McCarthy's antics pale in comparison. Can you say "hypocrisy"?
The third type are the organized criminal elements that exist among or function among all of the previously mentioned. Organized criminals love gun control, as they are always quite able to get arms for themselves in spite of any laws. Armed, free citizens have historically represented a major threat to most forms of criminal activity (sooner or later)... this also applies to corrupt political policies and those who make them. Over two million crimes in the United States each year are prevented or brought to an end by private citizens with firearms, and thousands of these incidents are reported. But oddly enough, these incidents are seldom mentioned, or at best are only given very little attention in the "main-stream" press. However, if any one criminal uses a firearm in a crime or if some isolated domestic situation ends in gun violence, these incidents will get wide and considerable coverage by that same press. Ask yourself, why is that? Ever met, read, or heard of an openly "pro-gun rights" main-stream news reporter?... TV newscaster?... maybe a news editor?. Can't really think of one?..... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
What is the final analysis of gun-control supporters? It is as follows; - It seems quite clear that to support gun control you must be one or more of the following: {A} -emotionally distraught by some personal trauma to the point of near mental instability... {B} -they are simply cowardly by nature... {C} -ignorant of even basic political history... {D} -suffer from diminished intelligence and / or are easily lead or manipulated by others... {E} -emotionally self-indulgent... or, {F} -are politicaly corrupt and / or involved in some form of organized criminal activity.
What is the over-all net-results of gun-control organizations and their related social and political policies? At best, it is well intentioned, but mindless and misguided social engineering that threatens the liberty and political safety of everyone, and only serves to make the United States (or any place else) a safer place for criminals and corrupt government. At worst, it makes possible the slow erosion and decline of basic human liberty and dignity, and presents the dark specter of a truly despotic and tyrannical government at some point later on down the road. A good case for "the sins of the fathers being visited upon their children" (politically and otherwise).
Lastly, a small history lesson: This little rant / editorial you have just read does not simply reflect my own personal opinions or musings on the subject of gun-rights and gun-control. These comments are reflections upon the realities of history's harder and more bloodily learned lessons. Bear in mind, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Next time you read your American history, take note over what set off the first skirmish of the American revolution... and no... it wasn't because the British wanted to confiscate our tea my dear reader, the "red-coats" were after something much more important that "we" knew better than to ever give up to them... it was our guns they were coming for. It is a historical fact that, the very first shots fired in the American revolution were fired in resistance to gun-control, and with those shots began the labor-pains of what would be the birth of the United States Of America (the republic). It is a sad fact you see dear reader, that America still has enemies within doing their best to take our arms and our liberty, only they don't wear red-coats anymore. - Learn from and respect the past.
- T. J. DAVIS
Rating :
Report!
ann
11:12PM 11:12PM Mar 5th 2009
When gun ownership is banned, only criminals will have guns.
I fon't know where all of you live, but I live in the USA and I will defend myself against attack, in my home, in my car, on the street, in a parking lot. I have a S&W 48, and I know how to use it and when. I am 67 years old, but no body will get my gun.
Rating :
Report!
TB
9:06AM 9:06AM Mar 7th 2009
Hey, Most of the people you described in these insane comments your posting legally shouldn't have guns. Did you get turned down for a firearm and your just angry? I don't believe our constitution was written to be interpreted. I think it was written pretty clear so it wouldn't have to be re-written everytime someone did not like or agree with it.
Rating :
Report!
Ken
11:22AM 11:22AM Mar 8th 2009
Well, it's clear to see that have no idea or a CLUE THAT THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES US THE RIGHT TO HAVE "GUNS", not man killer ammo,thats illegal for citizens to purchanse. How about you put the criminals in jail! make them PAY for their crimes, instead of Coddling them! Idiots like you put the rights of criminals over those of law abiding citizens& it needs to stop.Bet you are also against the death penalty.BLAME the BAD guys, not those who chose to carry a weapon to protect themselves or their families
.your problem is that you are politically correct.meaning.....ignorant of others,thats sad& wrong...and can be dangerous.
Rating :
Report!
harry
8:56AM 8:56AM Apr 4th 2009
JUST ANOTHER LEFTWING LOON---SCAREY!!!
Rating :
Report!
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments