The Diane Rehm Show

If government funding of NPR is less than 1%, why is Diane whining about losing this inconsequential amount?

Oh great pioneer, Sally Ride! By the way Sal, your partner of 27 years, she will NOT get federal benefits, because our legislation was written by people who think gay couples should have fewer rights than hetero couples. Sorry!

LibVet wrote: "Personally I was trained and qualified as an Expert Marksman using the AR15 and M1 carbine.......had to requalify annually during my service. But that hardly means I should be carrying either weapon around as a civilian"

Yes it does if you interpret the second amendment correctly. "carrying either weapon around" It would be inappropriate to go grocery shopping with a rifle slung over your shoulder but that only speaks to this point in time. But the right to keep and bare arms is unequivocal. That's what is so stupid about this debate, it should be "settled" The second amendment is crystal clear. All you have to do to know that is read it while understanding the meaning of the words used at the time it was written. There is just no excuse these days for people not to do this, the computer makes it incredibly easy to find out.

Slow day today, I guess the libs are getting tired of having their heads handed to them in these debates. No loss though really, I mean, what is lost by not having a bunch baseless emotional responses on issues.

MarcusTullius wrote: "Trained where, the Boy Scouts? If you were in the military, you qualified with the select fire M-16 rifle, not the civilian semi auto only AR-15 rifle"

That's a really good point. I dismissed it as a sloppy ignorance of firearms but that makes no sense he should have known that. Busted Libvet! By any chance do you go around wearing an unearned congressional medal of honor?

Did the M2 carbine replace the M1 in service after WW2?

nohoplophobe,

IF you had ANY military experience you would know that there are multiple services in the armed forces....and many varying units and equipment. You wouldn't need to piggyback erroneous comments from youngsters who may have served in later eras.
No, the M1 was not replaced entirely by M2s after WWII. If you look at films from SEA during the 60's you will see plenty of M1s in use. For one thing, the 30 calibre munitions were cheaper and more plentiful for a while.

Only wacked out militia types and paranoids wear any kind of military gear......especially weapons. The only "weapon" I own is a 50 calibre muzzleloader built from a kit and used strictly for display on the mantle......disabled from firing too.

The fact that you guys are SO insistent about needing weapons suggests you need some deep counseling about your fears and PHOBIAs (ala your screen name).

Marcus, you scamp,
"Back in 1965 the AR15 had not yet been adopted by the Army or Marines. Its experimental use was in the Air Force......namely in the USAFSS, my outfit, and it was called the AR15 in those "ancient"times. But you would have known that if you were the arms guru you pretend to be."
------------------------------------
Huh? On the infamous day of November 22, 1963, a Secret Service agent had an M-16 in the limo behind Kennedy's. By late 1965, all services had the M-16, albeit ones using black powder ammo and without the forward assist bolt that was to follow by 1967
.-------------------------
LibVet wrote:
"The M1 we used had military clips of 5 or 10 shots......not even 30 or the hundred that are now de rigeur for terrorists and wacko militia types. And to go automatic you would have to have either an M2 or a mod kit."
------------------------------------
Wrong again. During The Korean War, 30 round magazines became available and were standard for M1 carbines and M2 carbines. It is the M-16 that only had 20 round magazines during the Vietnam War. The 30 rounder is a Hollywood idea for Vietnam War movies.
---------------------------
LibVet wrote:
"We didn't really need huge clips anyway. A good marksman makes the shots count rather than spraying indiscriminately. In fact, that item alone is a good excuse for limiting clip volumes."
-----------------------------

Again, ammo is held in a magazine, not a "clip." During the Vietnam War, the term "spray and pray" was in vogue. Why? Because troops armed with the select fire M-16 rarely aimed at the Viet Cong and rarely ever had the fire select lever on SINGLE. This is what happens when all troops are armed with machine guns.

LibVet wrote: "Again..........IF technology produces a hand held laser or impulse rifle that can kill hundreds instead of individuals, I suppose the righties will queue up at Gander and Walmart to buy them. Where do rational people draw the line"

Dude! the second amendment is clearly about the possibility of having to confront a tyrannical government. Of course a full range of weapons equivalent to what the government has would be needed to do the job. This is so obvious that it screams out, but you can't hear it can you? Just because laws have been put into place to limit this certainly does not make them constitutional in a real sense, corruption in the SCOTUS can be blamed for many of our problems. They have failed to do their job of interpreting and applying the intent of the constitution for more than a hundred years.

Drivers licenses and all that other BS is so far off the mark to be just plane silly.

Sorry but we will need to see more than you standing behind some plywood cut out with your head propped on top to believe what you say. So, now that we know that the paperwork is being hidden and the tax returns are not forthcoming, what are you hiding? No matter, even if true I wonder what guys like you feel when people say our soldiers fight an die for our freedom, freedom to be wrong is one thing, freedom to dismantle the constitution is something else. It's kind of like a liberal whining about outsourcing jobs when they drive a Prius.

The Jewish community (whether in the U.S. or throughout the world) is not monolithic. The idea that we demand unquestioning support for the policies of the Likud government, and that support for that government is identical to support for Israel is both wrong, patronizing, and insulting. Yet that, stripped of the "polite" rhetoric, is what the right-wing in this country are claiming, and what Mr. Etch-A-Sketch (Romney) is promoting.

There are many Jews, within both the U.S. and Israel, who disagree with Likud's policies (especially on the question of the West Bank Settlements), and view Netanyahu's policies as a long-term disaster for that nation. Therefore, a true friend of Israel will respectfully disagree. A false friend (one who only regards Israel as a political "talking point") won't. As it was in 1776, save us (and Israel) from the "summer soldier" and the "sunshine patriots"!

Finally, Jews care about far more than just this. And despite the slanders hurled against us through the ages, we don't regard "making a buck" as the highest human activity. The Holy Scriptures constantly commands us to be ethical to one another, to care for the "stranger among us", and to feed, clothe, shelter, and care for the poor, naked, homeless, and ill.

"Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy." - Psalm 82:3.

For Jews that is the heart of our faith, and a key to our vote. (But then, we're all a bunch of "Socialists!", aren't we?)

This empty rhetoric about how we don't need new gun laws, we just need to enforce existing laws, is empty precisely because this lunatic's gun purchases were legal under the existing laws! What better proof do you need that more regulation of the marketing and purchasing of guns is required?

And for the NRA propagandists out there - No! Gun regulation doesn't mean gun confiscation. Gun control isn't the same as banning all guns. Even the Supreme Court, in D.C. v. Heller declared that reasonable gun regulation was constitutional.

And although the NRA ignores this, the Second Amendment clearly talks about a well regulated militia, and not about the "right" of a troubled (possibly psychotic) college student to obtain an arsenal for killing movie patrons. If we could ask them, I'm confident none of the Founders would say this incident was what they had in mind when the Second Amendment was adopted. (And they'd probably cart us off to Bedlam for asking!)

Part One

Educate yourself, sir!

According to the "laundry list" of Congressional powers that Republi-Cons love to misuse (Art. 1, Section 8), Congress has the power:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; [Paragraph 15, emphasis added]

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [Paragraph 16, emphasis added]

Do you know what part of that the Second Amendment "amends"? Why the part about Congress arming the militia. And that's all!

Nothing there about allowing every Tom, Dick or Mary to carry whatever weapons they want, in any amount, without any training in their proper use (let alone any psychological evaluation). Indeed, even today you can't just buy any "arms" you want. (I'm pretty sure you can't own a Sherman Tank, or a drone missile.)

Again, even the Supreme Court (in D.C. v. Heller) declared that reasonable gun regulations were constitutional.

Like the NRA, you babble about "private citizens with privately owned weapons", and the "cost" of freedom, but nothing in the Constitution says that every citizen must own any and all weapons - no questions asked. That's the "well regulated" part of "a well regulated militia". The Founders never intended isolated psychopaths to be armed to the teeth. After all, psychotics would hardly constitute "a well regulated militia" that could be "called forth to execute the laws of the Union", or to suppress insurrections.

TO BE CONTINUED

nohoplophobe on July 27, 2012 @ 9:16 am wrote: “One point of particular interest to me is the notion that the government gave us the right to own guns, this is false, the second amendment explicitly implies that it is preserving a natural right or if you prefer a god given right as does all of the ‘Bill of Rights’ ".

PART ONE

No, sir, it is you who are false! About the only place where the Constitution comes even close to mentioning “natural right” is in the Ninth Amendment, which expressly declares:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” [Emphasis added.]

Funny, though, despite this express declaration that we do have rights which are not enumerated (the only place in the Constitution that word appears, by the way), Republi-Cons love to scream about the Courts “making up rights” when the topic is sex (but, oddly, not when it’s economics - a topic the Constitution is completely silent about). And now you come along and tell us that by implication the Second Amendment recognizes a “natural right”!

If your “theory” was correct, why bother with a Second Amendment at all? Or a Bill of Rights, for that matter? People could just assert a “natural right” to do whatever they want, and then defy any laws they want. That’s called anarchy - and the Founders would have none of it!

Oh, and bravo for refuting your own argument! If we have the “natural right” to own any and every gun we wish, why are there limits on AK47’s at all? Doesn’t that demonstrate reasonable regulations are constitutional? (Or, is the NRA now going to sue for “my” right to own an ICBM?)

TO BE CONTINUED

partisan politics on July 26, 2012 @ 1:36 pm wrote: “Why is it widely accepted that the ‘Bush tax cuts’ were for the rich? Why are we to believe Obama's stimulus spending kept the country from going into a depression and not the Bush middle class tax cuts?”

Well, let’s see:

1) Because the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthiest far more than anyone else?

2) Because Bush’s tax cutting didn’t keep the country from going into the Great Recession, starting in 2007?

Oh, and let’s do some comparisons, shall we? When Bush the Second took office in 2001 unemployment was at 4.2%. By July of 2004 (the same point in his first term as we are in Obama’s) it was at 5.4% - 1.2 points higher than when he started. (Having risen pretty steadily during his first three years.) When Obama took office it was at 7.8%. (The highest it was under Bush, and rising!) Now it’s at 8.2% - within only .4 points of where it started (having declined fairly steadily from it high in October of Obama’s first year). I’d say Obama’s track record beats Bush’s. (And he has to deal with Republi-Cons in Congress willing to do anything, including destroy our credit rating, to defeat him.)

Sources:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

By the way, it’s funny how Republi-Cons claim “Bush kept us safe” simply because there was no other “9/11 like” incidents (leaving aside anthrax attacks, the shoe bomber in December of 2001, and anything else that “impeaches” the claim). But they were sure quick to scream what a terrible job Obama was doing because of the “underwear bomber” in December of 2009, and completely ignore his getting the Mission Accomplished of killing Bin Laden.

TO BE CONTINUED

nohoplophobe on July 26, 2012 @ 11:26 pm wrote: “This is what is so perplexing about the left. Bush was for all intent and purposes a big government liberal democrat. . . . he and the republican congress that voted for his initiatives are somehow accused of being in the pockets of rich corporations . . . .”

Well, of course, if all you focus on is spending and taxes, then they look exactly alike!

But what about the mindless drive for deregulation that is at the heart of Republi-Con policies? The blind worship of the “pure, perfect, sacred, and holy” free market - as if it can do no wrong? The fact that Bush and company literally had laws and regulations drafted for them by corporate lobbyists? And what about the constant denunciation of government by people seeking public office? (And you dare accuse Democrats of hypocrisy!)

And by the way, some Democrats were indeed guilty of these things too. (Clinton, after all, signed the law that repealed Glass-Steagle, and deregulated the commodities futures market.) But that just demonstrates that the Democratic Party is hardly the “hot bed” of “Socialism!” people like you falsely claim. They have conservative idiots among their members too!