Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-11/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Obama announces his choices for key second-term positions. Vice President Biden meets with gun control advocates and the NRA. And new mortgage rules target risky lending. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of the book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
congressional correspondent for Bloomberg News.
Major Garrett
CBS News chief White House correspondent.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel addressed a caller's remarks that the conversation about gun ownership in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings is one-sided and controlled by people without knowledge of the Second Amendment. The Fix blogger Chris Cillizza responded, "I think the idea that everyone in this country thinks guns should be restricted is not true. We know that." He added that comprehensive gun reform that would drastically restrict or change gun rights almost certainly wouldn't pass Congress.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Too "BIG" to fail is now too "BIG" to prosecute. HSBC was found guilty of money laundering to terror groups,Middle Eastern as well as the Mexican Drug lords. NOBODY`S going to jail. We have the NRA protecting the weapons to the terrorists,and banks doing the money laundering...
This is going on while many say they need more arms to protect themselves from government. I think it`s backwards and upside down. We need the government to protect us from these anti- American groups. If we can`t control these destructive forces,tell me why we need an army?
BANKS ALLOW TERRORISTS TO FUND TERROR EVENTS,AND THE NRA GETS THEM THE GUNS..."Stupid is as Stupid Does".
________________________________________________
Major League Baseball turned it`s back on this year`s crop of potential inductees. Jimmy Warfield,the clubhouse trainer of the Cleveland Indians said before he passed away,that major league management was fully aware of player juicing. The trainers and management knew. I`m sure the baseball writers knew.The same hypocrites who now reject these ballplayers. Nobody minded the enhanced performance.Nobody minded the packed ball parks. Now everyone has found religion.YEA? I will never forget a Mark McGwire home run,that hit the metal Coke sign,away way back in left field.High above the grandstands. If not for that sign that ball would still be going. No mere mortal could hit a baseball that hard and that far.
Topic : Mortuary Care Is Not Patrick Henry's Proclamation
They want to force people to have a gun muzzle pointing at children in theaters, public places and college campuses because if not fired, the gun carrier is carrying out their constitutional right. All in the name of freedom? No, it's in the name of Mortuary Care. These people are more pro-business for funeral directors than funeral directors are. Further, when Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death', he was not saying give me the right to endanger my fellow citizen or I will endanger and attack that citizen. That is what the NRA, and other far-right groups want to continue doing.
Shouldn't a critical standard for illegal weapons be the reasonable potential of mass destruction? Shouldn't background checks be required for all gun and bullet transactions? Why should parents bow to NRA demands that it's a constitutional right to carry weapons of mass destruction in and near areas (theaters and schools) crowded with their children? When do we begin to balance rights with common sense and a sense of citizenship responsibility?
Guns and Butter Wednesday at 1pm PST (KPFA stream and archives) assessed the misinformation surrounding Sandy Hook (Newtown Massacre).
The truth would be more horrible than the MSM schmear (tale-telling) so the fearful public accepts the implausibilities. Maybe the gun mania helps WalMart sales but it destroys trust among us and generates more anxiety.
Take Clifford's facts about a large British bank being used for Iran-Contra like operations. We don't like to think financial Oligarchs and our security state are in bed with druglords and Al Quieda, but they seem to be. We don't discuss these things among ourselves for fear Big Brother listens and cares. Out in the open our defense establishment shares advanced population control weapons with Israel and Saudi Arabia, at taxpayer expense. The USA is the biggest and baddest terror state (Martin Luther King said it.).
I pulled loose from electronic media with help from my sophisticated family who concede all the things I've stated and many more. But we share that feeling of futility when we attend Occupy events, School of Americas Watch, or even River Keeper meetings. Always the undercover provocatures are there. When a house in Waziristan is droned and body parts fly we feel a faint concussion on our farm and in our townhouses. If you share these sentiments you are by default a target, and part of the Resistance. Speak out against Libertine Capitalism which makes all atrocities possible.
We all know the Joe Biden gun control meetings are a circus, just like public input on Obamacare. Minds have been made up on this for at least 20 years. What were getting is a charade of good intentions to dismantle the second amendment. All rifles not just the mythical assault rifle account for only a tiny percentage of crimes, why don't they just go for the banning of handguns outright and be honest about it. Answer, they know there will be a massive backlash. This is nothing more than an effort to get the ball rolling and ban all privately owned guns. The goal now for Obama is to take as much of the second amendment away from the people as he can now, before the people understand the real motive.
If the poles I read are accurate, the cat is already out of the bag.
The gun debate highlights the dangers of eliminating civics from schools.. WE are the government.. Our government exists with the consent of the PEOPLE... Our founding documents are clearly SOCIALIST... However,even the word SOCIALISM is under constant attack. It`s no wonder some people hold an irrational opinion of our government and DEMOCRACY itself. DEMOCRACY,is another one of the words under attack.
As usual, Wayne La Pierre and the pro-violence lobby will scuttle any effort to make us safe from the threat of guns. This country is in his grip and we are lost. The pro-violence lobby doesn't care about our children, our safety or our lives. They only care about their childish wants and the gun manufacturers profits.
Many people in this country apparently believe that they need assault weapons to defend themselves from OUR OWN government. Part of their concern is a reaction to the Patriot Act and to drone strikes that have been used to kill targets (outside the US) including US citizens.
I am on the left side of the political spectrum and certainly felt my privacy rights diminished by passage of the Patriot Act.
What if we combined a ban on assault weapons with repeal of the Patriot Act and restraint on executive power? Might that be a way to calm down people who think our government is a threat to our rights and make it easier for them to relinquish their assault weapons?
Join the NRA now!
http://membership.nrahq.org/
If Obama has done anything, he has brought into focus the reason why the second amendment exists. A power grabbing federal government that has no interest in personal freedom. Remember, despite all the demonizing by democrats, roughly half the voters voted to get Obama out of office.
Please help me understand this: Extreme zeal to prevent voter fraud with all kinds of preemptive measures (many of which stripping many of the right of suffrage) Utter inability, utter willingness to implement ANY preventive measure for gun violence.
Plain politics or an actual basic rights concern?
Which is more important to whom and why
The democrats made huge gains on the republicans and all the polls show huge amounts of people moving away from the party. These pushes on gun control will just send this people right back and and cost the democrats their gains in this last election.
Democrats need to focus on things that will make a difference and be supported by all of there base. An AWB will not do anything towards our gun homicides and cost the democrats more than they probably want to pay.
If you believe an AWB will make you safer than you don't understand the issue. A complete ban of these guns would have no meaningful reduction to gun homicide and will only cause a backlash against democrats.
Our gun homicide issues are 75% a gang issue fueled by the drug war. A year of drive bys in Los Angeles is more deaths then every mass shooting then Columbine.
David W wrote: "These pushes on gun control will just send this people right back and and cost the democrats their gains in this last election"
Democrats in congress know this, that is why we expect more in the way of executive orders.
If it takes 60 votes in the senate then that is unconstitutional.
Your guests have alluded to the fear of some in this country that any registration is a prequel to confiscation of guns by the government. This goes hand in hand with the central need for the right to own assault weapons or resist any form of gun control - that if citizens to protect themselves from their own government. I believe this is at the core of the resistance to more uniform gun laws. Could your guests please comment on this and its implications for our democracy. At what point do our leaders have the obligation to take on directly this notion that the government is the enemy from which we must protect ourselves with weapons if necessary? Is this not a corrosive force in our country that is potentially very dangerous for the rule of law?
The gun owner who called saying that gun control advocates have some sort of monopoly on the conversation, has it absolutely bass-ackwards. The whole conversation has been dominated by the pro-violence people. That's why ALL the laws have gone their way for years and the rest of us have been left to fear for our lives. And don't tell me I don't know anything about guns. I spent 4 years in the marines, served in Vietnam and fired just about every weapon known to man at that time. Most are there to serve one purpose: to kill people. The rest seem to exist to make masculinity challenged males feel more manly.
What is it with this phantom fear that some people have with a "tyrannical government" they they have to arm themselves against? If our government is so bad, then why follow ANY law? If our government is so bad, then why not simply take up arms against it and stop complaining about how you fear it? And as you dodge the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, satellites, submarines, unmanned predator drones, and tanks, remember how well "preparing for" an imaginary apocalypse worked for David Koresh & Co.
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/
BRAVO!!! for that nervous caller, well said. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'm pretty sure I heard some mumbling from Diane that there is nothing in the second amendment about protecting oneself from the government. Clearly it's there, the militia are the people and not a government assembled army. For the truth twisters out there "well regulated" means proper functioning, nothing more.
"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."
I have 2 questions: 1-The right of the second amendment was done at the time where there were war and where there were not enough police men to help out. This time is gone. Why people keeps talking about it. Also if I buy a gun and my background check is good. How about if I have a mentally ill kid at home or how about if I get mentally sick later… Isn’t it is better to reduce the sale of guns?
Thank you Diana
PS(I love your show}
SteMar wrote: "pro-violence people"
Pro violence people, are the ones that hang gun free zone signs in front of public gathering places, schools, shopping malls, and public buildings with no security. Invetations for violence to say the least.
I read the comments by those who criticize the caller concerned with the media coverage on gun issues, and those who make wild accusations at the NRA and I have to shake my head. If you watched the NRA press conference or read the transcript, then you may realize that the press coverage was a hatchet job and only quoted LaPierre's most controversial sound bite.
So, is the press biased? Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Society of Professional Journalists. The message to their members was to 'forget balanced reporting, join the Brady Campaign or similar group, and to write stories with emotion so we can get stricter gun laws passed.' I wish that I was making this up but I was there and heard it said.
On November 5,2009 Major Malik Nadal Hasan,opened fire at Ft. Hood,killing and injuring many of his fellow soldiers....
According to the NRA and many callers and bloggers,this man had the 2nd amendment right to attack the government. If these extremists truly believe the nonsense they spout daily,why then not call for the release of this wrongfully detained and innocent individual?
Remember the stink about "Fast and Furious"? The government`s attempt to cut off arms to the terrorists. The NRA is responsible for the continual dismissal of ATF Management.The NRA supports the Mexican terrorists,when they block efforts to cut off the arms to the drug cartel terrorists.
I want to agree with Kris about the intent of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was written to prevent the British, or anyone else, from trying to overthrow the new government. The US had just won a war of liberation, and wanted to safeguard the new order. Sometimes context is important.
The guest wearing glasses makes a very careless statement starting at about 3:29 in the video clip. He says there has to be some common ground between those who want to ban all gun sales and those who don't want any regulation. Well, he'd already said nobody wanted to ban all gun sales, so that is an invalid extreme to use in talking about a middle ground. The middle ground is between those who want restrictions on the most all guns registered and bans on egregious weapons, like assault rifles, versus those who don't want any registration or restrictions. At least no restrictions on what is currently marketed. If shoulder fired rockets and suitcase nukes were being marketed to the public, they probably wouldn't want regulations on those either.
In it indeed a pity that today so few Americans are aware that the first codification of the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms in the 1770's was because of the necessity to control large numbers of slaves on plantations and as protection against Native American defense of their territory. as well as in response to the consequences of the looming rebellion against Parliament and the English Crown.
Today, the necessity for guns is often justified as a defense against government (i.e., as one current caller did) or the Obama Administration.
In a very few years, the USA will be a majority minority nation and whites will become a minority. Many fear being treated poorly just as historically people of color have been treated by whites.
As a country, we must find a way - at last to accept, appreciate and embrace our diversity and truly accord respect and equality to all. If we don't, no amount of weaponry will achieve a real and lasting republic.
LesleyJane wrote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was written to prevent the British, or anyone else, from trying to overthrow the new government. Sometimes context is important.'
Yes, but you left out a couple other reasons. Context is important!
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Const...
In 1789 our Constitution was ratified. In 1792,the U.S. Congress wrote the Militia Act . The government mandated, what guns,ammo,and other things citizens must have.If the U.S. Government can dictate which arms citizens must buy,it certainly can mandate which guns are not legal.
Yea,the Founders told us to buy broccoli.And cheese sauce too.
tthowe wrote: "In it indeed a pity that today so few Americans are aware that the first codification of the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms in the 1770's was because of the necessity to control large numbers of slaves on plantations and as protection against Native American defense of their territory"
This appears on the face of it to be some modern politically left extrapolation on the intent of the second amendment.
Do you have a source for this information?
Clifford wrote: "In 1789 our Constitution was ratified. In 1792,the U.S. Congress wrote the Militia Act . The government mandated, what guns,ammo,and other things citizens must have.If the U.S. Government can dictate which arms citizens must buy,it certainly can mandate which guns are not legal."
Painted from your palette of distortions I see.
Clearly the intent was to ensure adequate force for the task at hand, with the best that was available at that time. Obviously if applied today the arms and ammunition required would suit today's technology.
Could I respectfully request that your panelists confine themselves to discussions of issues and not let us know how they personally feel about things? A couple of times today the conversation was too much "the great I am" and not enough "it is"
As long as nothing HAS to be done, nothing WILL be done about gun control. Congress couldn't even agree on what constitutes a gum, much less make any meaningful regulations.