Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-01/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The U.S. economy shrinks slightly in the fourth quarter. A bipartisan group of senators and the White House propose immigration reform. And a Senate committee holds hearings on gun violence. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Ron Elving
senior Washington editor for NPR.
David Leonhardt
Washington bureau chief for The New York Times.
Molly Ball
staff writer for The Atlantic.
Friday News Roundup Video
Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, died Feb. 1 at age 88. New York Times reporter David Leonhardt, who grew up in New York, recounted a dinner party he attended at Koch's house in which the mayor cooked a roast chicken. "For me, for many New Yorkers, you can't separate your own childhood and the city of New York from Ed Koch," Leonhardt said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Pancake Rankin wrote: : "I'm tired of telling you guys history: The state "militias" were slavehunters'
Last time I checked, the second amendment apllies to black people. Our glorious Constitution and the amendment process has made sure of it, the thirteenth amendment.
Show me where in the founding documents where the enforcement of slavery can be found in relation to the second amendment.
SAT- It's way too late for "national identity" now, unless you wanta try ethnic cleansing. (Granted rural Michigan is pretty White.) As for scarcity, fungibility and brokerage make that a global problem. The only thing more people might affect is housing, and given the chance, people can build dwellings. No matter what you say or do the typical American will be non-White by 2040 and prices of necessities will go up. It's just like CO2 or nuclear radiation: Invisible to people on the ground and irresistable. So such hopeless protests appear to be tantrums. The Republican Party is doomed, but it's not your fault. Throw that elephant outta your room. (uless you have COPD)
Pancake Rankin wrote: "The People's Mike is stronger than the Oligarchs' PA."
Strange how you think disarming the people and handing over the power to the government is not at odds with what I think your concerns are. You make no sense!
Dandy:
It all depends upon who YOU plan to shoot.
I guess a Black Panther might need a gun,
but the FBI seems to shoot them in bed.
Maybe after the "Wawer 'tween thugh Staates" they had to
invent the FBI to put down wage slave rebellions.
Thus the "militias" were made superfluous.
I'm well aware of what others have said the amendment says. But that's my point. The amendment "as written" does not go into that much detail. We need an amendment that is specific. What any number of people might say is not part of the Constitution.
The courts deal with the law as written. Not the opinions of individuals, no matter how noble they might sound.
If the Supreme Court should ever decide that the amendment refers only to militia, then that is the end of the argument. And remember that the Supreme Court's interpretation is THE last word.
And who is to say that the Supreme Court would not never define it thusly?
Pancake Ranking wrote:
"eggy repeats "The Big Goebbels Lie" long and hard to Mike Dell hoping it will come true."
Oh, Pancake. You have to drag out the 'L' word? I have been paying attention to your posts over time and I don't believe I've ever seen you back up a single statement with a credible reference. So, if you're not pulling your statements from statistics, polls, factual references, that you can cite where exactly are you pulling them from?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/18/how-the-nra-is...
Once the People find their Mike it will all make complete sense, you'll see. Truth and Reconcilliation is coming so be as good as you can be, so as not to wind up on the hot seat. I wouldn't think a gun capable of doing my talking, but maybe you're not so confident.
Honestly, it seems some who are commenting here are assuming Gabby Giffords is in some way mentally impaired because her speech is impaired. Be assured her mind is in tact and she knows exactly what she is saying. She is not a victim, she is a survivor and has more courage than any of her critics.
Just because her physical challenges made it too difficult for her to perform her duties as an elected representative does not mean she has to forfeit her right to participate in the democratic process as an American citizen. In many cases laws evolve from such tragic situations and to say those effected should have no voice in the matter is insensitive and discriminatory beyond the pale.
I have MS and my speech is often slurred when I am fatigued, people make the assumption I am medicated, drunk or mentally impaired which is far from the truth.
Please keep an open mind, check your hubris and be slow to judge that which you do not know. We all need to work on overcoming our innate human tendency toward inference-observation confusion.
I thought the closing comment, an anecdote about Mayor Koch, was very moving. As a politician and a public figure I did not always agree with Mayor Koch. But in a very important way I think the dinner-party anecdote was the greatest praise and tribute one could give to a life-long politician like the mayor.
"gary k wrote:
I'm well aware of what others have said the amendment says. But that's my point. The amendment "as written" does not go into that much detail. We need an amendment that is specific. What any number of people might say is not part of the Constitution. "
Correct. What any number of people might say is irrelevant. The amendment speaks for itself. It does not say, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia memebersto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
It says, "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 get that you don't LIKE what it says, but that doesn't mean it's not specific enough.
gary k wrote: "I'm well aware of what others have said the amendment says. But that's my point. The amendment "as written" does not go into that much detail. We need an amendment that is specific. What any number of people might say is not part of the Constitution"
I believe the brevity of the second amendment was intentional, and quite clear on it's intent.
You have bought into the false notion that the Constitution is hard to read and understand, it's not. It was specifically designed for everyday dopes like us to understand. All you need to do is read it knowing the definitions of the words used at the time it was written. With the computer there is just no excuse anymore for not being able to understand it quite easily.
Dan D.- Why are we not entitled to hear a victim's (G. Gifford) statement? If only the war dead could come back to life and have words with the neocons et al. who rushed to war. It seems to me that those who consider themselves so dispassionately rational haven't had time to read up on recent fMRI-aided research on motivation.
We should not increase gun & ammo control because gun violence wouldn't be eliminated? So we should throw out all rules, regs and laws because some ignore them?
Don't worry- more gun and ammo control is not the same as castration.
zinnia wrote:
"Just because her physical challenges made it too difficult for her to perform her duties as an elected representative does not mean she has to forfeit her right to participate in the democratic process as an American citizen. In many cases laws evolve from such tragic situations and to say those effected should have no voice in the matter is insensitive and discriminatory beyond the pale".
Told 'ja.
I will ask the question again that no one seems to want to address: "Why did we not hear impassioned testimony from anyone SAVED by a gun played ad nauseum in the MSM?" ... or even as testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Is that not "insensitive and discriminatory beyond the pale" as well? Or is it that the anti-gun lobby (read: Democrats who control this process) only interested in hearing from those who can pull on the heartstrings of the American public?
With all due respect, zinnia, you might be qualified to speak on the effects and hardships of dealing with MS, but (assuming you are not a physician or qualified scientist) you would not be qualified to talk about the medical aspects or potential causes of the disease. I'm sure you know more about it than the average person, but there would be many that would be far more qualified to speak on the subject of MS. Gabby Giffords might be qualified to speak about the daily hardships of living with her injuries (and no one ever suggested she was mentally impaired, by the way), but she is not qualified to speak authoritatively on any changes that must be put in place because of these shootings. In fact, her bias makes her singularly UNqualified.
IWA1954 wrote: "Dan D.- Why are we not entitled to hear a victim's (G. Gifford) statement?"
Yes of course we should be able to hear what she says, we should also be able to hear EQUALLY what pro rights commentators have also said at the same hearing. We are prevented by the media to get an equal voice and equal coverage.
IWA1954 wrote: "Don't worry- more gun and ammo control is not the same as castration"
I think it is the same, in a political power and Constitutional rights sense. The founders apparently thought so too.
The 2nd Amendment seems "clear" only in the rear view mirror.
It must be interpreted in the context of circumstances at the time of ratification when repeating firearms were barely conceived and half of the states were still in slavery. The body of the Constitution apportions representation to include chattel slaves so that the slave states could not be immediately outvoted. Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3 outlines the "3/5 Compromise" making union feasible. The 2nd Amendment is but an addendum to this compromise, making it legal for slave rebellions to be prevented and controlled under state law. No slave administration wanted to be disarmed while keeping a restive (sometimes majority) population in bondage, and no northern state wanted to foot the bills for this shameful repression. These architects of our Constitution were like CEOs today, worried about their wealth in the short run. The wisest among them understood though that confrontation over new states was coming. Wage slavery and Colonialism are less crude than chattel slavery but maybe more evil, and certainly more profitable. It benefits our oppressive owners to keep us arguing over obsolete issues like the 2nd Amendment. We need Worker Self-Directed Enterprises, like yesterday, and they won't let us get our heads around the concept. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Imagine this: Next time Michael J. Fox testifies on Parkinson's he should be holding a semi-automatic with a long clip and the safety off. Maybe then Congress would sober up. (I love little Michael and am glad to watch his new show.) Does this sound silly when much of the right wing agenda can be reduced to shouting down evidence and intimidating testimony?
Pancake Rankin wrote: " It benefits our oppressive owners to keep us arguing over obsolete issues like the 2nd Amendment."
I agree that the arguments against the second amendment should be viewed as obsolete, just like they were at it's inception. I also believe we are being manipulated on a daily basis by the present administration to divert our gaze away from the real problems, like spending.
As for the other comments, you are taking a biased political narrative and twisting history to fit it. You should be able to find solid linkage if it exists to make your points.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"The body of the Constitution apportions representation to include chattel slaves so that the slave states could not be immediately outvoted. Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3 outlines the "3/5 Compromise" making union feasible. "
Your understanding of the 3/5 Compromise is lacking. The choice was between counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person versus as a whole person which is what the south wanted. This served to mitigate the power of the slave states with respect to the Federal Government, not increase it.
As for "these architects of our Constitution" being short-term thinkers and what the "wisest among them understood" or thought or believed, you offer zero evidence. In fact the longevity of our government based on rule of law and individual freedoms, compared to other governments in history would show your assertion that the Founders were "short-term thinkers" to be demonstrably false.
"The 2nd Amendment is but an addendum to this compromise, making it legal for slave rebellions to be prevented and controlled under state law. "
You offer zero evidence for this conjecture as well and your assertion that the "2nd amendment is [therefore] obsolete" is rendered moot.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"Next time Michael J. Fox testifies on Parkinson's "
His testimony on Parkinson's disease is about as valuable as Gabby Giffords' testimony on gun violence. Now his DOCTOR's testimony would have value and be of interest. And certainly Mr. Fox could testify with authority on the effects of the disease - unless your only purpose is to pull on the heartstrings of the American public to get what you want, not what we, as a nation, actually need.
Must agree to disagree on this one, Gabby has every right to testify as a citizen AND a former representative, her professional and personal experience makes her uniquely qualified. Again, she is not a victim, she is a survivor. I can assure you her motives were not to "pull on your heartstrings", that is not who she is. BTW Ms. Trotter did testify in favor of guns saving lives.
According to Article II of the Constitution - which of course barely predates, and thus provides reference and context for, the Bill of Rights:
"SECTION. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ..." *
So if a "well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment means everyone who can carry a gun, apparently DanD, ecgberht2, etc., are duty-bound to follow Obama's commands.
*http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-articles/article-ii-the-executive-branch
"According to Article II of the Constitution - which of course barely predates, and thus provides reference and context for, the Bill of Rights"
This is the false premise of your argument. The only way the Constitution "provides reference and context for" the Bill of Rights, is the degree to which it RESTRICTS the powers of the Federal Government given in the Constitution, not embellishes or expands them. That is true of every other of the 9 Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, and, historically was, in fact, their raison d'etre.
There's also the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ..."
Yeah, obviously by "Militia" they meant everyone alive who could pull a trigger.
zinnia wrote:
"BTW Ms. Trotter did testify in favor of guns saving lives."
Sorry, that's a false equivalency. I did not hear her talk passionately about the time she thwarted a burglary or a robbery or other assault because she was armed. In fact, NO ONE who has had such an experience - and there are probably hundreds if not thousands daily, was called to testify. That would be an equivalency.
"as a citizen AND a former representative, her professional and personal experience makes her uniquely qualified".
Sorry, this is rhetoric, not a list of qualifications to speak on gun control.
In response to the panel's comments regarding the caller who asked if we could have a national referendum on gun control:
The panel seemed to suggest that we can't have a national referendum, overhaul, or even any new changes on gun control/ownership issues on a national scale because our constitution forbids it. The panel asserted that a national referendum wouldn't work because a RED state or certain "regions" (Harry Reid's, for example) would trump and therefore negate any such action. I think Molly Ball even reduced the idea to essentially a "poll" when she stated that's why we have "polls." She spoke about the idea as if it were valid, but at the same time invalidated it by saying "sure, … that's why we have polls." I think I have her quotes close--sorry if they are not exact. So, when we look at other countries around the world who do not have the crisis we have in this country as far as gun violence is concerned and wonder why we must endure this insanity, it's because our constitution prevents our federal government from carrying out the demands of its citizens? If there were a national referendum and the outcome favored federal government intervention, the constitution would not permit it? I am guessing that a national referendum would reveal that the majority of people would conclude that our right to venture out into the public arena, say on a date, say at a movie theater, and not be in the same room with another audience member who shoots 70 people and kills 12, is NOT outweighed by the rights of a person who wants to carry a gun. (Continued)
(Continued PT 2)
And, remember the guy who shot himself as he was taking a seat at a movie theater (because his gun tucked in his pants discharged)? It was shortly after the massacre that happened at the Aurora, Co. Batman Dark Knight movie premiere last July.
So, am I understanding the panel's reaction to this issue correctly? Do they really believe that you or I (or any member of our FREE society) do not have a right to travel through the public venues to dine or see a movie or go shopping or visit any public place, schools, churches, parks, streets, sidewalks, etc... without encountering another civilian carrying a loaded gun (or guns)? If the guy whose gun was concealed in his pants and discharged when he sat down at the movie theater (the one I mentioned earlier) had shot someone other than himself, would he be charged with a crime? I mean a serious crime--not a minor citation like publicly discharging a weapon. And what would the prosecutors do if another audience member heard the shot and returned fire at that individual or someone else? If the return fire killed or injured someone, what would happen? Is that where this thing is going? Under our current laws, in some states, that individual was not breaking any laws up until his gun discharged. I understand that it was an accident. He was just protecting society and himself from -- you know, other people who have loaded guns. Most intoxicated drivers do not intentionally injure or kill anyone either. By the way, when a person is in possession of a loaded gun, shouldn't he/she be held to the same standards as drivers? If a person is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs and is in possession of a loaded gun, shouldn't that person be treated at least as severely as a driver in the same condition?
(Continued PT 3)
What’s wrong with the idea that a person can own a gun for hunting or for personal protection? Most people would say, “nothing” – I think. But I also believe that most people believe that hunting guns should be kept unloaded, and in their cases until the owner arrives at an approved hunting facility/property and that “personal protection” guns should be kept in the owner's house or at least within his property boundaries; therefore, no civilian should be allowed to enter into public areas with a gun.
The real question is simple: do our citizens have the right to not be around other citizens who are carrying loaded guns, that may discharge intentionally or unintentionally, when they go out in public? I suggest that our freedoms extend only up to the point where they infringe on someone else's. Doesn't the "unalienable" right for all people to pursue happiness (which includes for many of us to not encounter another civilian with a loaded gun, concealed or not) guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence supersede, not a person's right to own a gun, but his/her right have it in public places. After all, if the militia must be"well regulated," shouldn't the "people" who keep and bear arms be equally "well regulated?"
sonofecgtheow wrote:" do our citizens have the right to not be around other citizens who are carrying loaded guns"
Yes, stay home and don't call the cops. If an intruder breaks in, grab your scissors.
Seriously, there is not much in the way of reality or facts in all your words. I think Singapore might be to you liking.
@Brian, in fact the Fifth Amendment severely restricts the government against its citizens.
What you cite simply reflects the fact that the military deals with its own laundry in a different way than the ordinary citizen. Nothing more.
"Yeah, obviously by "Militia" they meant everyone alive who could pull a trigger."
In fact, you EXACTLY make my point which I have maintained all along.
The mention of the militia in the Second Amendment does NOT mean "everyone alive who could pull a trigger"; that a standing army is what is being referred to. But a standing army with a defenseless citizenry is an invitation to tyranny - and history - including the history with the Crown that the Founders knew, proves that over and over. That is why they included this protection: "A well regulated Militia (i.e. a standing army), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Makes complete and perfect sense. If the armed forces have arms, the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed.
ES, aka Beowulf, you've been making the same tired argument here for weeks. It doesn't make any sense ... unless you think the criminals will stay home with their guns as well! Shall we also ban smoking in public places? Say, in parks, or on the sidewalk? After all, I don't want anyone accidently blowing smoke in my face.