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.
Notice how the pro-gun rhetoric is wearing thin as the talking points become ever more specious, tenuous, ludacrous and impractical as more extreme talking points are issued by ultra fascists and commercial interests. The thugs who hide behind Nazified names on this site (probably paid trolls) simply bully with audacity, ignorance and cruelty.
These are caricatures who post without benefit of flesh and blood identity behind their words, but only the repetition of a salespitch. Many times they omit part of their laundry list like Rick Perry. It is doubtful they can afford guns and ammo. No anecdotes or life experience are shared to support their positions. Their links are right wing garbage and outtakes from other material. Libertines tend to shop from the Constitution saying they'll obey this but not that, and they change according to issue discussed. Today they have insisted that the body of the Constitution bears no relation to the Bill of Rights. Absurd, right?
DRShow moderators: Can you not see how they obfuscate discussion and waste time? I am willing never to post here again if you'll only delete the nihilists.
At 2pm today Science Friday had an instructive discussion about how inappropriate ideological statements and nonsense have no place in scientific discussion on the Internet. Please listen DRShow staff and get a clue. If you are to uphold your educational mission you must moderate pointless material and delete trash. If this were a public meeting someone would be pounding the gavel and forcibly ejecting the provocateurs. Such permissiveness as you've allowed may lead to violence or domestic terrorism. My identity is plain and I'm easy to find.
That's the Rankin way, and has been for centuries.
Did you have a bad day?
Pancake Rankin wrote: "Please listen DRShow staff and get a clue. If you are to uphold your educational mission you must moderate pointless material and delete trash'
Sounds like you're asking to have your posts deleted. Calling for more censoring PR? Didn't you call someone a Nazi for that? Oh, that's right, anyone who is not in LOCK STEP with your jackboots is a Nazi or a fascist. Can you say "issues"
Gee! I wonder why the US even has a Supreme Court.......we have all these "amazing" right wing nut Constitutional lawyers in here blogging away "correcting" anyone who dares to contradict their own stance.
Heaven forbid that the MSM or NPR or Diane or one of her guests offers a contrary opinion. FYI the 2nd Amendment was written during slave owning times. To say that it applies to minorities cannot logically have been in the minds of the founders unless there was a time machine involved.
ECG wrote that in 2nd Amend “well-regulated militia” meant “standing Army”
Militia did not mean “standing army"
Militia in colonial times meant “organization of folks with limited training available for emergency service, usually for local defense“. In colonial America, it was only defense against hostile Indians when Brits weren’t around.
In Revolution, the militia (Minutemen) initially provided the bulk of the American forces until formation of standing (Continental) army, after which militia mostly kept order locally.
Shortly before Constitutional Convention there was uprising- Shay’s Rebellion. These folks were P.O.‘ed about fiscally harsh government policies, taxes etc.
A militia was raised to put down rebellion which offered scattered resistance for almost a year.
U.S. Constitution: “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia of for three specific missions, "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
The militia was there for the use of Federal Government in time of need …
Not to act as a source of terrorism against our own Government should whim arise.
Period.
Pancake wrote: “state "militias" were slavehunters and stood ready to put down slave rebellions.”
True- this seems to be militia’s most significant contribution to society between War of 1812 and Civil War.
"Today they have insisted that the body of the Constitution bears no relation to the Bill of Rights."
That's a lie, Pancake. And you know it.
"DRShow moderators: Can you not see how they obfuscate discussion and waste time? I am willing never to post here again if you'll only delete the nihilists."
I don't think you mean that, Pancake. Do you even know what the word means?
"a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths "
That describes liberals to a T, and most would even own that appelation.
"Please listen DRShow staff and get a clue. If you are to uphold your educational mission you must moderate pointless material and delete trash".
Uhhh ... Pancake, that would eliminate every post you've ever made.
"If this were a public meeting someone would be pounding the gavel and forcibly ejecting the provocateurs. Such permissiveness as you've allowed may lead to violence or domestic terrorism."
A bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say? Earth to Pancake ... it's a MESSAGE BOARD.
The problem with most liberals is they don't know how to persevere in making an argument and continue to defend it. That's often because their positions prove to be indefensible. So they give up and beg board moderators to silence the opposition. Or they beg the opposition to "leave them alone". Sad.
Dan wrote:
“I believe brevity of 2nd amendment was intentional, and quite clear on it's intent. With computer there is just no excuse for not being able to understand it quite easily.”
2nd amendment is brief, but ambiguous.
I’ve got a computer- it’s not hard to figure that out.
If you’re mind is closed, a computer is fully capable of taking you to sources that match your opinion.
You may not have noticed, but in Info Age there still remains lots of disagreement on lots of issues.
In Dan’s & ECG’s first heartwarming posts of the day they spoke of Gabby not possessing qualifications to testify. Legislation should not be based on emotion.
Right or wrong, legislation is often based on emotion. After 9/11 Congress pushed through some pretty questionable legislation. On other hand, sometimes it takes an emotional event to trigger reasonable legislation long overdue. If having 20 times the gun murder rate of rest of developed nations is not enough, then bring on some emotional testimony.
And if Gabby wants to testify after all she’s been through, let her do so.
Dan thinks it’s “sleazy” bringing out gun victims. What’s kind of sleazy IMO is when a new poster comes on (Zinnia) to make a heartfelt comment about appreciating what Gabby represents and you knock her down for it.
Then again maybe that’s just my emotions speaking.
Honest Abe:
Actually, it’s a little known fact, but the founders DID have a Time Machine handy.
That’s why they were well aware of the types of weapons available today, and set the constitution in stone with no chance of future interpretation.
God forbid anyone should attempt to act to slow down a trend of senseless murder today, because of what someone interprets today of their thoughts in the time of bows, arrows, muskets, horses, and lots of farm land.
I wonder that it might be sometimes a bit disheartening for DR& Co when they put together a very informative show shedding light on lots of subjects, with guests of distinction, and then look at a comments page where it might seem at times that they never said a thing.
Hopefully it’s enough that the callers so often show their appreciation.
Great show today!
"Militia did not mean “standing army""
Fair enough. Very poorly stated. I was trying to differentiate for Brian and did not make myself clear.
Oh ... and as for Pancake Rankin, let's make sure we get the full effect of his statement shall we?
"The state "militias" were slavehunters and stood ready to put down slave rebellions." Now was this a "standing militia" or just a ragtag bunch of vigilantes? I've heard that assertion repeated many times, but I've never found it substantiated anywhere, so for now, why don't we just call it "hyperbole". At that, of course you know that militias were used for many purposes as the needs changed.
"Not to act as a source of terrorism against our own Government should whim arise."
And yet, you continue to perpetuate this false meme. Why Drew Kelly?
Here's a simple question for you Drew Kelly ... why do you think there is a second amendment? Or, better put, why do you think the Framers were concerned about infringement?
"What’s kind of sleazy IMO is when a new poster comes on (Zinnia) to make a heartfelt comment about appreciating what Gabby represents and you knock her down for it. "
What's kind of sleazy IMO is when a poster comes along to misrepresent the posts of others.
"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. "
That's a true statement whether you like it or not. By the way, I notice you throw out the "sometimes it takes an emotional event to trigger reasonable legislation long overdue", but we don't get a single example of that ... and, you have substitued an "emotional event" for "emotional testimony". No one is claiming that the AZ shooting was not an emotional event, Drew Kelly.
And for the third time ..."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?"
It didn't come up today but Gabby Giffords is now a political activist, as such she is open to full criticism just like any other political action committee. You better believe she is going to use pity to her advantage at every opportunity to push a political agenda.
Gabby Giffords' New Firearms Reform PAC Goes Viral
"Launched symbolically two days ago on the second anniversary of the brutal shooting that seriously wounded US. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, the new Americans For Responsible Solutions PAC is promising to “launch a national dialogue and raise funds to counter influence of the gun lobby.”
As a member of the "gun lobby" I think I have a pretty good idea what is meant by "counter influence".
On the comments made that Walmart was bowing to pressure on limiting guns sales by limiting ammunition sales. There is a shortage of ammunition right now because of all the people who are stockpiling. Walmart has limited ammunition sales in the past when there was a shortage. Walmart is just doing what they have to do keep their regular ammunition customers happy and then they are presenting it to the rest of their customers as sensitivity to the gun control issues being discussed and all of your guests are falling for it.
Drew Kelly wrote: "I wonder that it might be sometimes a bit disheartening for DR& Co when they put together a very informative show shedding light on lots of subjects, with guests of distinction, and then look at a comments page where it might seem at times that they never said a thing.
Hopefully it’s enough that the callers so often show their appreciation"
It's a liberal show Drew, so there is not much I'm going to agree with. I show my appreciation by listening to it almost daily. As far as shedding light on topics, I would say that light source is creating many shadows and it is my pleasure to point them out. If anything my beliefs are thoroughly tested in the process, I'm not into self deception. In my opinion this comment board gives Diane at least some credibility as fair minded and I thank her for it. I tried a couple other comment boards, they were so restrictive that they were in the end a total waste of time, they lost me as a consumer and a participant. It's not very interesting anyway if everyone agrees and spits out the same "gee whiz, it's says "well regulated" lets regulate it"
I hope you have at least noticed that gun control has been over emphasized by Diane, it's something of a cause célèbre for her, me too for that matter.
U.S. Constitution reads: “Congress is granted the power to use militia for 3 specific missions:
**“.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
This sheds light on 2nd Amendment:
“(Because) of need for a (disciplined, trained) militia (in order to protect our country in time of need), the right to bear arms should not be infringed”.
They were granting the privilege of bearing arms SPECIFICALLY so “well-disciplined” folks would be prepared to aid our nation in time of need -
**at DISCRETION OF CONGRESS.
To put another way- "if you are not ready and willing to defend the needs of your own gov, then you need not own a gun."
This flies in face of the strange argument made by many gun-touting folks that founders intent was to allow people the privilege of gun ownership so as to fortify themselves AGAINST possible excesses of our own gov.
Why is this relevant today? Because many folks seem to hide behind false interpretation of constitution, to be hostile towards OUR OWN GOVERNMENT in order to justify need of weapons capable of dozens of bullets in short period of time- "AW's", multiple round clips.
Dan
Everybody’s got a right to their opinion.
One of mine is that it SEEMS at times that some right-wing posters help create an environment on this page where well-meaning folks might be a bit intimidated to post ANYTHING lest y’all “pounce” on them
Just my opinion- and I’m not always right.
Meanwhile I think I’ve submitted my quota of posts for this week.
Drew Kelly,
You don't answer the question. Why the concern about infringement? Your conclusion that the second amendment exists to make sure the militia is availble, begs the question "why is such an amendment mixed in with a bunch of other amendments specifically provided to afford protection of the citizens against tyranny?
"Because many folks seem to hide behind false interpretation of constitution, to be hostile towards OUR OWN GOVERNMENT "
FALSE. And by now, you g.d. well ought to know it. Protection against tyranny is DIFFERENT than "being hostile towards our own government".
Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Drew Kelly, I suggest you broaden your horizons by studying the founding of our country focusing on a single notion; personal freedom. You are sadly lacking in understanding there.
"It's not very interesting anyway if everyone agrees and spits out the same ..."
It's the firehouse effect, Dan D. Where everybody thinks alike, nobody thinks very much ... and that seems to be the way the lefties here like it.
A person can be a victim AND a survivor. Being a victim does not mean one is powerless.
I welcomed Ms. Gifford's statement.
Would that everyone with a medical problem would receive the quality of care that she did.
For those who prefer an expert's well researched thoughts about the 2nd Amendment please check out Fordham Prof. Saul Cornell's writings. Was it just happenstance that I heard the interview on CBC radio rather than a U.S. station? www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2013/01/20/second-amendment-hr-1/
ECG @ 10:44a- "The problem with most liberals is..." Where is the evidence?
ECG: I don’t want to wear out my welcome on this page. You make some good points now and again, BUT (quickly):
Your 2 questions to me don’t seem to bear extraordinary relevance.
Why is 2nd amendment In Bill of Rights?- Perhaps because they were addressing issue concerning a civilian right? Maybe? The word IS used in the amendment.
Infringement? Could it be they used the word infringement, because they were aware lots of folks already owned guns?
Next time.
About Gifford's, someone commented that the left and the right put up sympathetic characters like Gifford's at congressional hearings to sway votes. She is a former democrat congress woman with a D rating from the NRA, now she has a political action committee with a pro gun control agenda. Can anyone think of a republican equivalent? Seems all the sobbing "victims" at these kind of social issue hearings are democrats. Am I wrong?
@Drew Kelly
Not relevant? Are you kidding me?! OK, let me rephrase to be more clear WHY they are relevant,
You conclude that the second amendment exists to make sure the militia is availble. Such a provision can only exist to ensure the government that it has the resources available to fulfill its responsibility to protect itself (in the case of insurrection) and/or its citizens. So by your reckoning, the second amendment is given in the interest of the government, of the people only very indirectly, and is completely incongruous with the other nine. The other nine amendments are specifically put in place to put limits upon what the government can do vis a vis its citizens; speech, quarter, search, due process, speedy trial, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, retention of unenumerated rights by the people, preservation of rights by the people and the states. These all prevent the government from becoming tyrannical against its citizens. Now you state that "Congress is granted the power to use militia for 3 specific missions: to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." So with that preface, I'll ask again, why is such an amendment, which, under your interpretation in fact guarantees that the government has a mechanism to act, potentially, against its citizens, mixed in with a bunch of other amendments specifically provided to afford protection of the citizens against tyranny?
In fact, I would argue, that's precisely WHY the amendment contains the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (read: own and carry), shall not be infringed".
ecgberht2 wrote: "Not relevant"
He just doesn't care. Sheeple! Fight against tyranny? man, that sounds like a lot of work. Everything is too much work these days for way too many. No savings, government dependency. This country deserves Obama.
ECG:
2nd amendment is ambiguous. Unfortunately bonehead (oops, I mean) honorable Scalia has had last word- for now.
Constitution: “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia of for 3 specific missions, "… to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, & repel invasions."
2nd Amend:“(Because) of need for (disciplined, trained) militia (in order to protect our country in time of need- see above), the right to bear arms should not be infringed”.
Unless you can provide different sources somewhere in Constitution, a safe conclusion is that in 2nd amend, founders were granting the privilege of gun ownership, so folks would be “well prepared” to come to the aid of our nation in time of need (suppress insurrection [such as Shay’s rebellion], repel invaders).
I suppose one could “intuit” that an armed civilian population would be hard to “push around”, if you like, but nothing in constitution speaks to conditions that would approve hostility against our own government.
There IS a word for that though.
Treason
Hey Dan,
Appreciate the thumbs up you gave DR Show.
Now I guess you go back to your cussin'.
"but nothing in constitution speaks to conditions that would approve hostility against our own government.
There IS a word for that though.
Treason"
You just don't quit with that strawman, do you Drew Kelly?
"Protection against tyranny is DIFFERENT than 'being hostile towards our own government'. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest."
"A safe conclusion?" "granting the privelege of gun ownership"? Are you kidding me? FIrst the ones granted the "privelege" are the PEOPLE - that's EVERYONE, not just those eligble or willing to be part of the militia, and second, they have the "privelege" to both keep and BEAR arms.
And you still have not answered the key question. I believe it is because you do not have an answer; why is such an amendment, which, under your interpretation in fact guarantees that the government has a mechanism to act, potentially, against its citizens, mixed in with a bunch of other amendments specifically provided to afford protection of the citizens against tyranny? And in case you have doubts about the PURPOSE of the amendments, I remind you of this comentary from the archives .gov website which places the amendments in their proper context. The second is one of those amendments and therefore must be interpreted in that context.
concl.
"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. "
In that context, the amendment is anything BUT ambiguous. 'Because the members of a militia will be armed (as provided by Article II), the PEOPLE have a right to be armed as well'.
ECG:
Don’t you see that there is thin line between “protection against tyranny” and “hostility against government” for real or imagined grievance. It’s a slippery slope.
Someone, let’s say less educated, or who lived by talk radio, may conclude that “hostility” was an adequate response to alleged “tyranny”.
AND “protection against tyranny” is also “straw man”. Show me where it appears in Constitution.
“privilege of gun ownership…” your mincing words. Of course I meant the PEOPLE. Keep and bear arms?? Of course… what did you think I was insinuating they pass them out when militia is called to duty or something- Lighten up.
Amendment is in BofR because it is a right granted citizens- with an added stipulation that the reason was so as to be ready to defend one’s country when time arises.
“Protection from tyranny” is a stipulation you are reading in to it. It’s NOT THERE.
It does not read:
“So as to protect our selves in case of tyrannical government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It reads:
"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."
Read the words for God’s sake. Don’t invent something not there.
You maintain: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” EQUALS “So as to protect our selves in case of tyrannical government,”
That’s QUITE a leap…..
and a dangerous one at that.