Apparently the NRA has quite a choke hold on the Senate, or should I say a gun to their head?
I can’t fathom how conducting a background check on someone buying a gun is a bad idea.
I can’t understand how a background check for an instrument of death infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
I know from talking to people that buying a gun is easy. A guy I met who was an immigrant bought a hand gun from a store in Oregon. No problem he told me; but it was a problem, because people here on green cards are not allowed to own a hand gun. I don’t know if there is a hole in the background checks that are in place, or if a gun shop owner just bypasses the system to make a buck.
But the Senators who argued against the check legislation asserted that doing checks won’t solve a tragedy like Sandy Hook. They’re right, checks would not have stopped that lunatic mother from buying a bunch of guns for her disturbed son to kill with. But I don’t agree that this is a reason to vote against.
Background checks for gun owners are a good thing unless we want anyone and everyone to be able to buy a gun. That is the situation we have.
I always find it comic to listen to politicians who say that solution A which they voted down is not as good as solutions X,Y and Z which they assert is where the effort should be focused.
It’s funny to me because they are the people in a position to write legislation to enact solutions X,Y and Z which they have not done and have not even talked about until A hit the table.
Gun smoke and mirrors and alphabet soup for the soul-less.
The truth I see is that the NRA bought the vote. Nobody I’ve talked to about this issue thinks background checks are a bad idea for gun shows and online purchases.
Obama is and should be angry. His team failed.
What if kim jong un thinks his role in history is to ignite the cold war and provoke both sides to finish it? Is he really just trying to get attention by saber rattling with nuclear weapons? Is this that simple?
In my lifetime only once did any country dare to threaten our safety with nuclear weapons. The Cuban missile crisis ended when our President said here is the line, cross it and you’ve got an all out war.
Korea wasn’t the last location that Communism and Capitalism clashed on a major scale; it was in Vietnam unless I am mistaken. In Asia, Capitalism fought to a stalemate in Korea, and lost in Vietnam. Is it any wonder that kim jong un is emboldened?
Is it possible that kim jong un’s goal is really to deal Capitalism its second defeat? What he thinks will be a final defeat? What if he thinks his role is to provoke a nuclear war between China and the US? What if the crazy little bastard really thinks his role is to sacrifice his people on the headstone of Capitalism?
This youngster owns nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them. He has control of a powerful army. I wonder if he is really one in control; after all, with powerful generals in the shadows behind him, kim jong un may not be the man we’re really threatened by at all.
Barack Obama said Kamala Harris is good looking, then pundit bowels everywhere convulsed with simultaneous delight.
These small spiny egos spewing their self-purging effluent cannot get over being butt-ugly and/or having no redeeming quality that could ever merit a compliment.
This compliment proves our President can see.
Yet, warped people seek to turn his compliment into a device of suppression representative of a larger systemic suppression of female ambition and God-given rights to equal treatment and opportunity.
It is true that an erection compliments a woman’s beauty while ignoring her genius. But erections rise before beauty, not by a stance on immigration.
Should pundits not wait to defend a person they believe is aggrieved, until that person says they are aggrieved?
Neither should give a rip about the pundits. But Obama may have to some explaining to do with Mrs. Obama.