KevinG

The story was way too high concept for the Onion. The Onion specializes in the absurdity or irony of the mundane. While I liked the idea of the of the story, the writing was awful. It read more like bad short fiction rather then an actual news story. I mean 9 paragraphs in and then you get to the newsworthy portion (Rush Limbaugh is Andy Kaufman)? Talk about burying the lead.

I actually think the method is more harmful to the nation then Hagel himself. Hagel may not be the best candidate or whatever, but to hold a confirmation hostage is terrible. All confirmations should be based on the candidate's qualifications. If they are qualified vote yes, if not vote no. I also firmly believe a candidate's political views should not play into the confirmation. It is solely on qualifications. But this act by the GOP demanding something to end the filibuster is down right obscene. The more and more the GOP talks the sound like whiny petulant little children who are g

The gun debate in this and the other thread has become tiresome. I don't know why I get myself so worked up. I will never change anyones mind, nor will my mind be changed. Sigh Anyway, I love how the GOP obstructionist have come to a whole new level. I am talking about the Hagel nomination. For the first time in history a confirmation was held up by filibuster. And this was not because of questions on Hagel's qualifications, no it was an extortion vote. Refusing to vote until the White House provided additional information on Bengazi. Regardless of what you think happened in Bengazi

I would say that enforcement of current laws would be a great thing and would lead to less gun crime. It is really too bad that NRA has constantly and methodically taken the teeth out of the AFT's ability to enforce current laws. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

Last I checked the 2nd amendment does not read this: "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, as long as the arms are only handguns and rifles." I said before, I feel that a rocket launcher would be best for my needs. So again, why can't buy one?

It is a simple an honest question to try to point out the ridiculous nature of the pro gun argument "need" for assault and military weapons. I bet a rocket launcher would be fun to shoot, I think it would fulfill my needs to shoot whatever I like when I hunt or whatever. I want a rocket launcher. Why can't I buy a rocket launcher? Isn't the government infringing on my 2nd amendment rights by not letting me buy a rocket launcher? You have said yourself you don't need an assault rifle. But limiting your access is infringing on your rights. What is the difference with a rocket launcher

You can say it does, but really how does it? The second amendment says you have the right to bear arms. It does not specify what type of arms you can use. I can't buy a rocket launcher so does that infringe on my rights? The exemption is for law enforcement, people who are fully trained and licensed to use the weapons. It seems there is some paranoia creeping in. Law enforcement uses all kinds of stuff that the general citizenry cannot use and not uncommon. Really apples and oranges. There is no HIPA and medical privacy laws between a gun sell and buyer. And great

I am completely anti-gun and I don't want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed. I think a rethinking / or a reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is needed. Repeal not so much. F it, let's get into a debate on 2nd amendment. The second amendment says this: "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." The current crops of laws deal more with the type of weapons and how the weapons are bought rather then completely eliminating them. We can go round and round about the effect of these

If I sell my car to my neighbor, I have to file that sale with the state. There is a minimum a record of that sale. If I sell a gun to my neighbor no one knows. If the same laws for cars were applied to guns (titling, registration, licensing of users, training of users) would that be a bad thing? The back ground check would be done by the State. would it keep every gun out of the hands of people who would do harm with said gun? Does it inconvenience you as a gun owner? Is that inconvenience limit your rights? I hate the argument, that gun laws don't stop criminals from getting an

A lot of the pro gun ways of dealing with gun violence is a reactionary (conceal carry, armed security guards, panic rooms in schools, etc.) It does very little stop the violence before it starts. Admittedly all the gun laws in world would not stop this guy.

You are probably looking only at yourself. People still use the mail, to communicate, to receive goods and services. Not everyone has access to the internet, not everyone has access to FedEx and UPS. You might not appreciate the USPS, but there people who do. Personally, I use the USPS as little as possible. I get very little from it and I use it very little. But just because I don't use something, doesn't mean it is not an effective tool for others. Will there be a day when there is no need for the USPS, probably. But now and the near future there is a need for it (when is the Star

But my point being, the free market is not as altruistic as you make it out to be. It will not come in to service a need, it will only come in to make a profit. Where it does not see profit it will not go. And would you be willing to limit someone from a vital service just because of where they live? Mail in this case, internet is not a vital service, yet.

It is a nice sentiment, but not always true. If the free market can determine that it is not cost effective to do business in those areas they will not do so. Take for example high speed internet. My Uncle lives in the country, but only 20 miles from town and he cannot get high speed internet at his house. The cable, phone, etc simply do not see it as cost effective to run lines to his house (he did try satellite but it was too inconsistent and outrageously expensive). He is simply cannot get this service or afford the substandard service available to him. The "free market" has said that

you said, "At what point will the USPS have to say "we quit."? It's sad." I took that to mean if there is no USPS private companies would have to take up the slack (ie privatization of mail service). Unless you foresee a world with out mail service. This is why it is a bad idea: Believe it or not people still depend on the mail, many of these people are elderly and people who live in rural areas. These people do not use the internet or are unable to use the internet for communication. Privatization would lead to higher costs for people that live in these areas, or just plain refusal o

Well aren't you nice. Screw those people who live in rural areas. Agreed the USPS needs to go under changes, but privatization would be bad for the country.

losing the USPS would be a bad, bad, thing. The USPS provides a service to rural areas (many of the same areas that do not have access to the internet) at the same cost as it does to cities. If mail service was privatized do think they would charge the same to deliver a letter to Bumfuck Iowa as they would to a city?

In today's world, I don't think there is anytime where there is not a cell phone picture.

Crow that was a deep commitment, there is no way I get to that level of commitment, at this point, in discussing my beloved Cubbies. Though I will say this about this Cubs. They are not there yet, but I think they are better then people think. They have a young core, with experience. The bullpen is shaky at best and starting rotation, while not horrible, does not strike fear in opposing lineups. Also I think I am the only person in Chicago that likes Alfonso Soriano. This year will be one of his better years with the Cubs. He'll hit .300ish with 120 RBI and 36 HR. My prediction

I honestly don't get it. I don't get the cavalier attitude towards this violence. Two people where shot today in Texas, I am sure there were people that were shot else where. I am sure there are other horrible, horrible things happening around the world. It is fucking tragedy, and yet here we sit and bitch about our rights, blah blah blah. Can't you see our society is falling apart at the seams? We are talking as credible solution about putting panic rooms in our schools. PANIC ROOMS in our schools!!!!? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! What the hell is wrong with us that we have to consider t

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-texas-college-campus-reports-191439016.html Sigh, another day, another shooting. I am sure there were probably some not reported in other areas too. I would hope that there is one thing that we all can agree on, this is extremely depressing.

1) I agree with this, but at the end of your statement you dismiss your very idea. Just because something is hard we shouldn't try? 2) Ok yes assault weapons are a small portion of gun crimes. So that being the case hand guns are the largest. I don't think you are saying this and no one is talking about it (cause people would freak the f out), what about banning all hand guns? 3-5) It is incredibly sad and depressing where we have to talk about ideas like this. School should be the one place where our children should go and be safe without the threat of violence or the need to be pro

Well aren't you special. Satire is an effective way of presenting information. I thought it was concise, to the point, and funny. Too bad you won't even watch to. Oh well. Point being that many gun supporters call for enforcing current laws, while at the same time the NRA is hindering the enforcement of current laws. Well yes technically true, the school is a gun free zone, but Virginia Tech actually has an armed police force. Possibly true, I am not up on CT gun laws. So the mother presumably bought the gun in another state. But regardless of CT gun laws if the FEDERAL b

Because some people break laws, why should we even try to enforce them, or strengthen them? I think that is what you are saying. I previously posted a segment from John Stewart addressing what the problem with current gun laws are and why there is so much trouble with enforcing them in the first place, I suggest going back and watching that piece. You bring up good points about the Sandy Hook shooter, but you are refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, the weapon (AR15). If the federal assault weapon ban were still in place the mother could have never bought said weapon. The

If everyone was law-abiding and trustworthy we wouldn't need laws. If wishes were assholes everyone would have one. It is no good to deal in hypotheticals. There is a segment of the gun owning population who are convinced the government is going to try to take over whatever, and they need their guns to stop them. This is an irrational paranoia, this has been expressed (not to a huge extend, but yes expressed) in this board and more vocally in other places, often very loudly. As a gun advocate it is something you have to deal with. I have said before and I will say it again, you sound

But you then claimed something about how that .8 % murder rate is less than most of the world, which comparing two different things entirely. So people with conceal carry are less likely to commit murder, so what? As shown by my facts conceal carry does not make it safer. BTW I think conceal carry is a good thing if done properly with plenty of training etc. But if you throw out BS stats like that it ain't gonna fly.