jack b

They couldn't block Obamacare. They didn't retake the Senate. They lost the Supreme Court decision and they lost the Presidential election.

Doesn't it remind anyone of the kid who doesn't get his way on the ball field who storms home with the ball?

There are reported to be over 90 million gun owners in the US (I am one of them) and the NRA claims a membership of 4 million (only 4.4%). Millions of dollars a year flow into the NRA bank accounts from "Corporate Partners" in the firearms manufacturing business who have an interest in getting legislation passed or blocked that ultimately helps gun sales. This is done through lobbying Congress and supporting sympathetic candidates. Do you feel that the NRA has done a good job of representing your interests or simply the interests of big gun business?

First of all, I'm a gun owner. Without going to extremes on either side, aren't there things that both sides of this issue can agree upon? For instance, the problem seems to me to be how can we keep criminals and the mentally ill from getting weapons? I'm sure, for instance, that the guns used in shootings in Chicago did not originate there, but in states that have little or no background checks. In some places, you can walk into a gun show and buy as many as you can pay for without anybody blinking an eye, drive to Chicago and sell them out of the trunk of your car. So when I hear that gun control laws (like background checks) don't work because cities like Chicago where there are strict controls have high gun violence rates, I find this argument a bit disingenuous. I'm sure that every decent citizen, gun owner and non-gun owner alike, want to keep guns from the hands of these people. How about some real ideas from the gun lobby and the President on how to accomplish this without threatening anyone's rights?

Why don't we put the responsibility of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the insane on the NRA? It's obvious that law enforcement or the politicians don't have any answers, so what do the 2nd Amendment advocates suggest? Other than arming everyone. Because I'm really tired of listening to gun advocates passing the buck.

Especially when they have done everything they could to stop health care legislation. Seems to me they are willing to direct the focus in any direction they find convenient, especially away from gun control legislation.

After all, it is my "right to bear arms" - 2nd amendment. Or a sub-machine gun. Or a bazooka. Why does a ban on assault weapons = taking away 2nd amendment rights???

What do we do if a library is attacked next? What about playgrounds, churches, hospitals? Theaters, ball fields, and summer camps? Where does the insanity end? Do you want to trade your liberty to live a peaceful life for the so-called "right" to own handguns and assault weapons? Wake up America! My right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness is more sacred than your right to own a "Bushwacker".

What I had in mind is 10 years in jail for possessing an illegal weapon, life without parole for a crime involving a weapon. Any opinions?

People are saying that those who have been demanding stronger gun control are being political. Isn't it simply "justified outrage"? We are angry about this. We are angry at ourselves for being silent on this issue too long. The war against handguns and assault weapons has begun.

Little by little I get the feeling that we are all in for a big surprise once he takes office. Kind of reminds me of Scott Brown, appeasing the conservatives long enough to get the nomination and then selling out to the liberal agenda.

They said that they are more-or-less finished if they lose this election. Does this bode badly for the future of the party and what will take its place if they are right?

If all 47% of those who don't pay Federal Income tax are voting for Obama already (according to Romney) how many of those who do pay taxes does he expect to vote for Obama? None? Seems a little idealistic, don't you think? Does he really divide us up that way?

Is it the person making $20,000 a year who might not pay Federal Income tax but who do pay other types of taxes like sales tax, excise tax, payroll tax, fees (like car registration etc). Or is it the multimillionaire who is able to legally avoid paying taxes by using tax shelters, off-shore accounts, and other legal loop-holes. Again, I'm talking about "percentage of income" which I think should include any capital gain on investments for this argument.

Based on what you remember about their styles and abilities, how will Romney and Obama do against each other?

How Mitt he expect to distance himself from a scheme he came up with? If he keeps this issue at the center of his campaign, he will certainly lose.

If you don't have insurance or any money, they just would throw you out in the street. Then there would be no need for Obamacare. Because I think this is the obvious alternative to the current health care law, perhaps someone on the right could enlighten me on how they would continue to pay for those who are being treated without paying.

First, the right-wingers rejected the idea of a competitive low cost "public option" because they said it was "socialism". Then they complain when insurance is too expensive to buy. When people can't or don't buy health insurance, they go to the emergency room and get treated at my expense (a taxpayer). Why is it so outrageous about a penalty or tax to defray these costs those people put on the government?

Sean Hannity was kissing Jason Mattera's *** on Monday for getting a "hard-hitting" interview with Bono. The only problem was that it was a Bono impersonator! Ha!