Some people, including Joe the Plumber, just don't seem to understand how the US Senate works.
Bush ran up way too much debt by cutting taxes and not vetoing nearly enough bills from Congress, but apparently Joe the Plumber forgot how the serious attempt by Bush and the GOP to reform Social Security was wildly unpopular with every single Democrat and the majority of the American people. This is the same American people who love to whine about government spending but never want anything cut or reformed if it negatively affects them.
Hangnail is wrong about Notre Dame football, but he's right on about this. Every year it becomes more and more evident that there are more of them than there are of us. Look at Western Europe. That is our future.
This is the kind of reasoning the Democrats use for their anti-hunting and anti-gun bills and agenda.
There's no doubt that the rhetoric on all sides of the gun issue has left the building. But there is one thing we all agree on; the sort of people who committed the sort of mass murders we've seen recently in Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Ct. are mentally ill. Doing something like this simply doesn't occur to sane people. In fact this was one of the NRA's first assertions; that this is a mental health issue.
The outcry about guns today is really about how to end or at least minimize these bloody events. People just want to know that when they send their 6-year-old to school in the morning, they'll see them in the afternoon. Government exists to protect us--especially, from things like this. If the government did nothing in this pass, it simply would not be doing its job and would deserve to be called deaf, dumb, and blind to reality.
So how about this; since we can all agree that these disasters are committed by mentally ill people, how about making a mental health evaluation a condition for all gun permits, including the current owners of guns? Naturally, this couldn't be a one-time-only event, since people change over time. But it would do something about keeping guns out of the hands of madmen.
Would that stop someone from stealing weapons and using them? Nothing would. But would it do something to minimize the likelihood of these mass murders occurring again? I'd say yes. At a minimum, it could do no harm. And I think a proposal like this would attract wide-based support, except from people who consider their own government the enemy.
The question we need to ask about people with those beliefs is; would anything satisfy them? And if not; why should we listen to them, much less affect the conversation?