The gun purchase background checks proposed in the Manchin-Toomey amendment are supported by over 90 percent of Americans. So why couldn't this proposal even pass the Democrat-controlled Senate? We're living under minority rule, and there are a few culprits.
Ending the filibuster should be a national rallying cry. No issue with 90 percent national support should be able to be defeated in the U.S. Senate.
To understand how the Senate failed to pass the most basic, watered down attempt to strengthen background checks on gun purchases, you have to go back to the assault weapons ban of 1994.
Many taxpayers are tired of supporting a government that spends enormous amounts of money but can't take the most basic steps to protect them and their children from harm.
Savvy men wear their guns in the house. It's called "home carry." Why should you unstrap that Glock just because you've kissed the wife and kids and hung up your coat? This was a suggestion offered to me recently with complete sincerity.
Fight for more sensible laws regulating firearms we must. We may also need to accept the possibility that we people in the U.S. like to kill each other with guns more than people in many other parts of the world do.
At CPAC 2013, I tried to ask National Rifle Association President David Keene one question, but was thwarted by his Director of Public Affairs and security entourage. It quickly occurred to me that Mr. Keene would not answer any of my questions.
Conventional wisdom continues to hold that, while the vast majority of Americans support universal background checks, in many areas it is still smart politics not to antagonize the NRA and their relatively small number of very passionate -- supporters. Conventional wisdom is wrong.
For well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of gun manufacturers.
The last thing we need are more laws dictating who can bring how much TNT to which sporting events. Criminals are going to find a way to bring them anyway. Heck, you should see the jackets I own.
The leadership of the NRA is exceptionally fond of the Slippery Slope argument. Problem number one with this slide down the fearsome slope is how much weaponry has changed since the days of militias with muskets.
Before the bombings, there were shootings. After the bombings, there'll be more shootings. This one was taped pre-Boston. For all the victims of viole...
A debate about background checks is something of a lose-lose proposition for advocates of gun regulation. If that proposal fails, it will be extremely difficult to pass any laws regulating gun ownership, but if it passes it will not be a big victory.
The Second Amendment is safe. The American people are not. Criminal background checks are a reasonable and sane way to reduce US gun slaughter while maintaining the right to bear arms.
Eliot Spitzer and Mary Matalin clash over four hot topics: Can Weiner run after his spectacle of contrition? Does dynasty = destiny for Caroline, Chelsea, Hillary? Is Obama now entitled to a grand bargain? Will Newtown parents out-lobby the NRA?
To trust the common man with the right to keep and bear arms is emblematic of the kind of nation we intended ourselves to be, a democracy in which governance is in the purview of that same man.