I think you’ve got that backwards. It *might* actually prevent someone with a history of mental problems who was suicidal from getting a weapon.

Less likely, it *might* prevent someone emotionally hyped into a plan for individual murder from purchasing a weapon (although, not based on any particular logic) … having a cool-off waiting period is more likely to reduce this type of violence.

When it comes to someone who’s planning mass murder? No way in hell a background check is going to stop them. A gun is simply the instrument of convenience. It’s not like someone’s going to say “Oh … I can’t buy a gun here, OK, I’ll forget the whole thing.” The damage in Boston came from a bomb assembled from near-impossible to track common items … not the single Ruger 9mm handgun everyone is hyping (which, BTW, shouldn’t be able to penetrate police body armor FWIW).

If anything, restricting guns should just shift those with the psychological profile away from a first-thought of shooting in the direction of bombing as go-to approach. I think the AMAZING success this bombing had in shutting down an entire city and crippling wider swaths of our nation will probably start to shift things that direction anyhow.

Background checks and other restrictions are not going to make crazy people any less crazy. Unless we actually commit money to TREATING our mentally ill (rather than trying to prevent our crazies from getting their hands on stuff) and proactively reaching out to the disaffected, we’re going to continue to have these types of incidents. Period. In a world where, by policy, we’re agreeing to leave pretty much every root-cause unaddressed, I’m honestly more comfortable with the idea of shooters than bombers.

So, are you really advocating the removal of constitutional rights with no more due process than some mid-level official somewhere deciding to put one’s name on a list?

My understanding was that many Firepups were actually against the idea of a secret list-based approach to deciding whom in our nation is restricted from their freedoms.

The stupidity is in the lists themselves as currently conceived and implemented … expanding that worthless piece of shit to ineffectually (and randomly) take away even more freedoms is doubling down on stupid.

You might as well just say every identified Muslim, all liberal activists … plus anyone brown who rocks the boat … should be prohibited from having firearms.

That seems a fair assessment in general. The question is, why would Obama specifically set things up to see this issue remain lingering as a focal point of political discussion? What does the administration have to gain by maintaining a context in which to wrap himself in a blatantly “progressive” cause? The most progressivest liberal ev-ar.

Hate to seem paranoid, but my take is that they are keeping the issue “hot” as an attempt at inoculation (or at least buffer) from leftern challenge when it comes time to get Obama’s grand bargain done. Of course he’s progressive – GUN CONTROL – so clearly he’s just being pragmatic trying to work with the GOP on “entitlements” … not like the “professional left” and ideologues who’d wreck the Democrats if allowed to steer the ship.

We’ve seen this unfold more than once now. A similar dynamic seemed to be behind why he didn’t just use his CIC powers to resolve DADT (or at least accept the court ruling which should have ended it) – the issue was more useful for the administration’s objectives left unresolved. There are only so many things Obama is able to do which don’t actually impact any of his paymasters to claim a “progressive” label – he can’t just go burning through his cover by getting shit done.

For the record, what the gun lobby convinced pro-gun voters of is that the Amendment was a slippery slope to creating a national registry of (legal) gun owners. Ultimately, time might be on the side of this becoming a prevailing view.

They were able to do this effectively within the pro-gun activist core in no small part because many advocates of tougher legislation were explicitly arguing that anyone against such a database was a paranoid right-wing militant hording weapons to use against the federal government (or to kill decent liberals and children). The other main line of argument by advocates pressing for the strongest outcome was typically that without such a central database the policy would be dang near useless.

In other words, it was pretty easy to point to the words of people who have vocally been advocating for background checks to assert that the policy’s ultimate intent was to create a centralized database – and using a couple of “clean” moderates to avoid it being associated with the political taint of those who legitimately hold strong positions. Neither Toomey nor Manchin are credible defenders of the 2nd Amendment when it comes right down to it … they were selected because of their perceived lack of baggage on the issue with the wider electorate (expect a similar tactic when they come down to cutting Social Security).

I’m one who is not in favor of warehousing the background check requests, and all and all I personally thought the amendment was decent. But I totally understand how they sold folks who share my concerns on not supporting the legislation. It’s a minor quibble, but an important one, IMO.

Yes. It’s batshit insane that on a thread about Max Baucus’ retirement announcement … there is NOT ONE criticism of the current luminaries from the GOP. Thank goodness you brought that up – the glaring lack of balance is dang near unconscionable.

What HAS this world come to? Clearly the only thing left to do is to start drinking heavily and loudly swearing at offensively shaped clouds as they drift past … OH SHIT, there’s one that looks like Ronald Reagan’s hairdo now! … Go to hell you union-busting mullet!

Wondered what Baucus was going to do. It’s always kind of seemed Schweitzer was positioning to challenge for the seat. Looks like Baucus doesn’t want to face a primary fight (one I can’t see him winning). This should probably be characterized as the *process* of Schweitzer quietly clearing the field – Baucus was really his only viable adversary. I read this as meaning it’s almost certain Schweitzer is going to declare in the near future.

As far as the seat goes, Schweitzer is the most popular politician in Montana (and one of the few I genuinely like). I don’t think the Montana GOP has anyone who can touch him. I see that as a good thing. He’s (at this point) pretty clean – and willing to think outside the box to solve problems(and actually implement). Sometimes I don’t like his solutions – but I get the sense he arrives at them honestly. My biggest complaint that he’s a bit overly loyalist … or at least over-eager when it comes to pleasing national Dems.

You are clearly forgetting about Pamela Geller.

It was from the Watertown police chief. He says the kid ran over his brother, drove two blocks (with an indeterminate number of vehicles in pursuit), ditched the Mercedes and ran off into the night.

A more interesting tidbit in that segment was Wolf Blitzer casually asking if Dzhokhar had been wearing an explosive vest “like his brother did”. I’ve seen nothing to indicate there was an explosive vest involved. Right after the question, the police chief tried to talk about the Tamerlan arrest … and Blitzer hurried him on. Later in the segment when the chief was asked to list the explosives recovered, he indicated all of them were recovered from the initial scene and there was no mention of an explosive vest at all – just the pipe bombs.

So … basically, CNN is telling everyone the older brother was strapped with a suicide vest and as for the younger one, in the words of Wolf: “so, basically you are saying he killed his own brother then?” One is demonstratively not true, the other still highly questionable.

As for the police chief … he didn’t seem to know diddly/squat except for what he had been told. It was pretty obvious he was struggling to accurately relay a script. There were definitely some squishy parts … such as the mystery of a second vehicle magically in the brother’s possession during the shootout, for example. For almost every specific question he was falling back on quoting other agencies. If there’s a grand conspiracy, I think his role is probably that of mushroom.

Unless you believe the statement put out by the State Police at the time the stay-indoors “request” was lifted instead. That interview was from today?

http://www.newser.com/article/da5osa6g0/state-police-say-boston-bombing-suspect-fled-on-foot-no-indication-he-has-vehicle.html

The idea that he fled on foot and ended up several blocks away hiding in a boat makes more sense than him driving off in a *known* car with swarming police arriving from every direction and somehow avoiding a car chase … then managing to ditch it (after driving a couple blocks?), get far enough away from the vehicle to not give is position away and hide in a boat. Where did they find the Mercedes?

And then there is the doctor’s account. He explicitly says there were no injuries consistent with being run over by a vehicle at all.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/er_doctor_bombing_suspect_died_at_hospital

The only thing for certain in my mind is that none of the stories are adding up at all.

Can’t disagree with that. I think the real coup was in getting Democrats to start calling it liberal.

I reach this conclusion for the same reason many Democrats in congress have been really hesitant to remove the procedure. Because I foresee a situation where the tactic might be all that saves our ass from some really shitty legislating.

It’s going to be really tough to get 60 for cutting social security. Why the hell would I foment for a rules change at the very moment when the rules appear to break in our favor on an important issue for once? I’m perfectly happy waiting a couple more months until after the budget battle.

George Bush, of course.

That’s my take on it too. Although, I don’t think people give enough thought to how much the fact that O is with the takers is a factor in the fact that Reid is not effectively challenging the direction things are being pushed.

I guess we can’t rule out that he’s turned far more corrupt in the last few years or something, as others have speculated. But IMO, one of the biggest reasons Reid is not able to fight directly and aggressively is because, ultimately, the battle he would be facing – before ever having a chance to square off against the GOP part of the problem – would be an internal war against Obama’s political machine. He must realize it would tear the Democratic party, which he has spent a lifetime building up, to pieces. Seems a hell of a spot for the guy who’s job is to hold the Senate caucus together.

I agree with those who have observed that Obama is by far the most effective evil.

If the context is limited to machinations in the senate, isn’t this article conveniently forgetting that Reid has, in fact, followed through and used the “nuclear option” in the reasonably recent past? It was employed late in 2011 … during a seemingly mundane debate relating to Chinese currency. In that case, Reid really did eliminate a significant tool of the minority – seemingly in response to McConnell repeatedly breaking the operating agreement they had in place at the time (mocked here, I believe).

It it certainly arguable that the move didn’t change much, but considering Reid actually *did* invoke the procedure previously (deftly enough to produce relatively miniscule blowback, BTW) … if the issue is really about appointments, shouldn’t McConnell at least ponder the idea Reid might follow through again?

I’m with those who are concerned about this in the context of Obama’s latest gambit to cut social security though. Based on past discussion (and stated justification), one would initially imagine that the filibuster would be narrowly reformed in relation to executive appointments – like the GOP threatened to do back in the Bush days. OTOH, if they decided to expand reforms to include debate on budgets and such, that would likely put the nail in the coffin of our national social support infrastructure sooner rather than later.

We’ve dealt with it this long … maybe it’s better to keep the filibuster as it is for a while longer.

I watched Wyden’s question time. IMO, it is overstating the case somewhat to say he was there offering support. Threading the needle would be my description.

He essentially offered praise to Paul for being worried about the issue. Then he proceeded to assert Holder’s memo seemed plenty clear and should be interpreted as providing the promises Rand Paul was seeking. Wyden concluded by turning it into a question along the lines of “Why isn’t this good enough for you?”

I’m not sure exactly what his objectives were. Either he was lobbing Paul a soft-ball that provided the context to respond to an argument being made by Obama’s supporters (which Paul did well) … or he was there legitimately promoting the argument. I’d like to believe the former, but my gut instinct tells me the latter is probably more accurate.

Really nice work DS. The absence of notes related to JSTOR seems really strange. What agency would/could the DoJ use to do an investigation and build such a case if they weren’t using the FBI?

FYI, you totally got coverage of the documents into yesterday’s Guardian (if you haven’t seen it yet). Again, nice job.