I Might Support Liberalized Concealed Carry Laws If....

32 posts / 0 new

The topic of guns poses a dilemma for me. There's the libertarian in me that believes laws that exceed legitimate intent are an abuse of power... but I also believe government can restrict rights for those who are irresponsible, mentally ill, have a criminal record, or just untrained. So where should I stand on guns? I own one. I don't believe that right is unconditional any more than my right to drive a car.

I also hate the idea of an armed society... one the Gun Nuts have spent so much time creating... where their "solution" for the gun violence they have a hand in creating, is more guns. But since we already have that nation we do need to fear any armed lunatic, malcontent, or criminal.

What now? I certainly want to see more controls on guns... controls that make sense. But the Gun Nuts have a point that their world they created is so dangerous, a few more guns in the right hands might help.. at least until gun controls start to take hold.

I certainly don't want any yahoo having a right to a gun at home let alone allowed to concealed carry in public spaces. I need to know those allowed to carry such weapons in public can be trusted with them as much as a cop can... to the extent they can be.

So I might be open to concealed carry IF a person passed an exhaustive background check, had extensive training in firearms safety and use, and were specially trained and licensed as part of some citizen deputy program. What the rules beyond that would be for such a program... who knows.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Comments

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, Fourth President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

Those are just a few thoughts on the subject from some of the men responsible for our Constitution. One should remember that most of those thoughts become a moot point when the country decided to ignore the Constitution and have standing armies for more than two years. With the size of our military now, the idea of a well armed militia made up of ordinary citizens doesn't have the power that it would have.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/article2.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Pierpont:

The topic of guns poses a dilemma for me. There's the libertarian in me that believes laws that exceed legitimate intent are an abuse of power... but I also believe government can restrict rights for those who are irresponsible, mentally ill, have a criminal record, or just untrained. So where should I stand on guns? I own one. I don't believe that right is unconditional any more than my right to drive a car.

I also hate the idea of an armed society... one the Gun Nuts have spent so much time creating... where their "solution" for the gun violence they have a hand in creating, is more guns. But since we already have that nation we do need to fear any armed lunatic, malcontent, or criminal.

I heard on NPR today about a woman in Texas who in 1991 was at a cafeteria in Texas... or as others call it... Teaxas, when a shooter drove through a wall and started shooting everyone in sight. She left her illegal handgun in the car. She believes if she had it, she might have saved her parent's lives. She might or might not be right. She easily could have been killed or, as she likes to believe, firing back would have thrown the shooter off enough to let others escape... whatever. She's now a pro-gun activist.

I can see her logic but the idea of just letting more and more people carry weapons seems to be a recipe for disaster and ineffective.

The problem I see with Gun Nut "logic" that more guns are the solution to the gun problem is it's a slippery slope. Once there's a mass shooting where there's no one close with a gun, the NRA will just say there needs to be more armed people. If shooters move from defended schools to undefended school buses... the NRA will say bus drivers should be armed. But a sole driver makes for an easy target... so what next... armed cops on every school bus? Bullet proof windows and vests for kids?

The shooter can always be one step ahead of Gun Nut "logic". Say there are armed citizens with concealed carry handguns at a sporting event... a shooting can simply resort to shooting from a distance with a scoped rifle.

Maybe my suggestion for armed citizen deputies is as insane as whatever the NRA would propose.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:Those are just a few thoughts on the subject from some of the men responsible for our Constitution. One should remember that most of those thoughts become a moot point when the country decided to ignore the Constitution and have standing armies for more than two years. With the size of our military now, the idea of a well armed militia made up of ordinary citizens doesn't have the power that it would have.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/article2.html

Ya, but who's talking about the Militia? These citizen soldiers are now the National Guard. They would not be much help... unless you're saying THEY should be the civilian deputies with a right to concealed carry? That makes some sense.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The above statement from Madison, the man who for all intents and purposes wrote the Constitution, does not sound anything like the National Guard to me. The National Guard is armed and salaried by the government. The reason according to Madison for a well armed militia is to repel rebellion and insurrection from within, repel invasion from without and to keep the government in a respectful fear of it's citizens. You can't fear the army that takes orders from you.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Up to the "keep the government in a respectful fear of its citizens," your statement was descriptive. At this point we get to the nub of the question about the "well-regulated" and "citizen soldier" as opposed to the professional soldier standing army. If all that means is that we don't have a standing army and that citizens respond to the well-regulated call to duty from a chain of command to put down rebellions and repel invaders, it is not so much that the government lives in fear of its citizens as that it is part of those citizens.

There is nothing that says that the Founders were laying the ground with the seeds of rebellion with Constitutional sanction. The government is part of the checks and balances, so you could call it 'fear' in the broadest sense of accountability. A design for "We, the People" always wants the government to be accountable to us rather than to be in collusion with privateers. It is supposed to happen through the processes established by the Constitution. In the Declaration you do have a charter for rebellion against tyranny. You may own a gun for civil purposes, but the well-regulated militia has a monopoly on weapons of war.

What democratic states have to fear, should they depart from their charter, is the loss of legitimacy granted by We the People. Once the principalities and powers of this world lose their badges of authority and are reduced to thugs, naked emperors have everything to fear from the fashion critics. When we stop being intimidated, it does not matter if we have guns. It actually works better if we don't. Remember, we are doing this to ourselves rather than being herded at the point of a gun. The propaganda and the fear merchants ply their craft with skill. Even the thug and torture states work on intimidation rather than an actual ability to control should the people wake up and revolt.

Intimidation and flattery, the craft of the abusers who seduce people with false glory and emotional payoffs. Telling us to relax and enjoy the rape and pillage as if it were freedom and being part of the Great Mission. Trumping crappy reality with Magic is their game. The defenders of America are ready to shoot down those Socialists trying to take over America, but they don't have much to say about Corporate Domination.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

School uniforms incorporating kevlar vests could be considered. Kevlar vest lotteries could run parallel to the other trip-tic types, too. The cat walks could use kevlar in creative ways to make it fasionable. Kevlar rentals could be included as an option along with travel insurance to foreign tourists visiting from all over the world that don't know gun culture. Customs and immigration forms handed out on the inbound planes could include a claim ticket for your vest at the customs hall.

Franchises for vest rentals 'Vests are US' would create jobs. Affinity programs could be incorporated so if you return the vest with bullets embedded, your next year's rentals are free.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The above statement from Madison, the man who for all intents and purposes wrote the Constitution, does not sound anything like the National Guard to me. The National Guard is armed and salaried by the government. The reason according to Madison for a well armed militia is to repel rebellion and insurrection from within, repel invasion from without and to keep the government in a respectful fear of it's citizens. You can't fear the army that takes orders from you.

The National Guard is the direct legal descendent of the constitutional militia mentioned in Articles 1 and 2. As for Madison... he could write whatever he wanted in Federalist 46. Problem is we have NO evidence this was put into actual law... just read the Militia Acts of 1792... and there is NO legal mechanism for the well regulated militia to be turned on the government. In this case I think LAW trumps Madison's attempts to sell the Constitution to the people of NY.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

You have to remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution the population of The United States was such that without a standing army it would take a rather large portion of the population to be trained in weaponry and skilled with firearms to be called upon in times of emergencies. Doesn't it make sense that you would want every able bodied American that was old enough to be armed and ready when needed? I don't think this had anything to do with the National Guard. The National Guard was implemented much later down the road and takes their orders from the government. That fulfills half of the requirements that the Constitution calls for. It doesn't in any way deter tyranical government though and that's what the founders were looking for as well in the militia. They knew that an armed citizenry would have staved off tyranny from the monarchies of Europe if it were allowed and were wanting that option for the new United States.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Pierpont:

I can see her logic but the idea of just letting more and more people carry weapons seems to be a recipe for disaster and ineffective.

I apologize in advance if this seems to be off topic.

I find it fascinating that people will ignore the facts and embrace what "seems" to be. The fact that increased legal gun ownership always results in reduced crime rates is absolute and undeniable. Yet there is a huge portion of the population that will simply brush that fact aside because they "feel" otherwise. It is not a left versus right phenomena because it happens across the board on a multitude of issues. We had a pretty good discussion on the topic a few years back. I think it was labeled "Why facts don't matter" or something like that. It would be interesting to see what the new blood thinks about the phenomena; in a new thread of course.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You have to remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution the population of The United States was such that without a standing army it would take a rather large portion of the population to be trained in weaponry and skilled with firearms to be called upon in times of emergencies. Doesn't it make sense that you would want every able bodied American that was old enough to be armed and ready when needed? I don't think this had anything to do with the National Guard. The National Guard was implemented much later down the road and takes their orders from the government. That fulfills half of the requirements that the Constitution calls for. It doesn't in any way deter tyranical government though and that's what the founders were looking for as well in the militia. They knew that an armed citizenry would have staved off tyranny from the monarchies of Europe if it were allowed and were wanting that option for the new United States.

What part of my last response are you having problems understanding? Here it is again:

The National Guard is the direct legal descendent of the constitutional militia mentioned in Articles 1 and 2. As for Madison... he could write whatever he wanted in Federalist 46. Problem is we have NO evidence this was put into actual law... just read the Militia Acts of 1792... and there is NO legal mechanism for the well regulated militia to be turned on the government. In this case I think LAW trumps Madison's attempts to sell the Constitution to the people of NY.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The final document is one thing. Reading WHY something was put into the document is quite another. You have to read the information available from the Constitutional Convention to have any understanding of WHY something was put into the Constitution. If we don't understand WHY then we can never understand the actual meaning of the words.

The National Government was never meant to have the military power to levy tyranny on individual states or it's citizens. A militia must have the ability to take orders from leaders within it's own self and must also have the ability to arm it's own self and therefore be seperate from the National Government.

The founders came from a country where it's citizens weren't allowed to be armed and they weren't allowed the freedom of speech or the press. They came from a country where one could be imprisoned without due process. They fled from these ideas and it's a no brainer as to why they wrote the Constitution the way that they did.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote Pierpont:

I can see her logic but the idea of just letting more and more people carry weapons seems to be a recipe for disaster and ineffective.

I find it fascinating that people will ignore the facts and embrace what "seems" to be. The fact that increased legal gun ownership always results in reduced crime rates is absolute and undeniable. Yet there is a huge portion of the population that will simply brush that fact aside because they "feel" otherwise.

Guess you missed my first post.

There are problems with the More Guns Less Crime theory...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

Problem here is that it's difficult to isolate a single variable and prove causality when so many are at work. Someone here claimed Chicago's gun ban "proved" gun bans don't work... but in another thread said law enforcement was cut by some $290 million. So do more cops on the street cut down on crime regardless of the number of guns? How about Three Strike laws? If a small group of violent criminals are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crimes, does putting them away for life cut gun crime rates regardless of the number of guns? If emergency trauma care improves the more people survive gun wounds and the murder rate goes down... how does that reflect in gun the crimes numbers?

It's Gun Nut absolutism like yours that is questionable. I've been a gun owner for 30 years and I long ago found the NRA to be a disreputable extremist group. It's intellectually dishonest in its bastardization of the Second. It lies to its members, keeps them paranoid, and milks them of cash. ANY claim that comes out of the Gun Nut crowd is suspect... such as yours.

Which makes me wonder... how many of those "legal guns" sales remain "legal guns"? If some strawman legally buys 10 guns in one state, transports them to another... are they not considered "legal" guns until one is seized in a crime and checked? Of course if such data collection efforts are sabotaged... by the likes of the NRA, then doesn't that allow them to make claims based on defective data?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:The National Government was never meant to have the military power to levy tyranny on individual states or it's citizens. A militia must have the ability to take orders from leaders within it's own self and must also have the ability to arm it's own self and therefore be seperate from the National Government.
That was merely a fear. Obiviously we've had a standing army for some time.. and the well regulated constitutional militia, now the National Guard, has been incorporated into it. The Guard now has its weapons supplied to it. The Second is now pointless... unless the federal government tried to disarm the Guard.

Civilian gun ownership for recreation, hunting, self-protection, is covered by the Ninth as are other rights such as falling in love, getting married, having kids, building a home, liking coffee instead of tea. Unless you're going to claim there are NO constitutional protections for those rights since they are not listed ANYWHERE in the Constitution. The notion that the Framers wanted some universal right to own guns is nonsense... unless you're suggesting the Second was meant to cover SLAVES. Are you?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Wow.. Bush_Wacker flat gave you a spanking.

Saving link for later....

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote Pierpont:

Guess you missed my first post.

There are problems with the More Guns Less Crime theory...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

My point was clearly missed. I never made a direct correlation to gun ownership causing reduced crime. I have in several threads proclaimed that there is no correlation. I simply stated a fact. Is there a direct correlation between more guns and less crime? I don't think so; the math is abundant and easy to spin. The fact is that more legal gun ownership coincides with less crime. The fact is that an increase in the number of legal guns does not cause or increase crime. Yet, people continue to "feel" that it will. That is the point of my post; to question why feelings trump reality.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I always enjoy Kennesaw, Georgia

The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession law

"In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families"

"Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages. Crime rates declined from 2003 through 2008"

"Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[20] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure"

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am

Please God, let this issue continue for another 18 months.

Thank you Pierpont for continuing to prove the points conservatives believe about progressives are actually true.

I sold all my guns

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Capital1:

Wow.. Bush_Wacker flat gave you a spanking.

Saving link for later....

Leave it to you to think an irrelevant comment about the militia is devastating to a discussion on another topic. But then... hey, you're Cap and forever shall be the premire debate loser here.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Groundhog see his shadow today PP?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote Pierpont:

Guess you missed my first post.

There are problems with the More Guns Less Crime theory...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

My point was clearly missed. I never made a direct correlation to gun ownership causing reduced crime. I have in several threads proclaimed that there is no correlation. I simply stated a fact. Is there a direct correlation between more guns and less crime? I don't think so; the math is abundant and easy to spin. The fact is that more legal gun ownership coincides with less crime. The fact is that an increase in the number of legal guns does not cause or increase crime. Yet, people continue to "feel" that it will. That is the point of my post; to question why feelings trump reality.

ROTF So in other words you're now retracting your previous claim?

Quote Paleo-con:The fact that increased legal gun ownership always results in reduced crime rates is absolute and undeniable. Yet there is a huge portion of the population that will simply brush that fact aside because they "feel" otherwise.

You were NOT claiming coincidence in your original post... you were claiming CAUSALITY. Please don't make it sound like anyone "missed" your original point. You're just running from it.Take some responsibility.

So if there's no causality then what's your point given we can't easily prove when a legal guns becomes an illegal gun without a gun registry... or until they are recovered in a crime? And how many legal guns are involved in crimes?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital1:

"Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[20] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure"

Did I ever say I had a problem with responsible citizens having a firearm at home for self-protection? I've been quite clear I see this as a Ninth Amendment right.

But are you now saying that government CAN mandate a citizen to buy something they don't want?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Redwing:

Please God, let this issue continue for another 18 months.

Thank you Pierpont for continuing to prove the points conservatives believe about progressives are actually true.

I sold all my guns

Even another off topic post? I now know you're deliberately harassing any threads I start on guns. Perhaps a complaint is in order.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Bomb carrying cat:

It would be a lot more interesting if you had a slightest knowledge about the constitution, firearms, or the people that enjoy the sport. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person on earth.

I still think you are a right wing troll, and god bless you for your help in converting a few progressives on this board to become "gun nuts". Every vote counts.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Pierpont: Leave it to you to think an irrelevant comment about the militia is devastating to a discussion on another topic. But then... hey, you're Cap and forever shall be the premire debate loser here.

LMAO...someone is projecting.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote Pierpont:

Did I ever say I had a problem with responsible citizens having a firearm at home for self-protection? I've been quite clear I see this as a Ninth Amendment right.

But are you now saying that government CAN mandate a citizen to buy something they don't want?

Did you feel I addressed you in any way or that the post was directed to you. It was directed at something Paleo said. "The fact is that more legal gun ownership coincides with less crime"

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
I always enjoy Kennesaw, Georgia
I decided to look at Kennesaw and see what crime statistics actually say. The study cited here compares Kennesaw with a similar community in Morton Grove, Illinois. What I got from the article is that the mandatory gun ownership law has had little or negative impact on overall crime rates where guns are used in the crime. Maybe a valid point. Maybe not. Any comments?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

I decided to look at Kennesaw and see what crime statistics actually say. The study cited here compares Kennesaw with a similar community in Morton Grove, Illinois. What I got from the article is that the mandatory gun ownership law has had little or negative impact on overall crime rates where guns are used in the crime. Maybe a valid point. Maybe not. Any comments?

I don't think you can call a blog post a "study" even in the loosest of terms. Navigating the FBI 2003 is bothersome... I'll play with it for giggles. Story says Morton had 2 murders, City data says zero. Something is wrong somewhere.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
I don't think you can call a blog post a "study" even in the loosest of terms.
Quite right. the FBI stats would be the key here. I'm too lazy to look into it further.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

Bomb carrying cat:

It would be a lot more interesting if you had a slightest knowledge about the constitution, firearms, or the people that enjoy the sport. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person on earth.

Even ANOTHER off topic post. I can only assume you're down in the gutter because you've run out of anything meaningful to say.

As for the Constitution, just because I don't buy into your bastardized version of the Second doesn't mean I haven't the slightest knowledge about it. Just because you don't think the Ninth means anything doesn't mean it's true. It's the Rosetta Stone to delineate how delegated powers to government are subtracted from the rights of the People leaving rights retained. And in your wildest dreams you don't think the Framers intended self-protection... or even marriage for that matter, to be UNprotected????

And your accusation I haven't the slightest knowledge about firearms and the people who enjoy them is more proof it's YOU who is clueless. I'VE OWNED A RIFLE FOR OVER 30 YEARS... June 81 or there about. I've mentioned in other threads I intended to go for my handgun permit... even went through the safety training. I might have even bought my friend's AR-15 if I had a chance... more for the looks than because I had a use for it. But in your mind... causal gun owners don't count for shit. One has to be a Gun Nut extremist who rewrites the Second Amendment to their own liking to know anything. Right Cupcake? GFYS.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

You better do it quick before they require psychological testing.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Capital1:

"Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[20] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure"

Did I ever say I had a problem with responsible citizens having a firearm at home for self-protection? I've been quite clear I see this as a Ninth Amendment right.

But are you now saying that government CAN mandate a citizen to buy something they don't want?

One also has to be aware that there's often down-coding of offenses by towns or their police that, for whatever reason, want their stats to look better... like when teachers or schools cheat with standardized testing. Here in town I know one elderly gentleman. Last year around midnight some thug tried to kick in the front door. The police coded it as mere vandalism.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system