johnnybravo comments

Folks it's not just the NRA. States are taking immediate action against this too....

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-house-bill-no-hb0104-firearm-protection-act/

"Agreed. It's just a shame conservatives would rather put their own mothers and grandmothers on the alter of fiscal sacrifice than sacrifice some of the DoD's bits of metal."

Um sushisake what about the Democrats supporting illegal aliens, and their babies here in the States? That's a big drainage on our system.Giving them Free medical , food stamps , free education, etc, and to top it off they don't pay any taxes.. Just look at California. It's a mess!

Listening to the details of what the Senate already passed I would say it's actually a Huge Win for Republicans. So they have a marginal punitive tax increase on successful people but the Bush tax cuts will have no expiration date for incomes under $400k. Now the House has all of the leverage back with the debt limit and they can flip Barry the bird in 2 months.

Thank you Joe Biden... The House better pass this now...

Gang bangers will just be supplementing their usual EBT incomes with this program by turning in broken non-functioning guns....

Was at another gun store and they had like 20 AR15s. All sold in just two days.Ammo shelves were complete empty too.... Also looks like Obama and Reid are putting the brakes on gun control.....

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406?utm_campaign=obinsite

Looks like maybe they're finally waking up and finally realizing that the bad guys don't follow gun laws...

What edbardoe said....

@Passage that's wishful thinking. Aint gonna happen here in the USA. Even local,and federal law enforcement disagree on it too..

This is a good article

http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html

Folks the bad guys will always carry a gun no matter what gun restriction laws are passed,and they love commiting crimes in places with the most strict gun laws....

Also Columbine massacre happened when President Bill Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapons ban was in effect.....

A good read. Good education for some posters here..

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Apparently armed guards at public schools are already in use at 1/3 of public schools as of the 09-10 school year. Yet this shooting happened at one of the unguarded schools, in one of the states with the strictest gun control laws. Coincidence?

Keep in mind that the Clinton (1994) assault weapons ban did nothing to curb gun violence. It was higher when the ban was in effect vs now. Criminals don't care about gun laws. It only hurts the law abiding citizen only....

Keep in mind that the Clinton (1994) assault weapons ban did nothing to curb gun violence. It was higher when the ban was in effect vs now. Criminals don't care about gun laws. It only hurts the law abiding citizen only....

NRA said it well below..

"We simply live in a world were there are psychopaths that want to harm innocent people, there is not alot we can do about it. They can conjure up infinite ways using a huge assortment of readily available materials to do alot of harm to people. What would have been the difference of this guy walking into the classroom with molotov cocktails or a IED, people make those things in third world countries without electricity.

The true failure here is on the school district and it complete lack of security. They are the ones to take all the blame. That is truly the only thing that could have been done different and for those little angels to still be alive. The school where we all drop off our precious cargo should have complete control over the safety of our children. If we cant keep the Psycho's locked up for whatever reason, then they need to be completely locked out, by whatever means necessary. We lock our money in a vault, and our precious valubles in a safe, but we keep our most irreplaceable treasures behind wooden doors with windows that can be broken, and no one on site that can do anything to protect them but cry and hide. There is better security at our major sporting events then at schools."

Kabukilover. Japan is a tiny island that's secluded,and surrounded by water. Smaller than California. If America was that size then it would MIGHT, I say might be a different ball game. Like I said on above my post that's irrellevent. There are just too many guns out here. A point of no return. I would like to also add that the Asian(Chinese,Japanese,) mentality is very different compared to westerners. They take better care of their kids too..

It's not just mental health care,but there needs to be regulations on violent video games,television,and the internet...

Here's the deal,and the folks that are from America here will know what I'm talking about. First off gun restrictions won't do diddly. Also trying to compare us to Australia, or the UK is stupid.What may worked for Aussie,and the UK won't work here There's way too many guns here ( 300 million plus) ,and gun confiscation AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Right now my local gun shop can't even keep up with sales. It's nuts.

What we need to do is have a armed guard at schools. Like an air marshal, but a school marshal. We guard money at banks. Why not guard our children. These whackos attack schools because they are a gun free zone......

Pulling out (investment) from China will be more difficult than pouring into small countries. Anyway, let japanese businesses struggle in overseas markets for years to come.

Yeah the logistics alone is going to be a BIG problem.....

A very volatile place. The people,and the islands with earthquakes,and tsunamis. Not good IMO.....

Japan better re-think about those islands.....

Election perspective from a Prague journalist

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

Let me add that this 52% mooch mob that the Dems have created is not reversable without violent austerity. Look at Greece for reference.

Tokyo fallout!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9pk42kdL4k&feature=related

The BIG 3 Japanese car companies should come out and protest. This is pathetic...

China lends so much money to the US. I don't see how America can do anything about, or to china. I mean what would happen if your lender stop lending to you. It' would be like an heroin addict cut off from his/her drugs too..

The good thing for tepco,and the corrupted government. Is that with radiation. You can't smell it. Or feel it,and it's long term...

Anyone that works 30 hours per week will be considered full time under Obamacare..

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-anyone-who-works-30-hour-week-now-full-time

This sure is going to stimulate job growth lol...

Welcome to the new 29 hour work week lol...

Anyone who works 30 hours per week. Is now full time under Obamacare..

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-anyone-who-works-30-hour-week-now-full-time

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

Democrats base facts on their beliefs. Conservatives base their beliefs on facts.

BTW Obama lost Virginia lastnight....

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for? Aside from the horses and bayonets moment, this was essentially a debate without incident. Part of the fault was the format. It’s interesting to note that Romney won the first debate while standing up and Obama did better in the second when walking around. But when both men were forced to sit for 90 minutes, the energy was inevitably reduced and neither broke through the fourth wall convincingly. Romney had a slight edge because he didn’t use his hands so much: Obama blew his closing statements by developing ultra-energetic conjurer’s hands (“Look at the hands, not at the cards, look at the hands…”)

But the bigger problem was that they agreed on the essentials, which were all about foreign policy. Romney refused to tackle Obama directly on Libya and Fast and Furious seems to have been forgotten by the GOP. In everything else, Obama has become so homicidally neoconservative and Romney so desperately peaceful that they’ve met in the middle on most issues. Both would defend Israel in the event of an attack, both want out of Afghanistan in 2014 and neither would let Iran get the bomb. If you want a real debate on foreign policy, you’re just going to have to wait until Rand Paul gets the nomination in 2020. At times this felt almost as boring as that Gingrich v Huntsman debate that I and about 4 other people watched during the primaries. Romney tried his darnedest to bring everything back to the economy and Obama seemed to say in every answer, “So what we need to do in the Middle East is talk more about how rubbish my opponent is.” It’s almost lucky that Obama isn’t running unopposed in this election because then he’d have nothing to run on at all.

Where a disagreement did exist was on the question of leadership; Romney wants to be proactive and Obama pledges to remain reactive. Nevertheless, both seem committed to nation building overseas – with Obama throwing in the caveat that he’d like to do some nation building at home, too. The real difference was in style. In his closing statement – after Obama was done making the Ace of Spades disappear – Romney channelled Reagan by looking straight into the camera and asserting his faith in America. It was empty, sugary stuff that will make liberals sick. But it was infinitely preferable to Obama’s constant, nasty attacks. Sometimes in life, the nice guys do win.

We also have to judge this debate as part of the narrative arc of this season. Romney won the first debate by a mile. Because Romney’s win was so decisive, it sparked an image change: Americans started to think of him as presidential material. That’s why Obama winning the second debate by an inch made little impact – people were watching Romney not to see him land punches but to see how well he could take them. He won the third debate because, by the end of the night, his and Obama’s positions in the narrative arc had switched. Romney now looks like the President and Obama looks like the challenger.