Kudos to Sens. Lee and Hatch.It was a goofy bill from the start
because (among other reasons) criminals don't submit themselves to
"background checks".If Sen. Reid can figure out a way to
have criminals submit to "background checks" he should definitely bring
the bill back for reconsideration.Until then, STOP wasting time on
laws that only penalize law-abiding citizens.
It seems patently clear that it is impossible to implement universal background
checks without tracking every gun purchase. Likewise, how do you track gun
purchases without tracking guns themselves, and consequently the people who buy
them. Without universal gun registration, there is no way to discover
non-compliance, and hence no way to enforce a universal background check law. In
other words, if the government doesn't know where the guns are, how can
they track sales transactions?I, for one, am not comfortable with
federal, state or local government knowing where all the guns are. As for those
who told pollsters they supported universal background checks, I suspect they
haven't thought this through very carefully, or they would not be willing
to head down this road. As many have pointed out, if this had passed, it
wouldn't work, and when it didn't work, the knee-jerk reaction would
be to add the missing ingredient (registration) instead of repealing it. The right approach to limiting our exposure to mass violence of any kind
is to put (back) in place a means for early intervention and help for mental
health issues in our schools and strengthening families.
I agree with President Obama. This is a day of shame.Innocents are
being killed. Most of Americans want more background checks. Yet, the NRA holds
power on our "representatives" (using the term loosely) and they do its
bid.How many more deaths we need before we stop this insanity?
The bill would have done nothing to stop the Newtown tragedy and wouldn't
do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns.We need to
address mental illness and stop blaming guns for the bad judgment of individuals
and the illegal behavior of criminals.
Any idiot can oppose something. But it takes thoughtful effort to propose a real
solution to a serious problem.Why have neither Lee nor Hatch put
forth any suggestions or bills that might help solve America's gun violence
They should be very proud of themselves! Hope they sleep well at night over it.
I own guns, and have zero issue with a background check. And, yes, I have
thought this through. And while this bill would not stop every criminal from
getting a gun, it would certainly make it harder. But hey, even some demos
folded on this one, which just tells me it's not about what's right or
wrong, how they feel or don't feel, it's about keeping their job.
That goes for all politicians, including the elderly career politician Hatch!!
We don;t need gun control, we need crome control. Our nation can determine
if their was once life on Mars. Why can't we find ways to reduce crime?Surely "think tanks" can find new and innovative solutions to
stopping crime without throwing tons of more money at it and without linmiting
constitutional rights.President Obama has been using the intense emotional
of Newtown victims to manipulate congress into passing gun control rather than
using logic to stop criminals.
It is one step in the right direction. However, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees
my "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It
doesn't limit my right to just have guns. I have the right, per the
Constitution, to bear any arms, including grenades, rocket launchers, bazookas,
even nukes. How are we going to defend ourselves if criminals and enemy
militaries are much better armed than our free citizens? Sen. Lee said he had
to protect our rights given in the Constitution, but the government has already
infringed on my rights....or maybe they need to ammend the 2nd Ammendment...
Background checks sound like a good idea, except they won't prevent the bad
guys from getting guns.Kudos to both senators!
These comments remind me why I moved away from Utah. And, yes, I was sure the
door didn't hit me on my way out. Thanks.
I don't own a gun, and certainly don't believe in violence. However,
in a spirit of gratitude, I must thank Senator Lee and Hatch for standing up for
liberty and the Constitution. It is disheartening to see so many people still
looking to Washington to solve problems, including violence stemming from those
who misuse our 2nd amendment rights. So, I will continue to advocate for living
a life in such a way that all the problems will disappear without, particularly
without, attracting a politician's ear, something that surely only causes
more misery for those who think those ears are really listening for
I certainly hope Senators Hatch and Lee will likewise affirm the 1st Amendment
by repealing federal laws against fraud, because everyone knows that people are
going to lie anyway, and so it makes no sense to weaken our Constitution by
making it illegal for good, hard working businessmen who might get carried away
will selling a product and making false claims about a product or serive. People can say whatever they want, it's up to the listener to
determine what is true, for them.For that matter, "Bribery"
and "Corruption" are just extensions of free speech, and, as they say,
money talks, so who are we to restrict the free speech of some inanimate object,
like currency?Reaffirm the Constitution! Let freedom ring!
Kudos to Senators Lee and Hatch for voting to defend freedom, and to see through
the untruthful claims about the supposed benefits of the background check bill
and instead see the ultimate goal- a universal gun registration system that will
be the foundation for gun confiscation.And, for One Old Man, Senator
Hatch was a co-sponosr of the Cruz-Grassley alternate bill which was the second
amendment to be voted on, defeated by the DEMOCRATS. That would have
effectively addressed mental health issues, school safety, and increased
enforcement of existing laws, plus a smaller background check. But, it was NOT
gun registration and therefore the Democrats refused to adopt this common sense
proposal.Be alert, the Obama team will never lat a crisis go to
waste, and they will jump on any new horrific attack (other than by terrorists
in Boston, or in Ben Gahzi) to resurrect their gun ban bill and try to ram it
through in the middle of the night.
As Senator Lee said, we need to look at dealing with violence and violent
people. Stacking more gun control laws on the populace isn't the answer. I
am pleased and a bit surprised that Senator Hatch stepped up, but I'm glad
he did. I get so tired of the "I own a gun" types who claim to cherish
that right, but are always seeking to curtail it. The second amendment
isn't just about owning firearms. It's about keeping the ability to
protect the other rights guaranteed us, from usurpation by the government. We
need to focus on the causes of violence itself, not the method. We need to
address the perpetrators of violence, not their tools of choice. To do any less,
dooms our efforts to failure.
They also voted against the amendment to increase penalties for gun
It answered the question of who Hatch and Lee are serving, and it's not the
people of Utah. And claiming that they rely on the Constitution is perverse.
Re: "Why have neither Lee nor Hatch put forth any suggestions or bills that
might help solve America's gun violence?"Probably because
all necessary laws are already in place. And none of the deranged liberal
"suggestions or bills" would add anything of significance to the
effort.Liberal gun-control proposals are not really about violence,
anyway. They're about control of people and politics, not guns.If liberals were actually serious about curbing violence, they'd get
tough on enforcing existing laws, like Rudy Giuliani did in NYC. It reduced
violent crime by 57%, murders by 65%.Liberals know how to actually
address violent crime. But they want festering political crises more than they
want real solutions.
It's good to know where your Senators stand on an issue. And Sentors Lee
and Hatch have placed themselves clearly on the same side as the Adam Lanzas of
the world. The parents and loved ones of the children gunned down in Newtown
stood tearfully by and watched the United States Senate shamefully send a strong
message that they will protect the freedoms of the future mass murderers rather
than taking one small step forward to address this tragic phenomenon that seems
to be uniquely American. The interesting thing is that while these two Sentors
and their cohorts won this battle because of the strange Senate rules requiring
60 votes for passage, it still remains a fact that their vote was in the
minority. So a minority of Senators, blinded by the propaganda of the NRA and
the gun industry, can ensure that nothing will be done to address this tragic
situation. Heaven help us.
This is absolutely ridiculous. "Criminals don't submit to background
checks, so why should we attempt to make anyone else submit to one when
purchasing a gun?" I guess the same should go for people applying for
teaching jobs, law enforcement, or any other job where the public's safety
is a concern. After all, the criminals find a way around those background
checks. Criminals don't care about shoplifting laws, so
let's just get rid of them. There are enough people who don't pay
attention to our speeding laws, our drinking and driving laws, and any other law
established for the safety of us all, so let's just get rid of them. Let's face the truth, people, this isn't about background
checks for gun owners, this is about how polarized we are politically, and we
are looking at sticking it to Obama any way we can. It's time we put
politics aside and do what's best for our country. Any law-abiding citizen
should not be concerned about stricter background requirements to be able to
purchase a gun.
@DN Subscriber 2"But, it was NOT gun registration and therefore the
Democrats refused to adopt this common sense proposal."Wrong.
The Democratic bill Hatch and Lee just filibustered would impose a 15 year
felony jail sentence on people who make a gun registry. Just like Obama said,
you side is content to lie about it.@Cats"The bill would
have done nothing to stop the Newtown tragedy and wouldn't do anything to
prevent criminals from getting guns."Absolutely it would make it
harder for criminals to get guns. Think about it this way, you support 21 as the
age to buy alcohol right? You know some people are going to obtain alcohol
anyway, but doesn't that limit on purchasing make it harder for underage
drinkers to get alcohol? The expanded background checks aren't going to
completely prevent criminals from getting guns, but the idea that it won't
reduce the number that get guns flies in the face of logic. Oh
and... stop blaming Democrats for the bill being watered down. It was your side
that weakened the bill to the point it wouldn't have done too much.
It is shameful that these 2 "men" kow-towed to the extremist gun lobby
($$$) and voted against principle: common sense background checks. Just because
a loud, well-financed minority told them to.Rex Lee is rolling in
Let both sides now work together on solutions that will1) Not
violate the rights of peaceful law abiding people.2) Actually will
help solve the problem of violence in our society.May I make a few
suggestions to kick off the discussion.Teach morality in the
schools.Encourage young women to not try to have it all, teach them
if they are going to have children, they need to raise them correctly. To stay
home in their childrens formative years, and provide them with a basis of
emotional stability, and teach their kids right from wrong. As a society we made
a conscious decision to encourage women to enter the work force and send their
kids to day care, therefore we can reverse this if we choose to.As a
society we need to recognise that not just the body can have medical problems
but the brain can too. We need to commit to providing adequate mental health
care to all who need it.We need to look at our immigration, and if
there are countries whose immigrants are sufficiently more violent than average,
we should not allow immigration from these countries.
@Fitness Freak and others,Explain to me how background checks
"penalize" law-abiding citizens?? I would also like to know just how
that national gun confiscation program would work...i.e. federal agents showing
up at the door of every single gun owner in America? Really??If you
are that paranoid, you should not have a weapon of any kind.
Stop and think - the Boston Bombing killed three people. It is against federal
law to possess any form of a bomb. The Sandy Hook School shooting killed 26
people, and you can buy the weapon used in this shooting on the internet without
a background check. I would like to ask our Senators if this makes sense to
them. Both Senator Hatch and Senator Lee should be ashamed of themselves. They
have blocked a reasonable law that could saved some lives. I would love to hear
their reasoned explanation for this nonsense. I'm a life long republican
and I will not vote for Lee in the future. I hope Senator Hatch sticks to his
word, this time, and doesn't run.
No fear of losing re-election with their constituents. To quote Forrest Gump
"Stupid is as Stupid does".
@10CCAnd i'm sure strict constitutionalists like Mike Lee and Orin
Hatch will support the FCC in removing penalties for brief unplanned profanity
or nudity over the air. I mean the first amendment doesn't say free speech
if we like it. It just says freedom of speech.
"My hope is that we can now discuss the problems that lead to these violent
acts and propose solutions that actually address them," Lee said.I am sure Sen. Lee will be leading the charge to expand treatment for mental
illness and enforce existing gun laws.Cowards.
Hands up: How many of you received at least 3 robo-calls from the NRA in the
last few months leading up to the vote of this bill? How many received flyers in
the mail soliciting money? Everyone I know has been deluged by the
well-financed and loud machine of the NRA. They have been filling the airwaves
and using the panic-driven talk shows of Rush, Hannity, etc. to get all of us
deathly afraid of ANY restrictions on our guns. They pestered our Senators and
made them all quake in their boots at the thought of going against them.You know this is why this bill was defeated. It has NOTHING to do with
All the reasons that are given for universal 'this' or
'that' are the very reasons for getting back to constitutional
principles, i.e. States Rights. There is not one federal law that couldn't
be adjudicated better at the state level, including so called gun registration
laws. But, let there be no mistake about all this. The more government action,
the less dependence on God (or if the left doesn't like that, then use
'self'). This is all about government control and removing God from a
'right'. If you can remove God from those 'rights', then
you have given control over to Government, and Liberty dies along with all other
freedoms. That is why those who sacrifice the most are the last to surrender.
Believe in God and believe in America.
While most Americans may support background checks, this bill was flawed in the
way it mandated implementation. Personally, I would support a background check
performed in conjuntion with getting my driver's license. Just like my
motorcycle endorsement, I pay $10, they run the check, my license has a "gun
purchaser" endorsement on it. I violate the law so that I am no longer
qualified, they confiscate that license and issue one without the endorsement.
Does it solve everything? No. Is it a good first step? Yes. Private sales
could be validated by simply asking to see my endorsement. You don't want
it, you don't have to pay for it. This bill didn't close an
"internet loophole." I've bought and sold guns over the internet.
EVERY one of those transactions had to go through an FFL. High capacity
magazines? In NY, my grandfather's Ruger .22 pistol bought in 1963 is
"high capacity" with nine shots and they've never made another size
magazine. You can't present something unworkable and then cry
"foul" when it doesn't fly. Make a workable proposal, and it will
10CC: Sadly, the senate doesn't have to do this. The courts have already
upheld a candidates right to lie about their voting record. They have upheld
the right of companies to lie about qualities of their product so long as it
does not specifically violate FDA restrictions. They have upheld the rights of
individuals to lie about their military service, decorations and valor so long
as it is not done for the express purpose of defrauding or obtaining monetary
benefits directly from charities or support organizations. Freedom of speech
has been twisted to cover burning flags, flipping off a police officer,
picketing a grieving familie's funeral and pornography. Forgive, or at
least understand those who try to keep similar abominable mutations from being
inflicted on the 2nd ammendment. That is not to say we can't have
background checks - even universal background checks. But it should be
implemented in a relatively painless and transparent manner, not through
heavy-handed policies. Presently the government does not pursue charges against
even 0.1% of those attempting to pass a background check illegally. Fix that
So, the response to a serious epidemic of gun violence in our nation, is to do .
. . nothing? It's not just voting against the current bill. There is a
complete lack of solution from individuals like Hatch and Lee. Gun control is a
small aspect of this issue, but it is still a real aspect. Cowering behind
flawed interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not a solution. That is harping
on a single point ad nauseum until you get your way.The current gun
control laws in place can't be enforced because contradictory laws and
regulations have been put in place by members of congress (with direct and
indirect ties to the gun lobby) to prevent the ATF and states from properly
enforcing and implementing the original laws. Then the cry from the 2nd
amendment crowd is "enforce the current regs"! The fix is in because the
price is right. Lee and Hatch are just more obstructionists from the party of
If Senators Lee and Hatch are such strict constructionists when it comes to the
Constitution, can some explain to me why they are against the legalization of
marijuana and same-sex marriage? Anyone?They love the Constitution
only when it is convenient to their politics. Disgusting.
Thank you senators. The gun bill was not a solution. It was a big step in the
Events of this week should have made it clear that what we have is a people
problem, not a gun problem, not even a pressure cooker problem, but a people
problem.Were we to take away all pressure cookers, or all baseball
bats, or all cars, or all guns, or all knives, bad or mentally ill people will
simply choose to make use of different tool to do what it is that they do.
Eliminating any one tool will not solve the problem and we can't eliminate
all possible tools.Given this let us work together to solve this
problem keeping this in mind. If we don't characterise a problem properly,
it is not possible to successfully solve the problem.
Aceroinox asserted "...Without universal gun registration, there is no way
to discover non-compliance, and hence no way to enforce a universal background
check law. In other words, if the government doesn't know where the guns
are, how can they track sales transactions?"Not only is it
possible to perform background checks without a gun registry, but the bill would
have made it a felony to create a registry. Its a shame that this
bill died on the back of ignorance (as seen here) and lies (such as the
NRA's distortions about the impact on family sales).Utah was
failed by its two Senators, which is all the more unsettling as they are smart
enough to know better. They played into the paranoid fantasies rather than the
facts. Google the bill and read itSad, sad, sad. And
sadder still that gun owners will not benefit from the protections built into
the bill, such as the right to carry types of guns through states whose laws
would otherwise forbid.
Get used to hearing again the phrase "President Clinton."
How come a bomb that kills three people demands national attention, but a gun
that kills many more people is unavoidable?
Please reread Senator Lee's quote at the beginning of the article. That is
how I feel on this issue. The Newtown Shooting would not have been avoided by
any of these legislative actions. The Boston Marathon tragedy shows that
legislation against guns does not reduce the potential for violent acts of large
proportions. We must deal with people to mitigate (it's a really important
word look it up) the risk of them happening. All in all we have already done a
great job of mitigating the risk of violence in this country.
"My hope is that we can now discuss the problems that lead to these violent
acts and propose solutions that actually address them,"I thought
Lee didn't even want to have a discussion...? I don't necessarily
agree with new gun control measures, but I do agree with Obama that it at least
deserves discussion and a vote.
Glad this was defeated. Normal folks do not need more government intrusion and
investigation. A waste of money. Enforce the laws for misuse and prosecute
quickly. We have more than enough laws on the books to take care of those who
commit crimes using firearms. No need to bother law abiding people.
This is great news. Now illegal aliens can continue to cross our borders and
buy guns without being hassled by a background check.
It isn't the NRA or lobbying that's preventing gun control, it's
the Constitution. And thank goodness there are enough senators that recognize
that all of these disconcerting attempts at gun control are unconstitutional and
will do nothing to curb gun violence. Taking away Constitutional
rights of law abiding citizens does nothing to curb the behavior of the
@ I-am-I and all others who think like you do,If there is no law
that could stop the Newtown tragedy, then apply the same logic for all crimes
and remove all our laws against murder, rape, child pornography, etc. Heaven
knows we have thousands of laws against these crimes, yet people are victimized
every single day.I've never heard before this "logic"
that since we can't stop every case of something from happening, that we
shouldn't even try. But I have heard a lot of people repeat this
I am appalled and embarrassed. Why on earth would you oppose a measure that can
only help reduce violence? The argument that it won't stop everyone is
grotesquely illogical. If it stops a significant number, it is worth its weight
in gold. In no way does the requirement for universal background checks conflict
with the 2nd Amendment, particularly as it was most recently interpreted by the
Supreme Court. And these measures DO make a difference. Australia is a
magnificent example. I can't help but feeling that the message here is: a
Sandy Hook Elementary here and there is an acceptable price to pay. (And for
what?!?) I wonder how many people would still oppose responsible gun control if
it was THEIR child shot dead with his/her teacher and classmates.
Let me see... Chris Dorner. Psychology major (certified and qualified), military
service (requires background checks), police service (background check and psych
tested). Now let me see, how did that background check stop him? Oh, it
didn't. So why have a law that doesn't work?
Re: "It's time we put politics aside and do what's best for our
country."Agreed.That's why the Obama regime
needs to step back from its freedom-robbing, un-American people-control
proposals and start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.Liberals know what will work. And it's enforcement of current laws, NOT a
gun registration scheme, magazine control, or gun-appearance control.
I wouldn't be bragging if I was one of those two Senators....I would hang
my head in shame. It's time the state of Utah joined in with the rest of
the country and stop thinking they are a unique people isolated from the
troubles of the rest of the country. It's time the population stops
listening to each other just because they have a common religion (of which I am
a member) and start informing themselves about what life is really
like.......it's not all hearts and flowers, and church on Sunday.
Polls mean nothing. I could put together a poll saying the sky was green and if
I worded it properly, I could get 90% of the respondents to agree that the sky
was green. It's all part of the game played by both sides.The
bottom line, you can't have universal background checks without requiring
guns to be registered. There would be no way to enforce the law on every gun
sale if the guns weren't registered. Plus, who is going to pay for the
background check? I think that the current system we have in place is fine. I
don't have a problem with a background check at point of sale in a retail
establishment.I for one don't want my guns registered with
either the state and for sure not the federal government. The fact that I own
guns is not any of their business.Kudos to Hatch and Lee. Boo to
all you naysayers. Freedom and the Constitution won out.
Just to clarify, my first comment was mostly sarcastic. But I do feel the 2nd
Amendment does need some updating and clarification. The term "arms" is
any weapon, not just guns. I would hope the vast majority of people agree there
are some "arms" which should not be available. There has to be a line
drawn between legal arms and illegal arms. I am not an expert on guns, so I do
not know where that line should be drawn; and maybe the current line is proper,
but a line has to be drawn. The most ridiculous argument for guns is
that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Using that
logic every weapon should be legal. Rocket launchers and nukes don't kill
people, people kill people...right? The 2nd most ridiculous argument
is we need the weapons to defend ourselves against a tyrannical
government...they have nuclear subs, an incredible air force, aircraft carriers,
missiles, etc. Really? And if you buy that argument, then I'm sure you
are for huge cuts in the Defense Department to weaken their possible takeover of
all of our possessions and rights.God Bless America!
Re: "And these measures DO make a difference."Sure they do
-- to people that will NEVER engage in violence. It complicates their lives and
makes it harder for them to peascefully and legally exercise their
Constitutional rights.But to criminals? They can't and
won't make the slightest difference, whatever.Makes one wonder
about the Obama regime's real agenda, doesn't it?
@eastcostcoug: Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. I never said
there was no law that could have stopped the Newtown shooting. I said that
additional backgrounds checks would not have stopped the Newtown shooting.
Remember, he stole the weapons from his mom. My opinion is this, as is clear in
Senator Lee's remarks: We have plenty of laws to mitigate these kinds of
issues although the enforcement of these laws may need refining. We also need
to create laws and systems to help identify and treat the mentally ill. All in
all we have a pretty good system, that doesn't mean it can't be
improved. It means I don't think this law would have improved anything. A
background check wouldn't have stopped Lanza from committing his terrible
crimes. It's that simple. Aside from that trying to regulate private
sales is not cost effective because for every large shooting in this country
there are millions of private gun sales. I propose (1) we worry about bigger
problems - car accident deaths for example, (2) if we worry about violence then
lets attack real causes not imaginary ones.
I am always amazed when liberals and progressives claim that the senators
elected by a majority, republicans and conservatives don't represent Utah
and them as if they violated a trust they have. You didn't vote for them.
Why would they represent your liberal positions on issues of federal governance?
They were elected to represent those who voted for them. Similarly I would not
expect Matheson to represent the minority conservatives and republicans that did
not vote for him. He will represent those of the majority that elected him.
Has the Deseret News taken a position on expanded background checks? If not,
they should. If so, do you recall what it is?
@Bacus0902 You act like the NRA is this evil entity that goes about operating
against the will of the people. I pay my dues every month so that they will
protect MY rights against the kind of mass ignorance that always gets displayed
whenever anybody talks about guns. They did their job, as did our senators, in
defending our Constitutional rights, so good on them.@Really??? We
already have laws against killing people, so how do you suppose adding more laws
to the myriad laws we already have is going to make one iota of difference?
Also, "sticking it to Obama?" Really, that's is what you got out
of this? I suggest a good read through our Constitution. Also, do you want the
government cataloging everything you purchase? Yeah, me either!
Lee and Hatch sold out to the NRA as we knew they would. Lee uses the excuse he
follows the mandate of the Utah legislature. They are gun nuts and out of touch
with 80% of the citizens. So we have a legislature and two senators who
don't serve the voters and only pay homage to the gun nuts and lobbyist
money. Time to get rid of them. We need leaders who will vote to protect the
Side Note: Yesterday, the Senate voted on a measure to increase mental health
funding and to help identify those individuals who have problems and should not
have a gun. The vote was 98-2. Rand Paul and our MIKE LEE voted
against this!Is he crazy?
Every Chief of Police will tell you that background checks save lives. Hatch
and Lee have blood on their hands.
@ Schwa, You probably shouldn't speak for every single chief of police
ever. Hatch and Lee do not have blood on their hands please calm down. You see
the current system has background checks. The liberals love to forget that part.
It just doesn't have enough of them for the liberals primarily because it
is not cost efficient. While every life is important, at some point we have to
say as a society the risk of this happening is basically zero so we're not
going to spend money on that, which means we can spend it to save more lives in
another area. Exactly where that point is is tricky to determine and anything
but absolute but it can be reasonably asserted. Also keep in mind basically
zero and zero are different. We all deserve better rhetoric from our leaders and
media. The issue as it has been marketed to you is, background checks v. no
backgrounds checks. This is a horrible lie. The issue is existing background
checks v. whatever current proposal to increase backgrounds checks chooses to
step in the ring.
Very sad that we have been spending our time, effort, and other resources trying
to figure out ways of limiting the constitutional rights of self-protection
instead of addressing the real issues of a bankrupt nation. People who really
believe that more laws and more government are the answer to all the ills of
society and our culture have to be among the most naive people on the planet.
I've had decades of experience working with all levels of government, and I
can assure you that politicians get it wrong at least 10 times more than they
get it right. Thanks to the two Utah senators who got it right on this issue.
We don't need Congress to be messing around with every single facet of
humanity. There are many other mechanisms to address society's ills, and
Washington has resoundingly proven that its "solutions" primarily make
marginal situations bad, and bad situations worse. We really do need less
government, less legislation, less taxation, and less public spending. That
way, maybe we have a chance of actually surviving as a nation. THOSE are the
issues that the politicians SHOULD be working on with all the power and
discretion we've allotted to them.