Highmark

What's fair for putting someone on a no fly or no gun list? Should there not be some sort of due process before your constitutional rights are taken?

Want to make a bet Bernie supports it?

So if the nightclub has no firearm policies and I'm not drinking I shouldn't be able to arm myself. Fuck that.

Trump would have to realize if he does anything big on control he would have no chance at a second term.

Has one of these been used in a murder much less mass shooting yet?

True but it shows the danger of these lists taking away constitutional freedom's merely based on suspicions.

Hell we even give them guns and much, much more.

Neither "list" should be done without due process and I only care about American Citizens getting this protection. Every foreigner should be looked at coming here and no non-citizen should be able to buy a gun without huge hurdles. No fly list unconstitutional. The new ruling came in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit brought on behalf of 13 U.S. citizens prevented from boarding flights, including four military veterans. The inability to fly caused them real harm. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/the-no-fly-list-is-unconstitutional/ No buy gun list constitutional. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/opinion/time-for-a-no-buy-list-on-guns.html

Other countries have less problems with Gangs. Control the gangs in the US and you control the violence.

I'm not saying Bush doesn't share in the blame but he did try to reign things in all the way back in 2003 and was blocked by the dems. He should have pushed for it much harder. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By STEPHEN LABATON Published: September 11, 2003 WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan. Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies. The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall. ''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies. ''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios. At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past. Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission. After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan. ''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members. Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products. Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.'' The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday. Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators. ''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.'' Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Even that idiot Barney Frank eventually got it. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/barney-frank-the-poor-should-rent-not-own/35041/ In its final installment of the Big Think's "Went Went Wrong" Series on the financial crisis, they interviewed Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). Much of the interview was predictable: Frank mostly explained what anyone closely following the financial regulation push in Congress already knew. But there was one fascinating gem in discussing where Fannie and Freddie went wrong. Frank views ushering the poor to own homes as a mistake and believes they should rent instead. Frank was responding to the question about how Fannie and Freddie could be structured to avoid moral hazard and a too cozy relationship with the regulators. After stating that we should separate the liquidity creation function from the subsidy objective (which we already knew he supported), he said: "I think the answer is you separate out the function of providing the equity in general for the mortgage market and doing some subsidy and in my judgment, the subsidy again, as I said before, should be focused on affordable rental housing, not in pushing low income people into owning homes that they can't afford."

Liberals never profile.

Yes lets understand gun violence in America. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428922/racial-disparities-gun-violence-and-gun-control Thanks to the Washington Post, I discovered this rather astounding chart showing the different rates of gun deaths for blacks and whites. For whites, “77 percent of gun deaths are suicides.” For black Americans, 82 percent die from homicide:The next interesting statistic is that this high homicide rate comes from a population with a much lower rate of gun ownership. Roughly “41 percent of white households own guns, compared with to just 19 percent of black households.” In other words, when it comes to guns — white and black Americans live different lives. White Americans don’t experience much criminal gun violence but have much greater experience with guns. Widespread gun ownership doesn’t lead to criminal carnage, so fear-based gun control arguments simply don’t ring true. The experience of black communities, by contrast, shows that unless there are effective legal, political, and cultural efforts to thwart the criminal class, even much lower rates of gun ownership won’t stop widespread violence. It doesn’t take many armed and angry people to exact a terrible toll. Black America has a rate of gun ownership that gun controllers would long to achieve for the rest of the country, yet it still suffers from a horrifying level of homicide. Suicides represent not just the vast majority of white gun deaths, but the vast majority of gun deaths overall. It’s unclear, however, whether high rates of gun ownership are necessarily material to the suicide rate. After all, as my colleague Mark Wright pointed out, Japan and South Korea have extremely high suicide rates despite far lower rates of gun ownership. Suicide is a cultural problem. It is not a gun problem. Gun controllers roll their eyes whenever they hear the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” But it’s true. Communities with low rates of gun ownership can still suffer high rates of homicide. Communities with low rates of gun ownership can suffer from high rates of suicide. Black America has a homicide problem. White America has a suicide problem. In both instances, people are responsible for their own actions. Guns don’t make them kill.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428922/racial-disparities-gun-violence-and-gun-control

I still question why labeling it a "gay club" is so important? If it wasn't would they be calling it a "straight club?" If was frequented by blacks would it be a "black club?" American's were attacked and killed by an Islamic terrorist. That's the only labels we need. Its also telling how there is all this talk about helping the LGBT community? WTF, they are American's, nothing more nothing less. More proof its not about being treated the same but being treated different but only in the way they want.

This post cracks me up. Anti Muslim words. http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-hussein-obama-islam-christianity/ Amazing how he can be so critical of the bible and Christianity but NEVER have a bad thing to say about Islam or the Quran.

"The recoil bruised my shoulder." Did shitrider write this article?

Dem's never passed any gun legislation nor hardly tried Obama's first 2 years in, often for a variety of reasons. 1. Would have made election results of 2010 even worse. Lots of dem's need to stay pro gun to get elected. 2. Dem's don't really want anything big passed. Its a issue to point the finger of blame. 3. The terror watch list bill is a joke without strong bipartisan oversight. Who decides who is and is not on it. Head of Homeland Security, Head of the FBI, The POTUS? We all know with how the dems ran the IRS that it can lead to political witch hunts. Whats next if your on the terror watch list your on the well known KILL LIST Obama has? I'm not against a terror watch list nor and I 100% against not allowing those to obtain guns but that is a slippery slope for both sides with the hate both sides have for one another. I think its nuts ANYONE who is not a US citizen can buy ANY type of firearm. If we need a constitutional amendment to fix that then get it done. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/ffl-tip-sheet-for-non-u.s.-citizens-purchasing-firearms-1

I know the difference I'm posting what the media and statistics call them.

Pending what you want to use it for the Polaris Ranger 900 xp is hard to beat. Plenty of power, traction and suspension. Nice ergo's with the bench seat and large box.

The same thing Jimmy Carter was trying to accomplish? Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

It would be tough with how Hollywood props up the nontraditional family so much but like I said a big start would be a change in the laws and perception that the govt is here to take care of you no matter what.