Mich. Democrats push measures to halt gun violence

Michigan House Democrats are introducing legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in Michigan, including expanding background checks for gun purchases.
AP Wire
May 9, 2013

 

Reps. Jim Townsend of Royal Oak, Vicki Barnett of Farmington Hills and Andy Schor of Lansing announced the legislation Thursday.

One of the measures would expand the current permit-to-purchase process for pistols to all guns. Townsend said his legislation would require residents buying any kind of gun to get a permit from local law enforcement and pass a background check. That process currently only applies to pistols.

Another measure would ensure that insurance co-pays for physical health services and mental health services are the same. This is required under the federal Affordable Health Care Act, but Barnett said it won't apply to people on large employer plans until 2017.

Comments

Lanivan

Shiver me timbers!! To think I'd ever be put in a position to defend the IRS! The wolves are at my door, so defend my position, I must.

If the IRS was found to have deliberately targeted political enemies of the administration, and carried out undue harassment, illegal wiretaping, and audits (like Nixon did), then, and I quote my grandfather,.."they should be strung up by their toes, by golly"..).

But my sources tell me the following:

1.) The head of the IRS at that time, Douglas Shulman, was a George W. Bush appointee, and his appointment ran out in November 2012. Calls for dismissal of the current head seem like overkill.

2.) The IRS simply scrutinized a slew of brand new organizations that had just applied for 501(c)(4) non-profit tax-exempt status. Of 300 organizations set aside for review, 75 were tea party-type orgs. Although by law, they may engage in political activities, their main activity must be "social welfare". The majority were found in compliance of the law, but many were not. And really - "social welfare" must be the primary reason for being, not political activity - how much of a stretch is it to question the need to vet these vocal and active politically-driven groups?

3.) With so many groups applying for tax-exempt status, particularly those who publicly state hostility to the notion of government tax collection, it's not a stretch to expect closer scrutiny of those organizations that have a high probability of filing inaccurate returns.

4.) Those who did not withdraw their applications were not denied tax-exempt status. Apparently, no audits have been or were ordered.

I'd ask you to chill, but wrong phrase. Maybe I should say, diminish in severity.

Vladtheimp

Oh Carneyvan - a valiant repetition of the Obama talking points (to date), but as we all know, the shelf life of an Obama talking point is about the same as day old bread covered with Hellmans.

The IRS not only targeted conservative Tea Party groups and Jews… They also targeted conservative groups that taught the US Constitution.
The Washington Post reported:

"At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that on June 29, 2011, IRS staffers held a briefing with senior agency official Lois G. Lerner in which they described giving special attention to instances where “statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.” Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the agency, raised objections and the agency revised its criteria a week later.

But six months later, the IRS applied a new political test to groups that applied for tax-exempt status as “social welfare” groups, the document says. On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,” according to the appendix in the IG report, which was requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has yet to be released."

And, are you saying "The Joos" had so many groups applying that they had to get special scrutiny? Come on Carneyvan, even you can't believe the bovine scatology this administration is spreading.

Sir Winston Churchill had it right about Obama and his ilk over 1/2 a century ago: http://www.powerlineblog.com/arc...

Lanivan

Appears your sadness from walking down light bulb isles has dissipated, giving way to more energy than you've exhibited in a good long while - producing four posts to my one comment! It's like Christmas in May! There's nothing like mindless political vengeance and partisanship to get those "got-cha" vibes going.

Of course, let's not bring this up (among many): http://www.politico.com/story/20...

As far as political corruption, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" trumps your lame links. But it's not political corruption that concerns you, apparently. What concerns me is that these 501(c)'s appear to easily become pass-thrus, great stealth structures that allow the concealment of donors, the late reporting of spending, the blurring of the line between political partisanship and "social welfare", fact and fiction.

What concerns me is that, in the case of the tea party, US citizens are essentially subsidizing groups whose primary purpose is to demolish government. What concerns me is that we are to believe that a primary goal of tea party groups is not to influence elections, but to conduct social welfare.

The IRS should vet and review large numbers of randomly selected applications. They should not target any particular group, but it stands to reason that they will eventually review groups representing many different people. In the case of the pro-Israel Jewish groups, are you suggesting that any review of a politically-opposing group at any given time should be considered targeting?

Vladtheimp

I see - there is no difference in your mind, between the IRS attempting to influence the 2013 election results by refusing to grant tax exempt status to potentially hundreds of groups, who would have to be non-partisan to maintain their tax free status, and questioning the tax free status of an organization that acted in a partisan manner after being granted such status?

Similarly, teaching about the constitution has the purpose of demolishing government. Typical liberal logic.

The emperor is strolling down Pennsylvania Avenue hand in hand with "what difference does it make" Hillary, both buck naked, and you pretend they are garbed in the finest of silks.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/...

Lanivan

Answer a question by asking another question much? I guess valor is not part of your DNA. 1.) There is no evidence thus far that the IRS was attempting to influence any election (and I assume you mean 2012). And being granted 501(c)(4) status is based on social welfare being the predominant reason for requesting tax exempt status, not political influence, so how could the IRS influence an election by not granting tax exempt status? 2.) There is no evidence thus far that the IRS refused to grant tax exempt status to hundreds of groups. So far, out of a reported 300 applications selected for review, 75 of those were tea party groups, and of those 75, most were granted 501(c)(4) status.

I happen to have some long-time close friends who are members of tea party groups in their locales (not in West Michigan). They have shared a great deal with me about what is "taught" at the meetings. One of the biggies is the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. By and large, what I hear is the insatiable need to have conspiracy theories to explain the rampant paranoia within these groups. This goes back a century or more - it's nothing new or special. For them, basically whenever a Democrat is elected president, they go into conspiracy theory mode. This latest round of Obama-bashing fills a great need, now that the birther Kenyan Muslim stuff is over.

The degree of corrosiveness is staggering. This is what makes me sad when I walk down the aisle.

Vladtheimp

You must be a Congresscritter - 257 words to ask a question. Yes, 2012 election. We have no idea how many groups were illegally discriminated against - as has proven true time and time again, the Obama regime is incapable of telling us the truth about anything. We both seek "evidence" so it is logical that we both support appointment of a special prosecutor. We wouldn't know anything but for the courage of the IRS Inspector General - no wonder Obama has waged war against them (and more effectively than he has any foreign enemies).

I should give credibility to "friends" who tell you what is "taught" at Tea Party meetings, and that there is an insatiable need for conspiracy theories? Surely you jest.

Actually, it goes back to 1773 when ordinary citizens and patriots rebelled against a tyrant and unfair taxes at the Boston Tea Party.

Only Carney and Carneyvan (and probably Axelrad)could be saddened by the "corrosiveness" of citizens exercising their Constitutional rights against a backdrop of government lies and crimes in Benghazi, by the IRS, by the Department of Justice subpoenaing the phone records of employers, and Sebelius breaking the law by extorting funds from the health care industry when Congress refused to appropriate the funds. It's not corrosiveness, it's ROT, and its rot from the top thug from Chicago on down to Shillary and racialist Eric Holder. Have you no shame?

Lanivan

What is your definition of 'shame'? What is your definition of 'Constitutional Rights'? What do you consider an insatiable need for conspiracy theories? How do you define 'conspiracy theories'? Why are you compelled to be the judge, jury, and executioner of Obama in every situation? Are you implying that the march-in-lockstep, predictable, stereotypical, obstructive, blindly biased against anything not of their choosing reaction of the far right is NOT rot? That the only rot exists in those areas where you say it does? Why do you feel a need to mock the credibility of what has been told me by tea party friends?

My question tab is about to wear out, so enough with that. Let's continue in the smug, disrespectful vein your words evoke (I did learn something from those Dale Carnegie books laying around about how to win friends and influence people - perhaps you should pick one up?). I see rot in the congressional GOP circus car darting hither and yon, with Mitch the driver with a red rubber ball on his nose, Rand Paul wearing an orange polka dot tie and blue smoke coming out his ears, Darrall Issa in the back seat, dressed in a Count Dracula cape with fake fangs, and Ted Cruz hanging out barking and beclowning himself, just as he is. Have you no sense of context, balance, content, or nuance?

Vladtheimp

Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides:
Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.

The rights guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment;

Paranoia without any reason in fact, such as: everyone who has a firearm is suspect and likely to kill someone - contra The Obama regime does not respect the rule of law.

Only the judge - that is one of my Constitutional rights;

If you were describing reality, I might consider your fantasy as rot. The Progressives intentional destruction of our historical and cultural values, such as gay marriage, abortion, socialism, erosion of parental rights, racialism, anti-religion, and on and on ad infinitum is rot.

Not mock, simply question.

Your second paragraph could describe the Congress if you added Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangle, Barbaras Boxer and Lee, Dianne Feinstein, and, of course, Al Franken, and good old Hank Johnson.

Lanivan

Time shall unfold...finally! Something with c,c,n, and b. Not scripted, one-dimensional, or stereotyped that at this point I could recite verbatim. Astonishing.

Vladtheimp

As predicted at 6:27 p.m. Talking Points Go Boom http://legalinsurrection.com/201...

LOL - word verification 6C3ZU

Wingmaster

Spin, bob, weave, blow off whatever Lan. Post all you want in his defense, this guy is a dirty Chicago politician and he is going to get eventually tagged with some of the garbage he is pulling on this country. He is corrupt, the media is carrying and covering, and eventually even the media will turn on him as he tries to dump on Billary and ruin their chance to run in 2016. She was anointed before him and he only got the nod because he out Clinton the Clintons!

This country needs new direction, new families and fresh young politicians to run against the establishments of both parties.

Lanivan

Tea party echo chamber comments, mindless, without "context, content, nuance, or balance", to quote Mystic Michael.

What is most appalling, even for you, is your statement that..."This country needs..new families..". One would think from this that you view your family as the good kind, and others as the bad kind that need to be scrapped. Some unsolicited advice: be careful where you're going with this kind of thinking. Just when you think you and your family has the moral high ground, a cousin comes out of the closet, a high school niece announces she's preggers, and an aunt dumps an uncle for a democrat.

Wingmaster

What twisted babble are you blowing about now. No where do I even infer my family has moral high ground. I find this lawyer like twisting of statements and words even more telling of your weak position. My statements are relating to the Bush's and Clintons and you know it. Your unsolicited advice sounds more like the thought police are coming after me. Maybe someday in your socialist utopia but not today!

Weak Lan, very weak futile attempt at dodging the subject and track of the discussion here!

Lanivan

I see. When pushed back regarding words clearly stating a specific thought, you spin it to mean something very different.

Just so I understand the rules of the game. I apologize for believing you were more direct than this.

Wingmaster

We agree...you do spin words to mean different things. More bright shining objects are coming for you to spin like tops...... Now when was it called terrorism

Vladtheimp

The Newtster put it well:

Gingrich retierated the point later in the interview, calling on Obama to issue a mea culpa for the "culturally sick" targeting.

"He also owes every tea party in America, every group called patriot, every group that wants to study the Constitution an apology," Gingrich said. "How can you have an American government profile against the word patriot? I mean, there's something culturally sick if the American government says 'Boy, you put that word constitution in your name, we're going to come after you.' Again, this isn't an administration that is shocked at the idea of profiling for terrorism but apparently had an entire part of the IRS that was profiling for patriotism. I find that to be very, very chilling in terms of our political liberty."

Lanivan

Is this quote from the same Newt Gingrich who dumped two wives after they were diagnosed with serious illnesses; committed adultery with Callista while salaciously worked to impeach Clinton for his dalliance with Monica; who proposed the creation of a monolithic new space program that would spend a trillion dollars in making the moon the 51st US state; who consistently accused Mitt Romney of lying and being totally dishonest throughout the primaries (he was right about that, at least), and predicting with absolute certainty that he, Newt, would win the nomination?

Oh, right.....

Wingmaster

And this somehow disqualifies him from calling out inappropriate behavior of our President?

I drank my first beer as a minor so now does that somehow disqualify me from reporting a minor drinking party?

Why didn't you just say na na boo boo at the end of your post to complete your child like position here!

Lanivan

You are absolutely correct it does. When a man as ethically and morally challenged as Newt Gingrich attacks Obama as being "culturally sick", he exposes himself for what he is - a hypocrite with a capital H. When someone commits the sins he has, you lose all rights to credibility.

And the same goes for you. If, after having drank your first beer as a minor you report underage drinking, you present yourself as a hypocrite, and as having "alternate motives" for your reporting. The only way out would be if you were reporting because of concern for their safety.

Clearly, both you and Vlad, he for selecting Newt Gingrich and you for supporting that selection, have problems with ethics, morals, and hypocrisy yourselves. With that in mind, I happily accept the "child like" position and take the high road of "valor", Vlad's newest word designed to mock. Na na hey hey kiss him (and you) goodbye.

Wingmaster

So now your messiah has another ethics problem directing the war on drugs http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynops...

Should be interesting to see you bob, weave, and spin your personal Jesus out of this one. I remember when buzz feed was.....well you get the picture http://www.google.com/search?sit...

Lanivan

I love how you are so eager to get the last word in you hit the save button twice. So now we're on to substance abuse and presidents, are we? You're a hoot. Let's have a big pow wow about Bush's drinking, cocaine use, police record that dad got expunged, etc.

And, by the way, I will thank you to never refer to Obama as my personal Jesus again.

Wingmaster

So now your messiah has another ethics problem directing the war on drugs http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynops...

Should be interesting to see you bob, weave, and spin your personal Jesus out of this one. I remember when buzz feed was.....well you get the picture http://www.google.com/search?sit...

Vladtheimp

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy, Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy, Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy, Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy

Wingmaster

Yup that covers it

Lanivan

I do believe you cowboys could get this comment field up to #100 with your asinine remarks - dare ya!

It is the Democrats who passed and enacted historic ethics reform that broke the link between lobbyists and legislators: no gifts, no private jets, and no meals from lobbyists.

It is the Democrats who passed and enacted unprecedented levels of transparency and disclosure, shining sunlight on the activities of Members of Congress and lobbyists.

It is the Democrats who established the Office of Congressional Ethics.

It is the Democrats who got the Ethics Committee – which didn’t function under Republicans – back to work.

And so, so much more for your edification: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs...

Vladtheimp

Too naive to even waste time responding. Obama, who promised no lobbyists in his administration, as the most ethical, transparent, administration evah - now that thar's funny! Thanks - you finally made me smile.

Lanivan

That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain....

Vladtheimp

From the Way Way Back Machine: http://sweetness-light.com/archi...

Wingmaster

Duck, bob and weave Lan. Now bring out Boosh. Your so predictable.

Ok, try this http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynops... To bring us back to the topic. You wonder why I don't trust the gubment with records of gun purchases when they can so easily single out citizens like this! Note I used a CBS news, a lib outlet for my link on this. You might want to rethink your position on gun registration!

SOS Lan, Same ole Situation - Motley Crue

Vladtheimp

Oh my, so lathered up about the truth coming out about the most transparent administration Evah that you take one line from Wing's comment, rush to the Daily Kos, and copy their talking points verbatim (yes Lanny, I found the Kos story).

What could have precipitated this pre-emptive strike? Maybe you read earlier that the mainstream media is starting to get excited about the Obama/Clinton scandal that resulted in the death of American heroes and the ambassador to Libya and wanted to get out in front of it?

"ABC News reported Friday that, despite administration claims that the flawed description reflected the best intelligence at the time, the talking points that led to the statement were revised 12 times.

Initial versions, as has been previously reported, contained references to Al Qaeda that were later deleted. But the latest excerpts show how State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency's prior security warnings.

According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

But Nuland wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

And then they sent the U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, to 5 different Sunday A.M. television stations to lie about what happened and blame it on a stupid YouTube video. Worse, Hillary told the same thing to the parents of those murdered in Libya. More disclosures to follow.

The truth will out notwithstanding the efforts of Barack Hussein, Hillary, and Lanivan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/...

Pages

 

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.