While even the wackiest of loons may not be dangerous, it's stories like this that remind us that it only takes one. This is so scary.


TIS

Man with shotgun arrested near Capitol during address
By Jordy Yager - 09/10/09 12:39 PM ET

A man with a shotgun was arrested on Wednesday night by U.S. Capitol Police while attempting to gain access to Capitol grounds as President Barack Obama began to deliver his speech to a joint session on healthcare.

Capitol Police stopped Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Va., at approximately 8 p.m. on Wednesday night several blocks away from the Capitol as he made a “failed attempt to gain access to [a Capitol] barricade,” a spokeswoman said.



After consenting to an administrative search of his vehicle, a shotgun in its case with ammunition was found in the vehicle’s trunk. He was transported to Capitol Police headquarters where he was processed and charged with carrying an unregistered firearm and possessing unregistered ammunition.

While the arrest was made by Capitol Police officers, the department was working in conjunction with U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday night as members of the White House and nearly the full body of Congress attended Obama’s speech.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/58139-man-with-shotgun-arrested-outside-speech
The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.

The south again. This is what happens when Repub, er, cousins marry.

And just think PB you have a home in the South.

Another thing since when do you have to register ammo?

I have no idea. Not being a hunter and/or gun owner. I'm learning though. I now know in certain areas you CAN strap a gun to your leg and it's legal if it's registered. You can do so within yards from a President. I would have doubted it before.

I know less about ammo. My guess would be, that different state perhaps have different laws/guidelines????


TIS

How ya doin TIS? I know in Ohio you don't have to register guns.

I'm doing good Mig, and you?

My nephews in Michigan are bigtime hunters. I'll have to ask them what the law is there.


TIS

I'm doing good thank you. Are those fires still going on out there? I hope they are not near you.

CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan
Posted: September 10th, 2009 04:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.

Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the survey say the support Obama's health care reform proposals that the president outlined in his address, with 29 percent opposed. Those figures are almost identical to a poll conducted immediately after Bill Clinton's health care speech before Congress in September, 1993.

The audience for the speech appears to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole. Because of this, the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tune into the speech. The poll surveyed the opinions of people who watched Wednesday night's speech, and does not reflect the views of all Americans.

(Full results after the jump)

About one in seven people who watched the speech changed their minds on Obama's health care plan. "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience — 53 percent — favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But the real question is whether those conversions will last. Bill Clinton got similar numbers after his 1993 address to Congress, but five months later a majority of the country no longer supported his plan."

Fifty-six percent of people questioned say they had a very positive reaction to the speech, with 21 percent indicating they had a somewhat positive reaction and a equal amount suggesting they had a negative reaction. The 56 percent who said they had a very positive reaction is lower than the 68 percent of speech watchers who had a similar reaction to the president's first address to a joint session of Congress in February.

More than seven in ten say that Obama clearly stated his goals, with one in four saying he didn't express his goals clearly.

Three out of four say it's very or somewhat likely that the president will pass most of his proposals on health care reform through Congress, with one in four saying it's unlikely.

Seven in 10 say that Obama's policies will move the country in the right direction, up 10 points from before the speech.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted just before and just after the president's speech, with 427 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.

Why would it matter if you did? I don't know if you do or don't have to, but if you're not going to do anything illegal with the ammunition, then why NOT register it?

As for everyone in Washington, including the President, being a liar, could you please point out the exact portion of the bill that pertains to illegal immigrants? I am curious to see who is right and who is wrong.

According to the fact check on cnn.com, President Obama was telling the truth, but perhaps you could do some research and show us where he is lying.

No matter, what Congressman Wilson did was disgraceful. What are we teaching our young? That they can just shout things at people who are in the middle of talking? Will they do that in their classrooms? There is a time and a place for protest. Let Congressman Wilson hold his own press conference on his own time and he can say what he likes about the President's address.

WTF! this is getting out of control, and if this continue there will be blood on the sidewalks.

You've got me there, Miggie. But as everyone knows, because of all of the transplanted New Yorkers, the Floridian attitude is a lot more liberal than the rest of the south. But it depends what part of Florida you're in. My home is in Palm Beach County, where you can't throw a rock out a window without hitting a New Yorker. But if you go to places like Okeechobee, or down to the Glades, there are plenty of "crackers" around.

When I make fun of the south, I'm usually talking about places like, you know, South Carolina.

By the way, Mig, what do you call someone from South Carolina with half a brain?

Gifted .

Washington DC Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975

TITLE VI — POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION

Sec. 601. No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:

(a) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to Title IV of this act.

(b) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition.

(c) He is the holder of a valid registiatioo certificate for a firearm of the same guage or caliber as the ammunition he possesses,

(d) He holds an ammunition collector's certificate on the effective date of this act.

I agree with you he shouldn't have said that. People in public office and others needs to keep their emotions in check. At least he didn't call the President a child molester.

And at least the President didn't make up stories about death panels and giving insurance to illegal immigrants.

And just to get the facts straight, since everyone will be required to have health insurance, there is nothing in the current legislation that prevents an undocumented citizen from PURCHASING the public option, but the subsidies that some Americans will be eligible for will NOT be available to undocumented citizens.

If someone disagrees with this bill, then let them present a legitimate and valid reason. Don't cloud the issue with half-truths and outright lies.

did anybody hear about glen beck suing a website
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=80636

I never heard of this, but then I don't follow Beck that closely except for tidbits here and there. Is he crying "on air"?


TIS

Sponsors have been deserting Beck's tv show on Fox in droves. The recently resigned Green Czar led the campaign and Keith Olberman frequently cites Beck as his Worst Person in the World.

I heard something on the radio yesterday that a Senator from Montana proposes that if we don't buy the government insurance that we will be fined up to $3800. Has anyone else heard this?

AP
WASHINGTON – A top senator is calling for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after a health care overhaul goes into effect.

The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage. It would provide tax credits to help cover the cost for people making up to three times the federal poverty level. That's about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

But those who still don't sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. The maximum penalty on individuals would be $950.

Baucus is hoping his plan can win bipartisan support. A copy of his proposal was obtained by The Associated Press.

If you do a simple Google search, tons of articles will pop up, Mig. As the President said last night, just as we are required to have automobile insurance, everyone in the United States will be required to have health insurance. There is an idea floating around to fine people who want to refuse to have ANY insurance.

Under the current system, if an uninsured person goes to the hospital, they can't be refused care. Guess who pays for those visits? Taxpayers.

If you already have insurance, then you DO NOT have to buy anything. You DO NOT have to do anything. You keep your current insurance.

If you don't have insurance, or your employer doesn't offer affordable insurance, or if you are self-employed and are paying crippling premiums, then you can purchase the public option. If you can't afford the public option, then subsidies will be made available.

I hope you are right SB.

well that insurence better not worth as much to those who cant afford it right now

Mignon, the President of the United States stood up in front of Congress, the Senate and the people of this country and in a nationally televised address said, "First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

How could he possibly make it any clearer???

Well let's just pray that he keeps his word.

He doesn't pass the bill. The House and Senate do. He only signs it. The language of the bill is up to them.

SB is right Mig. If the language in that bill is not acceptable to him and/or contains or omits something that he promises will not or should not be in that bill or should be part of that bill, than he can VETO it.

Personally I like the individual mandate that requires everyone to get insurance. There are a lot of young people who can afford insurance but who don't have it. They will
be paying in, and the risk of them needing major medical care is low, so all in all that is a winner.

Abolishing the "pre exiting condition" and the dropping of people as soon as they get sick will also be a major accomplishment.

What is trickier is the public option. IMHO this bill will include tax credits for employers, and subsidies for the poor, and possibly some kind of "trigger" provision for a public option if all else fails. The concern is that if a public option comes about, it will probably be cheaper to opt into it.
As an employer, I certainly would, epecially if I am required to provide insurance for employees. Under that set of circumstances, I would be dropping my present insurance and getting something else. In order for the public option to insure that everyone who is happy with their current plan and current doctor can keep it, the option would have to allow employees, who have no say in who their employer chooses, would need some assurance that the public option excludes no health care providers, and matches what the previous insurer pays the doctors. I am not sure how this can be done.

I also don't believe for a minute that eventually taxes will be raised.

Still I think we need this plan because it is better than what we have now. Insurance companies cannot be trusted, and I really think this will force them to stop playing the games they inevitably do.

SC is taking vocabulary lessons from Dick Cheney.