Nov 1 2019
05:56 pm
By: R. Neal

"Though it is difficult to accept, it is clear to me now that this campaign does not have the means to move forward successfully. My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. Acknowledging this now is in the best interests of those in the campaign; it is in the best interests of this party as we seek to unify around a nominee; and it is in the best interests of the country."

Knoxoasis's picture

Shame. Beto said the things

Shame. Beto said the things you're not supposed to say out loud. It would be nice to have kept him in as a reminder of where the slippery slope ends.

Mike Daugherty's picture

Yep, he used the big F word

Yep, he used the big F word repeatedly when speaking to crowds of women, men, and kids. He should not have said it out loud, especially with lots of children around listening to his bad example. I do give him credit for having the guts to call for outlawing assault weapons. Members of Congress that refuse to vote for banning those weapons are gutless and share the blame for the innocent people that have been killed or injured by those weapons.

As far as Beto dropping out, it is past time for him to go. I am sure with the wealth his family has they will find him a job. Maybe Castro, Booker, and Gabbard and a few others will follow him out. I sure hope they do.

Alex_Falk's picture

the exit is over there!

and biden, harris, buttigieg, yang, klobuchar, steyer, bennet, etc...

just imagine the 2024 trump 2.0 that would follow the (extremely unlikely) scenario in which a biden/harris/buttgieg type neoliberal wins both the primary & general

traveler's picture

I trust we all know that,

I trust we all know that, except in war, essentially no Americans are killed annually with "assault weapons"?

Domestically, 95% of firearm homicides are committed with handguns. From the FBI's 2018 Uniform Crime Report, of the 10,265 firearm homicides in 2018, only about 5% involved a rifle of *any* kind, virtually none of which were "assault rifles."

(We don't know precisely how many murder weapons were "assault rifles" because FBI does not distinguish between types of rifle used, but a safe estimate would be "zero," as the private ownership of fully automatic weapons by American citizens is an extreme rarity. I can't recall any examples of U.S. murders being committed with fully automatic weapons.)

2018 UCR Table 8 reports that in 2018,
1,515 Americans were killed with knives,
672 were killed with hands and feet,
443 were killed with clubs and hammers.
297 were killed with rifles (of any kind, not merely "assault rifles").

Teen drivers' accidents, on the other hand, killed 3,255 Americans in 2017 NHTSA, far more than rifles. Yet, no one's passionately arguing that teen driving is an imminent threat to society, nor campaigning to abolish teen driving.

So, rifles just don't seem to be a problem to me. Demonizing and focusing on a tiny subset of that seems silly at best, or disingenuous, take your pick.

I don't find members of Congress siding with essential liberties to be cowardly at all. Rather, I look to Hong Kong's protesters signs "We Need a 2nd Amendment," and to the tyrannies of Europe, where I once lived, and am thankful we Americans chose at the outset to trust one another as equal citizens, co-owners and co-defenders of this magnificent country we share.

Mike Daugherty's picture

The second amendment does not

The second amendment does not prohibit gun control. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to help ensure ratification in 1788.Part of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment, was added to our constitution during an era when Americans still remembered fighting the Revolutionary war and had feared the presence of British soldiers. Most of our citizens made a living farming and hunting. Life was very different 230 years ago. Today less than 1% of our citizens are farmers and those that hunt sure do not need an assault weapon to hunt animals.
Being against banning assault weapons is not just silly but plain stupid! Siding against our government's right to restrict and keep guns out of the hands of murderers of innocent women and men is irresponsible. Siding with the gun rights of killers that take even one life of a precious little child with an assault weapon or any other kind of firearm is not just cowardly but immoral and disgusting. I don't find members of Congress that side with the essential liberty of all citizens to live a safe life without fearing being gunned down cowardly at all. I do find those members of Congress that are not for sensible gun control gutless and unworthy of any respect.
Give your statistics to a family that has lost a child or parent that has been shot and killed with an assault weapon. I hope they can forgive you, I sure could not if it were my family because you and people with your attitude share the blame.
The overwhelming majority of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons and sensible gun control. Your President and his spineless followers in Congress continue to go against the will of Americans and do all they can to please the NRA and the gun lobby.

Knoxoasis's picture

IOW Travellor, your facts

IOW Travellor, your facts hurt his feelings.

bizgrrl's picture

2019 El Paso, TX - Walmart,


El Paso, TX - Walmart, single gunman, AK-47 style weapon, 22 people died and 24 more were injured.

Dayton, OH - downtown historic district,  single gunman,  .223-caliber high-capacity rifle with 100-round drum magazines, 9 people died and 27 injured.

Odessa/Midland, TX - on the streets around town, single gunman, AR-15 style weapon, 8 people died and 25 injured.

Gilroy, CA - Garlic Festival, single gunman,  WASR-10 semi-automatic weapon, 4 people died and 17 injured.

Virginia Beach, VA - Virginia Beach Municipal Center, single gunman, two semi- automatic  .45-caliber pistols, with extended ammunition magazines, 13 people died an 4 were injured.

5 shootings, 5 gunmen, 56 people died, 97 injured

To name a few reasons for better gun controls.

fischbobber's picture

And, of course, the dirty little secret........

The way the 2nd Amendment is written, the only weapons an American has a "right" to own are those deemed necessary by his militia commander to be necessary to his function.

(Heller, notwithstanding, since there was no clear-cut militia commander and Heller legitimately met every reasonable condition of militia service that would have likely been imposed, the argument would go that he exceeded any responsibility that would have made his right conditional. Hence the idea that the 2nd amendment extends to a personal right.)

The obvious problem with the prefatory clause is that we haven't really used a militia system since the civil war and the idea that a local militia would balance an out of control sheriff's department has since been replaced by other federal agencies.

The 2nd amendment is way overdue for a review at the local, state and federal level.My personal view is that militias should be reestablished to deal with issues arising from climate change, insurrection, and large scale social disorders. Training should be practical, available and mandatory. Those not participating in their local militias should be regulated as both the militia commander and the elected officials at whatever level the militia is established. I also think the distribution of food, medical supplies and the protection of citizens and domiciles should replace the unrestricted right to shoot schoolchildren.

The militia as a social institution needs to change with the times. Short of that, perhaps a rethinking of an unrestricted militia membership should change.

Mike Daugherty's picture

Bob, I am from Appalachia,

Bob, I am from Appalachia, just a simple country hillbilly. Your language is too sophisticated for me to understand sometimes but I do want to try my best to respond to your comments.

The second amendment in no way prohibits the national, state, or local governments from restricting the use of guns. However, since there is so much misinterpretation and lack of understanding of the second amendment, it is past time to repeal/revise it to allow for sensible gun restrictions at all levels of government. The abolishment or revision of the second amendment would do what other amendments have done, right a wrong of our Constitution. The 13th amendment righted a wrong by abolishing slavery. The 19th amendment gave women the right they had always deserved, the right to vote. Abolishing or at least revising and clarifying the second amendment would be a huge step in the right direction by saving many lives.

fischbobber's picture

Your point is solid

Something needs to change when it comes to guns.

We can change the 2nd amendment.

We can change our states constitution to redefine our militia.

We can man up and pose real regulations.

But, no change will occur overnight, so where we should at least consider starting is with education. To do that, we must tear through the NRA propaganda machine.

It sounds to me like we're on the same page.

Mike Daugherty's picture

You are a very smart guy. A

You are a very smart guy. A certified genius! Thanks a bunch for keeping it simple for a guy that does not reach the genius status of some.

fischbobber's picture


Whenever possible I try to use big words.

R. Neal's picture

We can change the 2nd

We can change the 2nd amendment.

True. But get back to us when the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified.

Knoxgal's picture

ERA Deadline Removed

Yesterday a House committee voted to remove the deadline for the ERA. Now we just have to flip the Senate

Mike Daugherty's picture

Hopefully the Dems will take

Hopefully the Dems will take the Senate in 2020 election. It will not be easy given Doug Jones of Alabama cannot win. That will mean Democrats would need to hold all their other seats and win 4 seats plus win the Presidency to gain control. The most likely pickups would be in Colorado, Arizona, N.C., Maine, and Iowa. Dems could lose one and still gain control. We can hope and pray that happens and that Trump ends up in prison where he belongs.

Of course, it does take 67 Senators and two-thirds of the House to propose an amendment. I know the ERA was proposed and sent
to the states for ratification in 1972. By 1977 35 states had ratified, three short of the three-fourths needed. I have not kept up with efforts to renew the ERA movement. What is happening? Are you saying that the 35 states that ratified in the 1970s would stand and the time limit abolished, meaning that it would take only three additional states to ratify for the ERA to go into effect? I always thought time had expired and they would have to start all over again meaning some original states that ratified in the 1970s might not ratify today.

Ratifying the ERA stands a much greater chance than anything that would allow sensible gun restrictions. There will be nothing passed changing the second amendment in the near future.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives