ShareThis Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposal banning 157 models of “assault weapons” — actually they were guns that merely resembled military weapons — is considered dead as a doornail. It's a small victory for common sense that's so lacking in The Great Gun Debate. Past similar bans, based on much of the same cosmetics, did nothing to reduce gun violence. We understand the California Democrat next will seek a ban on “assault senators,” pesky young Republican senators who have the audacity to question her. ... The odds of having filled out a perfect bracket for the just-started NCAA men's basketball tournament are said to be one in 9.2 quintillion. Which actually are better odds than the Obama administration telling the truth about Benghazi. ... The Onion, America's great parody news organization, “reports” that Punxsutawney Phil was beheaded for his inaccurate Feb. 2 prognostication that spring was just around the corner. We're surprised that PETA didn't fire off one of its classic news releases, this time protesting the faux inhumane treatment. ... Roll Call reports that if Republicans hold up the nomination of Labor Secretary-designate Thomas Perez, “it could mean trouble for a party focused on reaching out to minorities.” But if the GOP caves and doesn't, the nation will come to regret Mr. Perez's far-left agenda that's sure to cater to Big Labor thugs and at the expense of every working American.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.