>2 friendly suggestions:
>
>First, Commentary magazine. They have an online blog. They are definitely neo-conservative, but are much more thoughtful than most right-leaning areas. They also have a pretty high degree of accuracy.
>
>Second, LegalInsurrection.com. It is a blog by a libertarian attorney. There can be hardline slants by friend of his who post in the comments area.
>
>I read NYT (though I think it's nearly a rag these days) and I think most of the writing at HuffPo is air-head based. But I do read them. I also find WaPo to be tolerable.
>
>

I'll check in on them.
Yes, the NYT has its bad days, but it has more good ones than the other sources I've tried, so I keep coming back.
The rampant nepotism at the NYT bothers me more than the junk pieces.
As I've said here ad nauseum, birth should not imply worth and it certainly seems to at the NYT.

>>that the framers of the 2nd Amendment felt it so strong that they'd consider it a right

The framers also thought that people from Africa were private property that could be traded like sacks of wheat and that women weren't capable of making an informed choice at the ballot box.
They got a lot right, but they got some very important things wrong.

Also, time changes things.
The colonists needed guns to hunt and to slaughter native Americans whose lands they were confiscating.
Modern Americans don't have those needs. We have supermarkets and a paid military that does our slaughtering and confiscating.

More importantly though, guns don't make sense in densely populated areas, period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
Here in the US, more policemen die in the line of duty each year than have died in Britain in all the years since 1900- over a century.
To me it's obvious that guns, and the predisposition to use them, are a major cause of those deaths.

The recent shooting in North Charleston, SC is a well-publicized example of something that is happening every day here in the US. This one got attention because a policeman shot an unarmed man, but is that really any worse than a civilian shooting a policeman or another civilian? It's happening daily in Camden, Trenton, Baltimore, LA and in cities across the US and tragically it happens when some deranged person shoots up a school, a theater, a church, a synagogue or a mosque.

So, when Ted Cruz, et al, pander to this nonsense about how people have second amendment rights, blah, blah, they are putting lives at risk.
That's a lot different from someone who says "I never had sex with that woman" or "You can keep you plan."


















>
>OK, now for Ted Cruz. That is precisely what Cruz said. And I agree with him 100%.
>
>And it's funny you mentioned the NYT, because this is another example of the NYT going brain-dead. In this case, Andrew Rosenthal, who took issue with Cruz. Rosenthal apparently doesn't understand that our founders (who just won a fight against their own government and felt justified in their cause, might realize that future generations could also find themselves in the same position). I guess Rosenthal and the NYT can't connect the dots - that the framers of the 2nd Amendment felt it so strong that they'd consider it a right.
>
>As for Lindsay Graham....I try to minimize using the term "RINO", but he and Rubio are RINOs. And dishonest ones at that. If Lindsay Graham/Rubio ran against Hillary....I'd flip a coin.