U.K. Parliament Rejects Military Strike On Syria

U.K. Parliament Rejects Military Strike On SyriaMPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

‘Disappointed’

David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes. Speaking in Parliament immediately after the vote, the prime minister said:

“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.”

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond later told BBC’s News night programme he and the prime minister were “disappointed” with the result of the Commons vote which he said would harm Britain’s “special relationship” with Washington. But he said he did not expect Britain’s decision to “stop any action” by other countries.


‘British national interest’

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the result meant military action was “off the agenda”, and added that MPs had reacted against the prime minister’s “cavalier and reckless” leadership. Mr Miliband said Britain’s relationship with the US “cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants you to do”.

“Sometimes, under my leadership, we’ll have disagreements with the United States, we’ll take a different view to them, but we’ve got to operate on the basis of the British national interest,” he added.

The defeat comes as a potential blow to the authority of Mr Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to Labour’s demands for more evidence of President Assad’s guilt.

Should other countries go ahead with the military strike against Syria? What is your stance regarding this controversial issue?

Source: BBC News

Image: Yahoo! News

Democrats Propose Bill For Additional Tax On Handguns

Democrats Propose Bill For Additional Tax On HandgunsA pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.

‘Gun violence prevention’

Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act,” the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

The lawmakers say the bill would generate $600 million per year, which would be used to fund law-enforcement and gun violence prevention. The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.


‘Good use’

The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and  increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100. The amendment will be voted upon when the House returns for the new session in the fall.

Davis, who represents a portion of Chicago which has been ravaged by gun violence in recent years, said money raised from the new taxes will go to good use.

Do you approve of this new bill for additional taxes on handguns? Why or why not?

Source: Perry Chiaramonte | Fox News

Image: Breitbart