Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
You Can Have Your Medical Marijuana If You Give Me Your Gun
At a press conference yesterday where he announced the arrests of more than 700 people connected to Mexican drug cartels, Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated the Obama administration's support for reinstituting a federal "assault weapon" ban. The Democratic Party considers the law—which covered 19 models by name, along with other guns that had certain "military-style" features (such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts) and magazines holding more than 10 rounds—the very model of reasonable gun control. Its 2008 platform called for bringing back the ban, and Obama has repeatedly voiced support for it. Both he and Holder say they are confident it would pass constitutional muster even after last year's Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
On the face of it, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller suggests Obama and Holder are right. He implied that the Second Amendment would allow the government to ban possession of "dangerous and unusual weapons," in contrast with weapons "in common use." But it is difficult to argue that the guns covered by the "assault weapon" ban were especially "dangerous," since they were selected mainly based on scary looks, as opposed to features that make a practical difference in the hands of criminals. Furthermore, many arguably were "in common use"; certainly magazines holding more than 10 rounds were (and are).
As I've argued, the very arbitrariness of "assault weapon" bans invites further gun control, because they are designed not to work as advertised. "I think [a federal assault weapon ban] will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum," Holder said at the press conference. ABC News explains that "Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States [has] emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S." The linked story makes a passing reference to "high-powered assault weapons" (a misleading description, since the guns that fall into this arbitrarily defined category are not, as a group, more powerful than the guns that don't). But the story is mainly about America's allegedly lax gun laws, the reason "U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels." An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives tells ABC, "It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come." So a conversation that starts with banning guns that are (erroneously) identified as especially "dangerous and unusual" very quickly turns to the ease with which "private citizens" can obtain guns of any kind.
TalkLeft notes that the Obama administration, while seeking to ban "military-style" guns, seems bent on increasing the use of the actual military to wage the war on drugs, especially along the border with Mexico. Before he does that, our president might wan to consult with former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, who understands that the war on drugs creates the very conditions of violent disorder that are cited to justify escalating it.
In terms of drug policy, there was at least one positive sign at Holder's press conference. Asked if the Drug Enforcement Administration, which is part of the Justice Department, would continue the medical marijuana raids that Obama promised to end during his campaign (a promise a White House spokesman recently said he intends to keep), Holder replied:
What the president said during the campaign, you will be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign, he is formally and technically and by law my boss now, and so what he said during campaign is now American policy.
You can hear the exchange in this video of the press conference, about 25 minutes in. I noted Obama's irrational attachment to the "assault weapon" ban in the February issue of Reason.
Update: LarryA notes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, perhaps cognizant of what happened to Democratic members of Congress the last time around, is less than enthusiastic about Holder's call for a new "assault weapon" ban:
"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference....
That phrase is the stock line of those who don't want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
[Thanks to John Kluge and Tom Angell at LEAP for the links.]
|2.26.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Reinstating a failed, Clinton-era ban on scary looking
firearms?
Now that's change I can believe in.
|2.26.09 @ 11:24AM|#
Eric Holder is absolutely right, guys. I will be surprised if Obama's drug war policies are consistent with what he said during the campaign.
|2.26.09 @ 11:25AM|#
I know for a fact that Mexican drug cartels won't deal with Russians or Chinese in order to get SKS or AK rifles. It simply won't happen. No way, no how. Not hearing it. Ain't gonna happen.
|2.26.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Their programs of oppression are self supporting. The drug war
fails and makes Mexico into a failed state. The fact that Mexico is
a failed state and full of violence that is begining to flood into
the United States gives them an excuse to ban weapons to keep them
from going to Mexico. Brilliant.
It is amazing what suckers the Dems played civil libertarians for.
All of the objections to Bush's terror policies over the last 8
years were just boob bait for the civil libertarian bubbas. The
Dems didn't believe any of it. They didn't think there was anything
wrong with GUITMO or domestic spying, torture or anything. They
just knew saying so would politically damage Bush. Now that they
are in power, they continue all of Bush's policies and use their
political capital, some of which was purchased by opposition to
those very policies, and use it to socialize the country, control
our healthcare and take our guns.
|2.26.09 @ 11:34AM|#
One more thing. The Dems don't give a shit about the Iraq war.
Most of them voted for it and never would have said a word had it
ended quickly. They only object to the Iraq war because it took
money that they could have otherwise stolen. They sure as hell
didn't object to it because they actually objected to invading
other countries or the poor Iraqi people or any of that other
bullshit.
Now BO is not only going to stay in Iraq, he is going to expand the
war in Afghanistan and since he is a Democrat the media or the
Congress won't call him on it. Had McCain tried that he Dems would
have been up in arms. Yeah they wouldn't have believed what they
said but they would have at least, from an anti-war perspective,
been doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. As it is they are
doing all the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
Now I support the Iraq war and don't object to what BO is doing. I
object to the fact that he is a lying sack of shit but I don't
object to his actions. But if I really objected to the war and
cared about something beyond Dems having power, I would be pretty
pissed right now.
|2.26.09 @ 11:36AM|#
They can ban anything not in widespread use, and can prevent something from being in widespread (law abiding) use by banning it. Liberalism 101.
|2.26.09 @ 11:37AM|#
If what he said during the campaign is "now American policy",
does that mean the DEA, on it's last three marijuana dispensery
busts in Cali, was violating "American policy" (whatever that is)?
Or by "now" does Holder mean "from this day forward"?
know for a fact that Mexican drug cartels won't deal with
Russians or Chinese in order to get SKS or AK rifles. It simply
won't happen. No way, no how. Not hearing it. Ain't gonna
happen.
Yep. Some people, especially in the United States, see the United
States as the cause of all good and evil in the entire world. If a
child is hungry in Cuba or Burma it's either the fault of Bushitler
Obama and/or the United States. We are the center of the world and
all events revolve around us. And why not? We pretty much invented
everything in the world, like the automobile...
|2.26.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Civil libertarians (at least the ACLU) only care about gay rights, criminal rights and terrorist rights. They don't give a hoot in hell about free speech, gun control, free markets, the drug war, etc.
Naga Sadow|2.26.09 @ 11:43AM|#
I think the violence in Mexico is awful but if we actually crack down on weapons won't they just go any else like the Chinese for weapons? I'm not sure giving the Chinese important contacts in Mexico is a good idea.
|2.26.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Civil libertarians (at least the ACLU)...don't give a hoot
in hell about free speech
Except when the ACLU is defending the likes of Fred Phelps...
|2.26.09 @ 11:45AM|#
There are only two bright spots in this bullshit.
1. The Republicans in Congress will mostly fight an assault ban
tooth and nail, and some Democrats.
2. Gun control is a political loser. Why Obama is doing this is
beyond me, but it might be enough to really crush the Dems in the
next elections, thereby switching Congress to the GOP. That would
give us gridlock, which is all we can hope for.
..|2.26.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Xeones | February 26, 2009, 11:33am | #
Yo, fuck the Obama administration.
No, fuck you, dipshit. Beat it.
LarryA|2.26.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Every Mexican news story I see says the drug cartels are using
fully automatic assault rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, 40mm
grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, night vision equipment,
electronic surveillance gear, and everything else our military has.
They aren't getting them at Texas gun shows.
I know for a fact that Mexican drug cartels won't deal with
Russians or Chinese in order to get SKS or AK rifles. It simply
won't happen. No way, no how. Not hearing it. Ain't gonna
happen.
After all, why should they purchase guns. The U.S.
Government is shipping Mexican military and law enforcement
agencies the same weapons they're giving our own police forces. All
the drug cartels have to do is divert them.
|2.26.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Also, Mexico has some very harsh gun control laws. It is illegal
to own any weapon and a mandatory two year sentence for possessing
one. The only reason they must have any violence is because of our
evil gun toating society.
The other thing Mexico has is a huge kidnapping industry. Since
only criminals have guns, it is pretty easy to kidnap people and
hold them for ransom. In a very armed America it is a lot harder.
Give the the dems a few years and they will disarm America and the
Mexican gangs and others will be in the US running kidnap rings
with impunity. But the BO won't give a shit, he has the USS which
is well armed.
|2.26.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"After all, why should they purchase guns. The U.S. Government
is shipping Mexican military and law enforcement agencies the same
weapons they're giving our own police forces. All the drug cartels
have to do is divert them."
Since they own most of the police, that is probably what they are
doing.
Naga Sadow|2.26.09 @ 11:51AM|#
I wonder if it's gonna end up like "LA Story" with everyone firing off rounds on the interstate.
|2.26.09 @ 11:53AM|#
I would be 99.99% in favor of a bill that created bullet prohibition if it legalized pot.
|2.26.09 @ 11:54AM|#
The plan is simple;
1. Ban guns
2. Watch a disarmed society be victimized by criminals and the
crime rate go through the roof.
3. Campaign on the lowering crime and keeping guns out of criminals
hands and tell everyone how you coun't possibly allow people to
legally own guns in this environment.
Think about it. If Mexico would let its citizens arm themselves and
fight the drug gangs, the gangs would live about a week. But if you
suggested such a thing, you would be told that "the last thing a
violent place like Mexico needs is more guns."
|2.26.09 @ 11:55AM|#
"I would be 99.99% in favor of a bill that created bullet
prohibition if it legalized pot."
So basically you wouldn't have a problem living in a totalitarian
state where you were defenseless against both the government and
criminals as long as you could smoke dope? Yeah that makes
sense.
|2.26.09 @ 11:57AM|#
I would be 99.99% in favor of a bill that created bullet prohibition if it legalized pot.
Warren, it's divisive statements like that which the already
fractured libertarian community doesn't need.
I don't engage in recreation drug use, but I'd never make a
statement to the effect of "I'm be all for keeping the drug war if
it meant I could own any firearm I please."
|2.26.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Yeah, the logic here is sorely lacking, of course. Maybe they
should listen (about this, at least) to former drug czar
McCaffrey:
The outgunned Mexican law enforcement authorities face armed
criminal attacks from platoon-sized units employing night vision
goggles, electronic intercept collection, encrypted communications,
fairly sophisticated information operations, sea-going
submersibles, helicopters and modern transport aviation, automatic
weapons, RPG's, Anti-Tank 66 mm rockets, mines and booby traps,
heavy machine guns, 50 [caliber] sniper rifles, massive use of
military hand grenades, and the most modern models of 40mm grenade
machine guns.
Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I have looked and
looked for the mines, grenades, grenade machine guns, and military
night vision goggles, but I can't seem to find any of that here in
the US. It might seem crazy, but these guys may be getting their
gear from somewhere else as well.
|2.26.09 @ 11:59AM|#
"I don't engage in recreation drug use, but I'd never make a
statement to the effect of "I'm be all for keeping the drug war if
it meant I could own any firearm I please.""
Amen
|2.26.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Xeones | February 26, 2009, 11:33am | #
Yo, fuck the Obama administration.
No, fuck you, dipshit. Beat it.
joe? That you?
|2.26.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Sage,
I have been trying to find a cruise missile for years and haven't
had any luck. If I could just find some claymores I could put an
end to the neighbor's dog crapping on my lawn and those damn
neighborhood kids skateboarding on my driveway. I wish I knew what
Wall Mart the drug gangs were shopping at.
|2.26.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Sage,
You can buy NVG's at Sportsman Wherehouse.
Also, I am not convinced the drug gangs are the bad guys here.
Government is interfering with their not immoral business.
Kidnappers are bad guys
Robbers are bad guys
Businessmen defending their business, not so much bad guys.
|2.26.09 @ 12:04PM|#
I just raised my budget for an M-1A by $300.
Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I have looked and
looked for the mines, grenades, grenade machine guns, and military
night vision goggles, but I can't seem to find any of that here in
the US.
Not even at Texas gun shows. Dammit.
Naga Sadow|2.26.09 @ 12:05PM|#
John,
Better still is buy a bigger, meaner dog that will do battle on
your lawn's behalf. Course your lawn will still be full of
shit.
|2.26.09 @ 12:05PM|#
"Businessmen defending their business, not so much bad
guys"
they are businessmen who kill their competetors. Now, if we
legalized a better class of people would sell drugs that is true.
But as it stands now, the gangs are the scum of the earth.
|2.26.09 @ 12:07PM|#
"the gangs are the scum of the earth."
If I lived in Mexico, and had to chose between the government and
the cartels, I would probably chose the latter.
|2.26.09 @ 12:08PM|#
My favorite story from Mexico recently was when a bunch of protesters blocked a few major river crossings to protest the police/military occupation of their neighborhoods. The police and government responded by saying that these protesters had been organized by "the cartels" to generate fake sympathy for civilians.
|2.26.09 @ 12:08PM|#
So basically you wouldn't have a problem living in a
totalitarian state where you were defenseless against both the
government and criminals as long as you could smoke dope? Yeah that
makes sense.
Bring it on. We already live in a "totalitarian state where we are
defenseless against the government". No amount of private citizens
owning guns will change that (See: Waco, Branch Davidians). And
since I don't own a gun now, I'd be no more defenseless against
criminals if it was harder for them to get bullets.
|2.26.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Warren,
1. It wouldn't be any harder for criminals to get bullets under a
bullet ban than it is for you to get drugs.
2. Just because you chose to be defenseless against criminals and
put yourself out as a victim, doesn't make it right for you to
support the government making it mandatory for all of us to be
defenseless victims.
|2.26.09 @ 12:11PM|#
if it was harder for them to get bullets
This is satire, right? You can't be serious. You're not this dumb,
Warren.
|2.26.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Sage,
You can buy NVG's at Sportsman Wherehouse.
Not the ones these guys are getting. That stuff is covered under
ITAR.
fyodor|2.26.09 @ 12:13PM|#
John,
I oppose the assault weapon ban, but you are so friggin'
paranoid.
The reason for left of center politicians supporting assault
weapons bans is not to make the world a worse place so that they
get re-elected any more than right of center politicians want to
keep poor people poor in order to better feed them to corporations,
as leftists think. The reason is that there is a very sincere, if
misguided, CONSTITUENCY for an assault weapons ban, and they, OMG,
believe it or not, actually think it's a GOOD THING. Try addressing
their concerns and arguments instead of turning out paranoid
boilerplate directed purely at the politicians who are essentially
answering to this constituency, and you may be able to aid our
cause.
|2.26.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Fyodor,
You say that but look at the experience in the UK. The UK paniced
and banned guns. Crime went through the roof and the high crime
rate is now used as an excuse to keep the gun ban. The fact that
the gun ban is what caused the spike in crime is in these people's
view a feature not a bug.
I am sorry but my days of giving these people the benefit of the
doubt are over. Yes some of their supporters are well meaning if
mistaken. But people like Obama and Holder are not well meaning.
They are power hungry fucks who mean you and I harm.
|2.26.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Kwais-12:07
The latter are more honorable than the former. Good choice. The
same applies to the USSA.
Xeones|2.26.09 @ 12:18PM|#
joe? That you?
Say what you want about joe, if he's afraid of ridicule, he doesn't
hide behind anonymity. He just doesn't show up. Plus, he only
rarely descends into ad hominem so quickly.
I think 2/3 ellipsis up there is actually Eric Holder.
|2.26.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Obama is not a genius folks. He displays either foolishness or
cowardice when it comes to the War on Drugs
Liberty. Perhaps both.
Blue teamers, just admit it. The messiah has no halo.
|2.26.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Fyodor,
Go back and listen to the interview with Rahm Emmanuel back in
December. He says that the beaty of a crisis is that it is an
opporuntity to get things done. That is what they are doing with
the economic crisis. They are using it as excuse to put through
every liberal dream program. As long as they can blame it on Bush,
the last thing they want is for the economy to get better. It
allows them to scream emergency and get stuff through.
That is in fact exactly what they are doing with the crisis in
Mexico. They can create an emergency and use that as a reason to
ban guns. I honestly think Emmanuel is an evil person. I mean evil
not misguided. Obama hired him for a reason; Obama is just as
underhanded and evil as Emmanuel. What is scary about it is that
they have basically a state run media to do their bidding. I am
sure the people in places like Venezuala who objected to things
were called paranoid to. How is that working out?
|2.26.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Fyodor-
The cause of liberty is not well served, and has never been well
served, by presuming good faith and noble motives on the part of
politicians and government employees. The framers instructed us to
reject such presumptions. In fact, they advised us to operate with
the opposite presumptions. Reality informs us that is the more
rational, logical thing to do.
|2.26.09 @ 12:26PM|#
An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives tells ABC, "It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm
in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they
come."
What the fuck?
Do these idiots just string words together randomly?
|2.26.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Yeah P Brooks,
They can import tons of cocaine from Peru illegally but they can't
get any guns without going to the US.
kablammo|2.26.09 @ 12:27PM|#
"Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I have looked and
looked for the mines, grenades, grenade machine guns, and military
night vision goggles, but I can't seem to find any of that here in
the US. Not even at Texas gun shows. Dammit."
RCD - you're not looking hard enough. You can legally buy
machineguns, grenade launchers, and NV gear in most states if you
have a large wallet and know the right people. Heck, I own over a
dozen machineguns (all legal) including several beltfed GPMGs, a
couple sub-machineguns, and selective fire assault rifles. Although
I don't go for the NV gear I've got numerous friends with 3rd gen
stuff, PAQs, IR illuminators, and even thermal imaging gear etc.
all bought legally on the civilian market.
Kyle Jordan|2.26.09 @ 12:27PM|#
No, there's nothing random about his statement P Brooks. It makes Joe and Jane Dumbfuckamerican think "Golly!! We need to help those poor folks and get rid of all the bad guns!"
mark|2.26.09 @ 12:27PM|#
U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90
percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug
cartels
Sources?
|2.26.09 @ 12:27PM|#
There is an angle that has not been explored on this thread. It is an angle that is omnni-present. It is the interests of the law enforcement and military communites who have an emormous stake in the WoD. They are enemy Number One. Not the Mexican government or the drug cartels.
|2.26.09 @ 12:28PM|#
"Do these idiots just string words together randomly?"
Nope. They know exactly what they are saying. That guy knows it is
bullshit. But he also knows that if he can sell that bullshit, he
can get guns banned here.
|2.26.09 @ 12:30PM|#
"It is the interests of the law enforcement and military
communites who have an emormous stake in the WoD."
No one in the military wants any part of the war on drugs. They
hate it. DOD hates doing law enforcement. They have no interest in
the mission and get drug into by the civilians. This is a law
enforcement issue. Since you are bigoted ignorant fuck when it
comes to the military, I am not surprised you think that, but you
are wrong.
LarryA|2.26.09 @ 12:30PM|#
And since I don't own a gun now, I'd be no more defenseless
against criminals if it was harder for them to get
bullets.
During the Indian Wars of the late 1800s Apache warriors, riding
around the desert Southwest with what they could carry on
horseback, remanufactured their own cartridges.
Somehow I doubt drug gangs that manufacture sophisticated
pharmaceuticals would run short of ammo.
squarooticus|2.26.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Μολὼν λάβε. Exactly right.
Hopefully this is just hot air from the Obama administration; given
what happened in 1994, I have a hard time believing the Democrats
would be so stupid as to ensure an electoral massacre again.
Nonetheless, this free man will never turn his guns in voluntarily.
Μολὼν λάβε. I would rather go out in a blaze of glory, taking a few
wannabe tyrants with me, than voluntarily submit to their
shackles.
|2.26.09 @ 12:31PM|#
The reason is that there is a very sincere, if misguided, CONSTITUENCY for an assault weapons ban, and they, OMG, believe it or not, actually think it's a GOOD THING. Try addressing their concerns and arguments instead of turning out paranoid boilerplate directed purely at the politicians who are essentially answering to this constituency, and you may be able to aid our cause.
That's the thing, though. By every measure, including the study
commissioned by the Clinton administration, the ban was a complete
failure. At best, all it did was force criminals to substitute one
firearm for another. Yet any time people from the NRA, or others
who have studied the issue bring this up, they're dismissed out of
hand as kooks or gun nuts.
Charles|2.26.09 @ 12:34PM|#
"If I could just find some claymores I could put an end to the
neighbor's dog crapping on my lawn and those damn neighborhood kids
skateboarding on my driveway."
The serious way to stop people from bringing their dogs to your
yard involves a trip to the grocery store and the purchase of two
items:
-hot dogs
-not-the-chocolate-kind laxatives
You can handle the rest.
Kyle Jordan|2.26.09 @ 12:34PM|#
"Hopefully this is just hot air from the Obama administration;
given what happened in 1994, I have a hard time believing the
Democrats would be so stupid as to ensure an electoral massacre
again."
I don't think so. They are so fucking arrogant right now that they
basically feel invincible. Unfortunately, I also feel that the
majority of the American public will either agree with them or
simply roll over and take it like a bitch.
Naga Sadow|2.26.09 @ 12:36PM|#
I was under the impression that cartel "commandos" have been operating around Phoenix for a couple years. They only care when it looks like they can use it to ban weapons? Bullshit!
fyodor|2.26.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Go back and listen to the interview with Rahm Emmanuel back
in December. He says that the beaty of a crisis is that it is an
opporuntity to get things done.
So what? You're just being Naomi Klein in reverse.
Everyone wants to take advantage of a crisis "to get
things done"! That neither means they are manufacturing the crisis
to that end, NOR does it mean that what they want done is meant to
continue the crisis!
libertymike,
I make no claims about government officials except that they want
to hold onto power. On that, I for intents and purposes agree with
John. But I think per Occam's razor that this desire is not best
met by a convoluted conspiracy to enslave the populace in order to
trick them into giving politicians more power but rather by SIMPLY
giving their constitency WHAT THEY WANT. And believe me, that
cosntituency is not endeavoring to live in a hellhole.
|2.26.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Yes Naga they have been operating for years. They only go after drug cartel people in the US. They leave civilians alone because they don't want the US going into Mexico fucking with them. I really don't think the drug gangs are going to do much short term in the US beyond kill their own. Killing US persons and cops is bad for business.
|2.26.09 @ 12:41PM|#
No one in the military wants any part of the war on drugs.
They hate it. DOD hates doing law enforcement.
John,
Have you ever heard about JFT missions? The US military spends a
lot of resources on the Drug war. There may be those that hate it,
but they do it anyways.
TMOF|2.26.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Here it is ... let BO move toward the decriminalization of mj here while he tries to ban whatever weapons he wants ... the political environment prohibits the former while favoring the latter. Let him succeed with the new mj policy while floundering and failing on weapons.
|2.26.09 @ 12:42PM|#
"That neither means they are manufacturing the crisis to that
end, NOR does it mean that what they want done is meant to continue
the crisis!"
It doesn't mean they are not. Basically it comes down to whether
you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am sorry but I
don't give Emmanuel, a guy who once stood up and stabbed a stake
with a knife yelling "Dead!" after the names of his enemies, the
benefit of the doubt. He is a psychotic, evil fuck who has managed
to become the second most powerful person in the country. Not
everyone in the BO administration is evil, but a few of them,
Emmanuel most notably are.
|2.26.09 @ 12:42PM|#
"John,
Have you ever heard about JFT missions? The US military spends a
lot of resources on the Drug war. There may be those that hate it,
but they do it anyways."
Yeah it is called JTF North or the old JTF 6 and the military
fought like hell to get out of it.
Bingo|2.26.09 @ 12:45PM|#
simply roll over and take it like a bitch
Pretty much my plan. The concept of individual liberty is dead in
the USA. We're fucked.
Naga Sadow|2.26.09 @ 12:45PM|#
John is correct. The military still listens to the Commander in
Chief. That being Obama. They do as ordered.
"The ram has touched the wall. No mercy."
Kyle Jordan|2.26.09 @ 12:49PM|#
"Pretty much my plan. The concept of individual liberty is dead
in the USA. We're fucked."
I wish I could disagree with you, but I can't.
fyodor|2.26.09 @ 12:50PM|#
It doesn't mean they are not. Basically it comes down to
whether you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt any more than
they do, legislatively speaking.
But you do not bring up your conspiratorial scenarios as
possibilities but rather as certainties. That's why I call you
paranoid. And while I don't give a rat's ass if you're paranoid or
not, I do care what people who are potentially on the margin of
such matters think when they come drop by this site.
So maybe I should be addressing them instead of you? Well, heh,
that's not generally how it's done... :-)
My point, though yeah I know I'll turn a bright and vivid blue well
before you'll ever agree with me, is that you're being ridiculous
to focus on evil, conspiratorial politicians rather than the
sincere but misguided arguments and concerns of the CONSTITUENCY
who put those politicians in power IN ORDER to do what you and I
don't want them to!
You're ridiculous both because it's impolitic and detrimental to
our cause to whatever degree we stand any chance of convincing
anyone otherwise, AND because it's plain...ridiculous! It's most
likely wrong (though who really knows? I can't read politicians'
minds, can you?), and at best it's much more irrelevant than
relevant.
|2.26.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Nonetheless, this free man will never turn his guns in
voluntarily. Μολὼν λάβε. I would rather go out in a blaze of glory,
taking a few wannabe tyrants with me, than voluntarily submit to
their shackles.
That might be what it takes.
TMOF|2.26.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Calm the fuck down! Nobody is gonna take your guns ... at least not yet. We need to apply pressure where it really counts (marijuana) ... and let Obama and the Dems flail on guns.
|2.26.09 @ 12:57PM|#
Calm the fuck down! Nobody is gonna take your guns ...
This is a tautology. If I'm prohibited by law from purchasing
firearms that I otherwise should be able to own, no one has "taken
my guns" but they've certainly curtailed my ability to purchase
them.
|2.26.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"My point, though yeah I know I'll turn a bright and vivid blue
well before you'll ever agree with me, is that you're being
ridiculous to focus on evil, conspiratorial politicians rather than
the sincere but misguided arguments and concerns of the
CONSTITUENCY who put those politicians in power IN ORDER to do what
you and I don't want them to!"
Yes. Many people are well meaning but ignorant and supersitous
about weapons. Is someone like BO ignorant and supersitous?
Perhaps. He certainly doesn't seem to know much. I can't see into
his soul. So you are right that I don't know that he is evil. But
in the end what is the difference? If BO managed to ban guns, the
crime rate would skyrocket. What would he do then? Use the crime
rate as an excuse to continue the gun ban. Now, it may be that he
would do that out of the best intentions. Or it may be he would do
that because he is evil and wants to take guns and doesn't care
about the crime rate. In the end, isn't the result the same? I
don't see how it makes much of a difference what the motives
are.
Further, I read things like the posters on Kos and the late Joe
Boyle on here saying things like how the Dems need to crush the
spirit of the opposition and anyone not on their side has no right
to have a say in government. They really mean it and they are not
just internet trolls. A lot of the them mean it. Now, maybe this
country is immune from mass madness. Maybe we are incapable of
doing truly crazy and oppressive things. I hope we are. If we are
not, I see a politician with a cult following of people who
increasingly view thier opponents as something less than full
citizens and in the more extreme cases less than human beings. That
ought to concern people.
|2.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Bobby Rush has a bill before congress to make all owners of handguns get a federal permit and submit fingerprints or be branded a criminal. If the Feds do that, i will tell them to fuck off and probably lose my security clearance and cush job. But fuck them. I would rather die than submit to their bullshit.
|2.26.09 @ 12:59PM|#
What calm the fuck down?
Nobody is getting agitated, some are just seeing a trend, noticing
what politicians are saying, and making plans.
If they come for your guns resist.
If they don't all is good, political pressure for legalizing MJ and
whatnot. Opposing the bailouts ect.
Kyle Jordan|2.26.09 @ 1:01PM|#
"Now, maybe this country is immune from mass madness."
Thanks John! You made me laugh. I needed that.
|2.26.09 @ 1:01PM|#
John-
Calling me an ignorant, bigoted fuck does not do much for your
argument. You are exposing your bias in favor of the proposition
that the military is somehow pure of motive and driven by nothing
more than a committment to the spirit of 1776. That propostion is
frivolous, wholly without merit.
If the military were truly committed to staying out of the frug
war, then, it would. That is not the reality. Its obligation to
defend the constitution trumps taking orders from civilian
authorities that conflict with the same.
LarryA|2.26.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban.
Pelosi has to run for reelection. Holder doesn't.
|2.26.09 @ 1:06PM|#
yea right Mike. The military should just ignore civilian authority and do as it pleases. That will help matters.
TMOF|2.26.09 @ 1:07PM|#
Listen ... there are three broad types of politician-speak
...
1. "We are going to do this". Translation ... we have the numbers
to actually do something. It's gonna be done whether you like it or
not.
2. "We want to do this". Translation ... we need to say this in
order to appease an important constituency. The actual chances of
it happening are slim.
3. "We want to do this/ are going to do this, maybe/but/perhaps/
who knows". This form of doublespeak is a form of toe-dipping into
the political waters.
My guess is that the gun talk with Obama and Co. is number 2, while
the marijuana talk in number three. They need to talk gun-bans to
appease a core constituency, but know that there is little to no
chance of changing policy.
As for Marijuana ... they are dipping their toes. This is where the
populace can be most effective ... which is why I advocate grass
roots action on this as opposed to guns.
|2.26.09 @ 1:07PM|#
I find Pelosi's statement odd. The likelihood that she would bee
tossed out of office for supporting a gun ban is practically
zero.
Is it possible that Holder spoke out of turn?
Kyle Jordan|2.26.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Cold water my ass! It's a fucking rope-a-dope.
The intention is announced by a big player, then denounced by
another big, yet not quite as big but perhaps more well known
player.
The Democrats see their Utopia just over the horizon. And they're
being quick but still smartly cautious about its birth.
I hope that I'm wrong about this and Nancy Pelosi means what she
says but I don't think that is the case.
|2.26.09 @ 1:17PM|#
John-
Did I say that the military should "just ignore the civilian
authority and do as it pleases?" It should ignore any order from
the civilian authority that is in conflict with the constitution.
That is not the same thing as "do[ing] as it pleases."
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I find Pelosi's statement odd.
She has to deal with people that need to get reelected, they've
obviously told her to STFU on the subject. Holder is on a fishing
expedition.
Now, maybe this country is immune from mass madness
You overestimate the intelligence of the populace.
|2.26.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Well, Nancy probably had enough Reps in her office telling her
that if she wants to keep her precious majority she better kill
this.
The Dem majority, broadly speaking, rests on Reps from districts
that went Repub after the last assault weapons ban, and switched
back in the last few cycles.
I hope that a new ban would be electoral suicide for the Dem
majority in the House. I wish I could be more sure . . . .
|2.26.09 @ 1:20PM|#
They need to talk gun-bans to appease a core constituency, but know that there is little to no chance of changing policy.
What core constituency? All of the anti-gun organizations
combined have, at best, several thousand members. That's
not a constituency, it's a coffee klatch.
|2.26.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Ammo. They're going to try to ban ammo, at some point, in some
way, or maybe just the importation of it. We (meaning our family
and friends personally) already have guns. We're stocking up on
ammo. We look to all the world like normal, middle class,
professional Americans in a purple city. But our purple city is in
Texas, and we are all stocking up on ammo. And fuck Bobby
Rush.
This is satire, right? You can't be serious. You're not this
dumb, Warren.
Of course he is.
If the Obama administration seriously pursues this - and I think
they will, they are either that fucking tone deaf or else they have
a plan to deal with opposition - then yeah, the Republicans roll
over them in 2010, no matter how fucking pathetic Bobby Jindal
speechifies or Sarah Palin scares the smart set.
But the shit that the administration can do between now and then
both scares and infuriates me. You needn't assume that the
gun-grabbers are evil in their intent, that they consciously mean
to impose totalitarian authority; it's just as likely that their
intentions are pure. They really, really do believe they know
better how to protect us, how to tell us to live, how to look after
us. Look at Britain. I mean seriously look at, read what is going
on over there.
But hey. I'm just a paranoid rightwing wacko, because I didn't
believe Obama when he said he didn't want to take my guns.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 1:22PM|#
As for Marijuana ... they are dipping their toes. This is
where the populace can be most effective ... which is why I
advocate grass roots action on this as opposed to guns.
I suspect it's more that you like smoking rather than shooting, and
you're covering your biases by strawman. Personally I'd much prefer
that you just come out and say "I'd rather have legal pot, guns and
explicit constitutional statements don't mean much to me"
You can't take something that is read into the constitution by
implication, like the right to privacy, the right to be left alone,
when there is a blatant and intentional disregard for what is
overtly stated.
|2.26.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Stubby,
You are right. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. The
result is the same in either case. If the American people are
willing to roll over and take this and don't kill the Dems in 2010,
they are unworthy of their freedoms.
|2.26.09 @ 1:27PM|#
You can't take something that is read into the constitution
by implication, like the right to privacy, the right to be left
alone, when there is a blatant and intentional disregard for what
is overtly stated.
Thank you. A fairly simple concept which my pro-choice, anti-gun
friends cannot seem to grasp.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Thank you. A fairly simple concept which my pro-choice,
anti-gun friends cannot seem to grasp.
No problem. Feel free to quote, no credit required.
TMOF|2.26.09 @ 1:31PM|#
Other Matt ... no, no, no. I value the freedom to bear arms as much as much as I do the freedom to partake of an innocuous natural substance. I am simply trying to evaluate the political possibilities pertaining to both. We now live in a post-Heller world ... one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dark world, politically. NOW is the time to move on the WOD ... the other battle, in my opinion, has been largely won. That's not to say that we should not be vigilant against attacks on a hard-won victory. It's only to say that the present environment favors battle for another victory in a separate realm. Let's put our energies there!
|2.26.09 @ 1:32PM|#
"You can't take something that is read into the constitution by
implication, like the right to privacy, the right to be left alone,
when there is a blatant and intentional disregard for what is
overtly stated."
It is called the "living constitution". A living constitution is a
constitution that means whatever they say it means. Yes, it can
mean good things like a "right to be left alone" or a "right to
privacy". But it can also mean that outdated rights like the right
to bear arms or participate in the political process without
government interference or permission don't exist even though it
says so in pretty plane language. Having the Constitution mean
whatever judges said it meant was pretty good for a while. Now the
wages of that deal with the devil are coming due.
|2.26.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Most Americans want to be able to have guns, but they want certain restrictions, such as licensing, bans from schools, and the like. They tend not to be in favor of greater restrictions than that. Nancy cares more about being Speaker (meaning she needs her majority) than she does about anyone getting killed with a legal or illegal firearm.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Nancy cares more about being Speaker (meaning she needs her
majority) than she does about anyone getting killed with a legal or
illegal firearm.
If she wants to do something to control something with a higher
incidence of death, start with swimming pools. You can ban doctors,
too, as they have a higher statistical chance of accidental death
(accidental death per doctor) than firearms (accidental death per
firearm).
I would concur she cares more about being in charge than giving a
rats ass about any particular issue, or doing what's right in any
way, shape, or form.
Having the Constitution mean whatever judges said it meant was
pretty good for a while. Now the wages of that deal with the devil
are coming due.
I'm reading from your statement that you would concur this is not
necessarily a good thing. Correct?
LarryA|2.26.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Texas Representative Leo Berman, Austin, has just filed HB 1863, "Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation."
|2.26.09 @ 1:41PM|#
"I'm reading from your statement that you would concur this is
not necessarily a good thing. Correct?"
No it is not. If the Constitution is read to mean what it says and
what the writers meant it to mean, it has a fixed meaning. Yeah
that sucks sometimes because it doesn't mean all of the things we
want it to. But it is good in that it always means something and we
have a fixed set of rights that can't be screwed with.
What we have done in the last 40 years is decide that the
Constitution doesn't mean what it says but means whatever judges
decide current standards say it means. Now that did some good
things. It got us an expanded right ot privacy and publicly
available porn and things like that. But in the last 10 years it
has lead the the Supreme Court upholding real restrictions on
political speech even though the 1st Amendment was drafted to
protect that and not pornography or art. It has caused the court to
until Heller pretty much ignore the second amendment. It also has
caused the court to ignore the 10th Amendment and reinterpret the
commerce clause beyond all recognition. Given the chance liberal
judges would find things like a right not to be offended or a right
to healthcare and housing and use that as a club to beat the
country into socialism. I think it sucks. I want my constitution
back. You can have my porn.
¢|2.26.09 @ 1:41PM|#
it's just as likely that their intentions are pure. They
really, really do believe they know better how to protect us, how
to tell us to live, how to look after us.
That's a purely evil intention, whether its intender knows it is or
not.
|2.26.09 @ 1:47PM|#
The economic argument for cannabis law reform is now key, so if
you want to show your support for the California bill (AB 390),
send some cash to Arnie:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Office of the Governor
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Pass it on and post this everywhere!
JB|2.26.09 @ 1:50PM|#
This is the sign folks should have been waiting for.
Time to stock up on guns and ammo and start making plans.
|2.26.09 @ 1:59PM|#
This is the sign folks should have been waiting for.
A lot of people were stocking up prior to the election. I imagine
that this latest pronouncement from the mouthpiece of the
Postmodern Messiah will help to sustain the boom in firearms and
ammunition sales.
|2.26.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Whoa, let's not get carried away here.
When they forbid porn, people will just make it themselves.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Another lie from the Mulato in Chief.
What's that law about making a typo when you're making a snarky
comment, such as misspelling Mulatto?
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 2:02PM|#
A lot of people were stocking up prior to the election. I
imagine that this latest pronouncement from the mouthpiece of the
Postmodern Messiah will help to sustain the boom in firearms and
ammunition sales.
I hope so, I have a couple things I want to sell and haven't gotten
down to the local dealer yet.
|2.26.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Let's just see what Nancy said about this. From The Hill (sorry,
forget to grab the link):
The Speaker gave a flat "no" when asked if she had talked to
administration officials about the ban.
So, that's no, she hasn't talked to Obama about it,
not no, I won't let it pass.
"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have
right now," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. "I think
it's clear the Bush administration didn't do that."
Exactly what in that statement addresses, in any way, shape or
form, her position on the assault weapons ban? Its a dodge, pure
and simple. She had an opportunity to say "yea" or "nay", and she
dodged. Make of that what you will, but I sure don't read that as
Nancy saying no, I won't let it pass.
joe\'s ghost|2.26.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"It is amazing what suckers the Dems played civil libertarians
for. All of the objections to Bush's terror policies over the last
8 years were just boob bait for the civil libertarian bubbas. The
Dems didn't believe any of it. They didn't think there was anything
wrong with GUITMO or domestic spying, torture or anything. They
just knew saying so would politically damage Bush. Now that they
are in power, they continue all of Bush's policies and use their
political capital, some of which was purchased by opposition to
those very policies, and use it to socialize the country, control
our healthcare and take our guns."
That's the point I've been making here for years. And I double-dog
dare you to prove it isn't.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 2:16PM|#
joe's ghost
?
I have been busy with a bunch of things and a death in the family,
and haven't read much of late. Can someone concisely educate me
what happened to joe? I do know it's been nice not having him
around from my perception.
|2.26.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Other Matt,
He got angry on a thread last week related to the monkey cartoon.
Episiarchic said something he didn't like and he vowed to leave and
never return.
|2.26.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban.
Pelosi has to run for reelection. Holder doesn't.
Peslosi has a vote in congress. Holder doesn't. If the POTUS gets
what he wants from his own party in congress, we'd have private
Social Security accounts and immigration reform
today.
You might note that we don't. The dumbass, purely cosmetic assault
weapons ban may
pass both houses and become law. The chances of Great Britain types
of federal gun laws passing?
Ain't.
Gonna.
Happen.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 2:25PM|#
He got angry on a thread last week related to the monkey
cartoon. Episiarchic said something he didn't like and he vowed to
leave and never return.
Cool, thanks. I'll have to go fishing and see what it was. I might
end up owing Ep a drink.
Xeones|2.26.09 @ 2:30PM|#
He got angry on a thread last week related to the monkey
cartoon. Episiarchic said something he didn't like and he vowed to
leave and never return.
That's what happened? I didn't read that thread -- it was too long
by the time i had a chance. Wow, joe's a goober.
Racist Commie Neocon|2.26.09 @ 2:32PM|#
"So what? You're just being Naomi Klein in reverse. Everyone
wants to take advantage of a crisis "to get things done"! That
neither means they are manufacturing the crisis to that end, NOR
does it mean that what they want done is meant to continue the
crisis!"
But didn't Bush blow up the towers so he could take away our
freedoms?
|2.26.09 @ 2:34PM|#
I see a new theme arising:
""Epi, the knight in shining armor that banished joe from the
kingdom of H&R.""
libertydyke|2.26.09 @ 2:41PM|#
"Calling me an ignorant, bigoted fuck does not do much for your
argument."
BOTOH, it is spot on accurate.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 2:46PM|#
That's what happened? I didn't read that thread -- it was
too long by the time i had a chance. Wow, joe's a
goober.
It's interesting the parallels. I used to, a long time ago, think
joe was basically trying to play a part, and I didn't mind him.
He'd throw out a gratuitous lefty position, but it seemed so over
the top I figured it had to be a role. Then, one day, I pointed out
in some thread the irony that Obama supported gun control, which
was rooted in racist/fascist doctrine. At that point, having no
logical way to dispute that, he did his typical stuff of increasing
volume attacks on me. At that point, I realized how fucking stupid
the asshole was, and really wished we could discuss his manners
face to face. Especially when he referred to "kicking ass", and
"pwned", he showed himself for the cowardly, insubstantial little
prick he was.
I find it interesting that I find out, on a firearm thread, that he
had another panty binding fit on another thread, racially
based.
I can only hope for a continued joe free existence. Sadly,
fuckheads like him don't tend to stay away very well.
That said, Obama consistently lies by omission. His "gun owners
have nothing to fear" needs to be right up there with "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman." Unfortunately, so many are
on some kind of strange mind altering substance, we're entirely
fucked.
libertydyke|2.26.09 @ 2:53PM|#
"I find Pelosi's statement odd. The likelihood that she would
bee tossed out of office for supporting a gun ban is practically
zero."
I read the SF Chronicle everyday and crime is so bad in her
district, that it's safe to say the tide has turned and the
majority of people in ess eff have come to realize that guns are
their only shot at safety and the want the current gun restrictions
repealed. That MS-13 piece of shit Ramos who shot and killed Mr.
Bolagna and his 2 sons really turned public opinion.
Story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/27/BAV711FM4F.DTL&hw=shot+sons+father+car+gang&sn=002&sc=950
Comments regarding story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2008/06/27/BAV711FM4F.DTL
libertydyke|2.26.09 @ 3:01PM|#
"It got us an expanded right ot privacy and publicly available
porn and things like that."
So in your opinion killing babies and allowing Big Porn the freedom
of exploiting women with impunity are good things?
|2.26.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Other Matt,
The worst thing you could do with Joe was have a point. That caused
him to go over the edge. When he was winning an argument he could
be very reasonable. But when you had him, like you did with the
racist history of gun control, rather than saying "wow I never
thought of that" Joe would just start throwing out insults. I think
t he reason he left is that with Obama continueing all of Bush's
terror policies that Joe spent the last five years on here claiming
were so evil, Joe knew he wouldn't have any answers. So instead of
just admitting that Obama is just as bad as Bush and lied or that
maybe Bush's terror policies were not so bad afterall, he left. It
was pretty gutless really.
libertydyke|2.26.09 @ 3:07PM|#
"Especially when he referred to "kicking ass", and "pwned", he
showed himself for the cowardly, insubstantial little prick he
was."
He always reminded me of that Star Trek episode where at the end,
the aliens turned out to be little tiny lizard like critters that
had merely chosen a humanlike form.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Exactly what in that statement addresses, in any way, shape
or form, her position on the assault weapons ban? Its a dodge, pure
and simple. She had an opportunity to say "yea" or "nay", and she
dodged. Make of that what you will, but I sure don't read that as
Nancy saying no, I won't let it pass.
Good point, she probably has been taking lessons on parsing from
Obama.
He always reminded me of that Star Trek episode where at the
end, the aliens turned out to be little tiny lizard like critters
that had merely chosen a humanlike form.
If a man is wrong, he owns up to it (I realize I'm being sexist in
that statement, but I only know being a man, as I am not a woman,
and I would expect someone named "joe", even in this case, to be a
man). If a man is wrong, he fixes what he can. If a man causes
offense without reason, he apologizes. Everyone should treat others
with respect, until they show themselves undeserving.
A lizard is not a man, so it does fit.
fyodor|2.26.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Yes. Many people are well meaning but ignorant and
supersitous about weapons. Is someone like BO ignorant and
supersitous? Perhaps. He certainly doesn't seem to know much. I
can't see into his soul. So you are right that I don't know that he
is evil. But in the end what is the difference? If BO managed to
ban guns, the crime rate would skyrocket. What would he do then?
Use the crime rate as an excuse to continue the gun ban. Now, it
may be that he would do that out of the best intentions. Or it may
be he would do that because he is evil and wants to take guns and
doesn't care about the crime rate. In the end, isn't the result the
same? I don't see how it makes much of a difference what the
motives are.
The main difference is putting it this way makes you (and by
extension us) sound a whole lot less insane!
Thanks!! :-)
JB|2.26.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Ignorance is evil. Very, very few people are like: 'I'm evil so
I'm going to do evil things!'
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all thought they were doing good. They were
stupid and ignorant and therefore evil.
ellipsis|2.26.09 @ 4:45PM|#
The U.S. Senate just voted 62-38 in favor of allowing
semi-automatic rifles (along with pistols and ammo) in Washington
D.C. Given that 62 Senators voted in favor, I find it hard to
believe that an assault weapons ban would pass. (This was the D.C.
SECOND AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT.)
I admit I was concerned when Holder spouted the line of an AWB
renewal yesterday, but like Brian Doherty said yesterday, Congress
is probably unwilling to risk voter angst.
Other Matt|2.26.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Many people are well meaning but ignorant and supersitous
about weapons. Is someone like BO ignorant and supersitous?
Perhaps. He certainly doesn't seem to know much.
I don't have a problem with ignorance, as long as ignorance wants
to be educated. The problem I have with the firearm regulators is
that they essentially stick their fingers in their ears and hum
whenever you present data that contradicts their preconceived
notions. So, while Obama is ignorant, no great fault as there are
any large number of things individuals are ignorant about, he
willfully remains so, which is a problem to me.
|2.26.09 @ 5:30PM|#
dissolve the cartels...legalize and regulate drug.
MUCH,MUCH,MUCH cheaper.
Focus crack downs on Meth,Heroin,and proven lethal drugs...
Relieve a HUGE chunk of this drug war and just say we finally wised
up to the realities of the situation!!!
Again...Pull the rug out from under the cartels by making at least
marijuana a non-issue...
NO ONE will buy their crap...No one will as long as they can get it
legally...
You might think potheads are this or that but your wrong....they
are everyone! People you know...people you would never fathom smoke
pot!
This is the chance the government has to create a better US-South
American relationship...
Let us go to Cuba too!!! Im an AMERICAN and I think I should be
able to go anywhere in the world at MY OWN discretion.
Freedom is March. Yes, March.
|2.26.09 @ 5:37PM|#
At least joe could make a stupid argument a lot quicker than MNG. Maybe joe's hyper racial sensitivity proves he was really just a cosmotarian Reason contributor drumming up traffic.
|2.26.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Bullet Ban!!!
YES, the right solution...
If your worried about cartels coming here and kidnapping your
daughters then...Dont use all your bullets up shooting at
squirrels...
You dumb drunk Git-R-Doners...
I too am 99.99% in favor of legalizing pot in order to take away
easy bullets...
America will be shooting blanks!!!
Know your kids wont blow their heads off with daddies uzi...
Reality is that our forefathers would have never let the gun
industry get out of control like it has and they would have
certainly never made a very profitable plant like Hemp and
Marijuana go to waste...
They wouldnt do it by the DEA either...
They would tax it...And not throw mommie or daddie into federal
prisons with murderers.
The reality is most people who fear gun control wont listen to
anyones stories...They cant read the fine print...they jump to
conclusions and think something horrible is gonna happen in their
lifetimes that would warrent them having guns in some sort of
linch-mob/madmax B.S...
Your guns are safe under an Obama or even a Sean Penn
Administration...get real bubba!
Dude, one Apache Helicopter could end an entire Alabama
uprising...But if we legalize weed...maybe they will be stoned and
not drunk...To busy gardening and singing folk songs ya know?
Raising their kids with kindness and not beatings...
major corporations could have sit down stoned out brain storming
sessions and actually come up with something original for once
too...
I know it will be much easier to accept than many fear...Less
violence, more compassion.
|2.26.09 @ 5:55PM|#
Hippies took over when cowboys started wearing badges...
We rule this country now you know?
We arent gonna sit by and let America fall into the trap of fear
you set for us...
Guns kill people...Corporations kill people...corporations make
guns.
The guns you feel naked without.
Make your own damn gun if your so patriotic...
Go mine the steel, design the chamber, pin, etc...then put one
together. get your powder and make your own bullets...Just dont
keep believing that your local gun shop or NRA chapter is somehow a
hotspot for freedom and rational thinking...You want freedom?
You wont find it bitching about Obama with your buddies...You'll
find it when you learn to quit fearing and learn how to
communicate.
|2.26.09 @ 6:14PM|#
You want freedom? You wont find it bitching about Obama with
your buddies...You'll find it when you learn to quit fearing and
learn how to communicate.
Or I could just shoot you and the other collectivist shitbags who
keep trying to steal my money and control my life.
oat willie|2.26.09 @ 6:56PM|#
"i will tell them to fuck off and probably lose my security
clearance and cush job. But fuck them. I would rather die than
submit to their bullshit."
Lost my security clearance years ago, somehow I made out OK without
it. I took my stand over 20 years ago regarding war on some drugs
testing and got kicked out. I work my ass off now , but I sleep at
night with a clean conscience, knowing that I am not pissing away
my cognitive liberty.
JB|2.26.09 @ 6:56PM|#
usuck, you and your ilk will get yours after Obama brings this country to ruin. There will be no one to protect you then.
|2.26.09 @ 8:37PM|#
Or I could just shoot you and the other collectivist
shitbags who keep trying to steal my money and control my
life.
ha, awesome.
Michael Ejercito|2.26.09 @ 11:14PM|#
No amount of private citizens owning guns will change that
Ever heard of a place called Iraq?
Sadistic Voyeur|2.26.09 @ 11:24PM|#
The good thing about anti-gun potheads is that they are always so high that you never feel too bad about executing them.
Andy|2.27.09 @ 1:53AM|#
John writes:
Now BO is not only going to stay in Iraq, he is going to expand the
war in Afghanistan and since he is a Democrat the media or the
Congress won't call him on it.
No, John. Dems won't call him on it b/c Afghanistan *is* the front
line on the war on terror - remember 9/11? Remember Al Quaeda? They
were based there. Dems are against Iraq because popular opinion
turned against it and Bush lied about it.
Andy|2.27.09 @ 2:00AM|#
John writes:
The other thing Mexico has is a huge kidnapping industry. Since
only criminals have guns, it is pretty easy to kidnap people and
hold them for ransom. In a very armed America it is a lot
harder.
I think that's a simplistic argument. Japan has tight gun control
laws, but they have a very low rate of crime. In Iraq, everyone and
his mother has an AK-47, and violence is everywhere. I'm in 100%
agreement with protecting the 2nd Amendment, but I think you need
better arguments than that.
|2.27.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Talk about a simplistic argument! Yes, Japan and the US are
totally identical except for their gun control laws. I bow to your
superior intellect, idiot.
And you seem to be unaware that Iraq has strict gun control laws as
well. How's that working out?
Other Matt|2.27.09 @ 11:12AM|#
The reality is most people who fear gun control wont listen to
anyones stories...They cant read the fine print...they jump to
conclusions and think something horrible is gonna happen in their
lifetimes that would warrent them having guns in some sort of
linch-mob/madmax B.S...
A good example of the downside of excessive pot intake. Not that
there's anything wrong with frying your brain cells to an
incoherent ignorant ass level, but it shows it's pretty sad what
results.
|3.2.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Wow we americans are a bunch of violent facist pigs. They are
talkin' about legalizing marijuana and all you gun toting dumbasses
and bitch about is Obama Nazi and taking away the guns...seriously
gtfo ok?
Guns= violence
Marijuana= munchies.
So we are losing a negative and gaining a negative (after all
weight is an issue in this country lol). Really what do you need an
AK-47 for??? To hunt deer, stfu noob.
I grew up in texas and hunted javalina as a kid...there is such
thing as over kill.
Now I agree that I think we should be able to own and live as we
want, HOWEVER as long as we support the government that we have
then we will have the rules that we have today.
But seriously legal marijuana would be a good thing for this
country...it will boost the economy of Mexico and keep them from
coming over HERE taking our jobs, it will create a new industry
within the US and thereby more jobs. It will in turn have a global
impact, and if they think the stuff in Canada and Amsterdamn is
good wait till they get some good ol' US homegrown. It will create
new taxes for us...also it will allow us to grow hemp...the
legalization of marijuana will bring PEACE and JOY TO THE
WORLD!
B Colb|3.2.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Andy- good couple of points. I don't buy the I need an assault
weapon for defense argument. the cons just way outway the pros. It
only adds to the problem. mexican drug cartels get 95% of their
guns from the U.S.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/mexico_s_serious_problem/
Anonymous|11.7.09 @ 3:26PM|#
What hypocrisy by both the US and CA
In Kalifornia we can't own semi automatic rifles with a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds (despite a second amendment right to own and bear arms) but we can pass a law in Kalifornia to legalize marijuana (despite a conflict with federal law).
Wow, this is so logical..........
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245