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.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Reinstating a failed, Clinton-era ban on scary looking firearms?

    Now that's change I can believe in.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, fuck the Obama administration.

  • ||

    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.

  • Warty||

    Motherfuckers.

  • ||

    They can ban anything not in widespread use, and can prevent something from being in widespread (law abiding) use by banning it. Liberalism 101.

  • ||

    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...

  • ||

    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.

  • Preemptive Strike||

    Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

  • Naga Sadow||

    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.

  • ||

    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...

  • Naga Sadow||

    any WHERE else. Fucktard, I am!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Damn you Lamar! I didn't see your comment!

  • ||

    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.

  • ..||

    Xeones | February 26, 2009, 11:33am | #

    Yo, fuck the Obama administration.


    No, fuck you, dipshit. Beat it.

  • LarryA||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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||

    I wonder if it's gonna end up like "LA Story" with everyone firing off rounds on the interstate.

  • ||

    I would be 99.99% in favor of a bill that created bullet prohibition if it legalized pot.

  • ||

    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."

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    Molon labe.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Molon labe? Come and get it?

  • ||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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

  • ||

    Xeones | February 26, 2009, 11:33am | #

    Yo, fuck the Obama administration.

    No, fuck you, dipshit. Beat it.


    joe? That you?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    if it was harder for them to get bullets

    This is satire, right? You can't be serious. You're not this dumb, Warren.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Whoa!

  • ||

    Sage,
    You can buy NVG's at Sportsman Wherehouse.


    Not the ones these guys are getting. That stuff is covered under ITAR.

  • fyodor||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Kwais-12:07

    The latter are more honorable than the former. Good choice. The same applies to the USSA.

  • Xeones||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    "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||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    "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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    "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||

    "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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    "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||

    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||

    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||

    "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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    "Now, maybe this country is immune from mass madness."

    Thanks John! You made me laugh. I needed that.

  • ||

    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||

    Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban.

    Pelosi has to run for reelection. Holder doesn't.

  • ||

    yea right Mike. The military should just ignore civilian authority and do as it pleases. That will help matters.

  • TMOF||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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 . . . .

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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!

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Another lie from the Mulato in Chief.

  • Other Matt||

    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||

    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."

  • ||

    "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.

  • ¢||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    This is the sign folks should have been waiting for.

    Time to stock up on guns and ammo and start making plans.

  • ||

    You can have my porn.

    Whoa, let's not get carried away here.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Whoa, let's not get carried away here.



    When they forbid porn, people will just make it themselves.

  • Other Matt||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    "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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • joe\'s ghost||

    "Μολὼν λάβε"

    Moles adopt?

  • Xeones||

    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||

    "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?

  • ||

    I see a new theme arising:
    ""Epi, the knight in shining armor that banished joe from the kingdom of H&R.""

  • libertydyke||

    "Calling me an ignorant, bigoted fuck does not do much for your argument."

    BOTOH, it is spot on accurate.

  • Other Matt||

    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||

    "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||

    "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?

  • ||

    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||

    "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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • phalkor||

    Cthulu is not ignorant.

  • ellipsis||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    "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||

    usuck, you and your ilk will get yours after Obama brings this country to ruin. There will be no one to protect you then.

  • ||

    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||

    No amount of private citizens owning guns will change that


    Ever heard of a place called Iraq?

  • Sadistic Voyeur||

    The good thing about anti-gun potheads is that they are always so high that you never feel too bad about executing them.

  • Andy||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||


    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.

  • ||

    Usuck, you're just a little Eichmann, man.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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..........

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement