Goodbye Camelot, I never got to see you...

[jeepnstein]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.
By JASON RYAN

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009—

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."

At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.

"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.

Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.

"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."

In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."

We can stick a fork in it now, friends, because this will be the issue the Republicans need to get the money rolling again.

[tekisui]

1. They will need a lot more than money. I'm not worried

about the gun nuts crying over their assault weapons.

[f the letter]

5. It's really not just 'gun nuts' that are worried.

The total inefficacy of the assault weapons ban aside, i believe this is a very dumb political decision. It's a very quick way to paint the Democrats in a bad light.

[dairydog91]

22. "Gun nuts" is something of a misnomer...

Though considering the widespread popularity of AR pattern rifles among many mainstream American gunowners, using the term "gun nut" does allow pro-banners to convince themselves that they won't be massively pissing off tens of millions of voters.

[paulsby]

52. i don't own one

but i am still against this.

one can believe in a civil right, without feeling the need to exercise it.

i support gun rights, but don't own an assault weapon

that's because i believe in the constitution. if that makes me a "nut", then i'm a nut.

i'm also a nut on abortion, speech, and all the other rights we enjoy.

[rockymountaindem]

2. We've seen this movie before n/t

[virginia mountainman]

3. And the ending, sucks....

What a great way to erase our gains....


And just when the general public was starting to trust us on this issue...

1994 all over again...

[iverglas]

41. yeah, eh? The Democrats won big.

[X_Digger]

42. Err.. in '94 then '96, we lost bigtime

Hello? Newt the Grinch anyone?

[iverglas]

44. catch up now

You won this time. Be happy just a little bit, eh?

[X_Digger]

47. Oh, I am!

I just want to see a larger portion of the agenda accomplished than was '94-'00. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that we'd have universal health care, a budget _surplus_, and no foreign wars of occupation if this boneheaded move (among others) hadn't been made.

We've got the majority in all 3 halls. Get sensible shit done that we need that doesn't burn political capital uselessly.

[f the letter]

4. This is ridiculous and politically dangerous.

Why would he do this now? He'll only rally the gop at a time when they are acting hypocritically self-righteous about Democratic spending, and guns are one of their only across-the-board unifying issues.

There are massively misleading and/or false statements in the article. The only certain progress cited is reduced violence in Mexico, but even in the very next paragraph says that the violence in Mexico is mostly through AUTOmatic weapons (and grenades, which are already prohibited but clearly being used in Mexico.. logic of the ban again?) not SEMIAUTOmatic (or so-called "assault") weapons.

Meanwhile, the alleged "cop-killer bullets" are already illegal and the gun show loophole is crap. Buying a gun at a gun show is no different than walking into a store.. a dealer has to do the federally required background check in either case. What they are trying to apparently end is person-to-person private sales of firearms, which is absurd. Eric Holder is smart enough to know the falsehoods in what he's saying, so that means the misleading buzzwords are intentionally placed.

And how are there still AWB deniers posting on this site? Every time this comes up, there are people who say "Oh, it'll never happen" or "They don't really mean it" or otherwise implying that 2nd-amendment supporters are tinfoil-hat people. i hope for political and Constitutional reasons that the administration doesn't go through with this silliness.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. Oh christ, are they nuts?

Is Holder really interested in pissing away all the gains we've made in the last two elections in order to ban bayonet lugs? Are they really that stupid?

[Statistical]

17. wrong post

wrong post

[Iktomiwicasa]

35. Yes..

...politicians tend to be that stupid. That's why they are politicians instead of productive members of society.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

7. Why would you be against this?

Who on earth needs to own assault weapons? This is a no-brainer. Why would you ever expect Obama to NOT make this move?

[virginia mountainman]

8. Do you know what an assault weapon IS??

Do you know exactly what they are "banning"??

Do you realize what happened to our party, when it passed back in 1994??

[DonP]

12. Hint #1 - it has nothing to do with machine guns

Do you favor banning racing stripes and decals on cars and other cosmetics that make them look like NASCAR track cars, and therefore capable of excessive speeds because of their appearance?

[f the letter]

13. That's not how Constitutional rights work:

When i have a right, you (or any organization/body seeking to curtail rights) need to tell me why you can abridge it. It's not the other way around: i don't need to explain to you why i need my rights to free speech or due process, you need to tell me what the cause of trampling them is.

You could say "Why do you NEED to show up at a protest when it's ineffective?" or "Why do you need the telecommunications companies to not monitor your calls? What do you have to hide?" but they dodge the central issue, which is that we have a right to be at protests, a right to due process in wiretapping, and a right to bear arms.

And i expected Obama not to do this because although it was on his agenda/platform page throughout the campaign, it's a very stupid thing for him to do. Particularly right now when the gop is seeking any way to call the Democratic party out on anything they can, banning one of the most popular firearms in the country is idiotic.

[benEzra]

25. Replace the scare-term with "the most popular civilian rifles in America"

and you might begin to understand why this is such a stupid move. 80% of U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, and considerably more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" (e.g., small- and intermediate-caliber rifles with modern styling) than hunt.

Nationally, only 3% of murders involve ANY type of rifle, and the shape of a rifle's handgrip or whether or not the muzzle is smooth has nothing whatsoever to do with its lethality or potential for use in crime.

Trying to pull another 1994 here is just dumb.

[paulsby]

78. the "need" canard

right up there with the inevitable penis/gun reference. there is (at least one) in every gun thread.

nobody needs to justify their civil rights with the "need" defense.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

9. This is probably within top 3 on the list of fuck-ups the that could happen at this time.

Look for repubs to balance the house and senate in the next few senate/house elections
If (When) congress balances out, Barrack's administration will lose ALOT of power. Issues will stalemate on the floor - meaning no change.
Think about it... with only a handful more of Republicans the Stimulus bill would have never passed.

It took gun owners endless war, recession, and financial crisis before they stuck their necks out for change.
They don't forget easily and I fear many will be just as unforgiving as they were to Clinton in 1994.
To pile more wood on the fire... this time around, the AR15 "assault weapon" is THE most popular rifle in America.

This will not only cost Democratic seats in congress... it will cost Change.

[Lex1775]

10. *sigh* Again????

So much stupid in this article...

"there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons" Just a few changes, eh? Like making the most popular rifles in America illegal, and possibly turning millions of law abiding citizens into felons.

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades" Yeah... because they just waltzed across the border and picked up boxes of hand grenades and automatic weapons at Bob's Gun and Ammo strip mall store.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets" Seriously, cop-killer bullets? Did someone forget to close the time portal to 1991?

Mexico is incapable (and apparently unwilling) to police the border, our government refuses to do so, and American gun rights take the hit.

[DonP]

11. Why is anybody surprised about this?

They have been saying this through the entire campaign, it's been on the web site for over a year, Holder has a track record of gun control, and it was just a matter of time.

I thought they might wait for a major news event, but it seems like the problems of Mexican drug gangs is enough of an excuse to get the ball rolling and restrict the rights of American citizens.

I think they are grossly underestimating the backlash this will generate across both sides of the aisle with the Blue Dogs too. This is going to waste a tremendous amount of political capital that could be used for far better real issues like health care, education and the economy.

Now everyone get ready for the steady parade of ignorant dummies down here, and in GD, claiming that this isn't really "taking your guns, that's just NRA propaganda, it's just common sense gun regulation. Besides, nobody needs a (fill in the blank)."

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

14. Gun Show Loophole? Cop-Killer bullets?

First off, The gunshow loophole is a myth. Dealers are still required to perform background checks:
a) In their store
b) at a gunshow
c) on a merry-go-round
d) in a movie theater
e) on their porch
f) ANYWHERE

Cop killer bullets... really?!? I was unaware of any kind of bullets cops were actually immune to.
Any rifle round more powerful than a .223 Remington (fairly weak) goes through soft body armor like butter.
If he is referring to JHP (hollowpoint) ammunition, it is FAR more safe than FMJ for a variety of reasons.

Eric Holder is smarter than this. Barrack Obama is smarter than this. Nancy Pelosi... I'm not sure.
They are using buzz words, scare tactics, and lies to pass worthless legislation - and they know it.

[Furyataurus]

15. Wow

not even 2 months in and its almost over already!!!! Assault is an action, not a thing. Even hunter's with bolt action rifles will side with the "assault" rifle owners. Why? Because even they realize that it will be just a matter of time before their "bolt" action rifles are labeled "sniper" rifles and they are banned as well..........

[Statistical]

18. And shotguns defined excessively large caliber.

12guage has a caliber about what 600% of a 5.56 "assault weapon".

I can see the speech now:
"The AWB ban did good but WHY are we allowing weapons 6x more lethal on the streets right now. These low cost, extreme caliber weapons create a wound channel so damaging many victims die before reaching hospital. What we need now is CALIBER control. Nobody NEEDS a weapon w/ bore larger than .3 caliber for rifles or .38 caliber for pistols"

[Howzit]

20. "They are using buzz words, scare tactics, and lies to pass worthless legislation - and they know it

Now the question is why? There must be a very good reason to do this.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

21. Because the AWB is only an issue to those devoid of logic.

Statistics, history, and even gun control examples around the world show pursuit of the AWB is fruitless, if nothing else.
The only avenue of progress for antigunners is to play on emotions of the Ignorant Masses who believe everything they see on TV.

[yay]

26. He's reffering too

Solid brass bullets, or bullets with a steel or tungsten core.

[jeepnstein]

27. AP ammo is already regulated.

He's an attorney of sorts so I would have expected him to know that.

[yay]

36. Some

Some of it is regulated. There are still many calibers you can get "AP" ammo in.

[jeepnstein]

37. It's illegal

for manufacturer's to sell the stuff except under certain conditions. The supply is dwindling for regular citizens and when it's gone, it'll be gone for good.

[Fabio]

38. Armor Piercing is a phrase that bears little relevance

to police armor for a duty officer.

Any large caliber rifle bullet (ie >.223) will defeat level IIIA soft armor at reasonable ranges. The bullet need not be of any special design. When hard plates are introduced, then AP ammo may be necessary to defeat the threat if the plate is rated to stop most level IV threats (ie SAPI plate versus ESAPI). The term cop killer refers to handgun ammo design to defeat soft armor - that stuff is tough to get. And most cops would tell you the threat they fear is large caliber weapons.

Btw, I dont support a reinstatement of the AWB. I think it is a cosmetic change that would have little positive effect on crime, but cost democrats hugely in their ability to attract rural, male voters on other issues. I would like to see the private transfer of weapons be more regulated.

[jeepnstein]

39. Vests are highly overrated...

They work, and work well, but they don't make you Superman. I can tell you the one thing I am most concerned about with my vest is plain old 00 buck. Yeah, it'll tear through a vest because there's no spin to entangle in the fibers. Knives are a whole different nightmare. I'm talking about concealable vests that are pretty much standard issue across the country. Of course you can bleed out or die from shock after getting hit in the leg, too. Getting shot in the head is pretty much a career ender as well. Having said that I'd rather wear one than not.

The whole AP thing is just a dog and pony show. A good Fudd gun can blow through a vest with ammo available at any Wal Mart.

I agree on the private transfer thing. My best solution is to make the NICS system available to anyone and allow them to use some for of private seller's 4473. Of course criminals won't follow the law anyway so I'm not sure what that will really accomplish.

[yay]

46. Yes

Because I would feel comfortable giving out my name, address, driverslicense number, and other critical info to a stranger.... I can't remember if SSN is on the form or not though.

[Fabio]

48. SSN is optional on a transfer form

But I must ask -- you would feel comfortable buying a gun from someone you implicitly dont trust? I have given guns as presents before, and I always go to the gun shop and effect an official transfer.

[yay]

45. Only for "pistol" calibers

I can still get new importation 7.62x54r ammor peircing ammo. Since a "pistol" has never been made in that caliber it's still legal.

[ManiacJoe]

50. Wrong kind of armor.

Fed laws dealing with "armor piercing ammo" are referring to handgun ammo is designed to penetrate soft armor vests.

The rifle ammo you are referring to is designed to go through lightly-armored vehicles, etc. By the laws of physics, all center-fire rifle ammo (AP and "normal") will defeat soft armor vests since the vests are not designed to stop rifle ammo.

[yay]

83. AP Is a blanket term

Used to describe any type of bullet with a steel or tungsten core, or solid brass bullets. "rifle" bullets weren't "designed" to LAV armor. The BATF decided that if a "pistol" could shoot a certain kind of ammo it would be "pistol" ammo. Hence why .223rem armor piercing ammo is illegal, but .50 BMG is not (IIRC)

Steel core bullets weren't "designed" to pierce armor, it was just a nice side effect.

Solid brass ammo isn't "designed" to pierce armor. They're used for Match grade bullets(do to being machined giving more consistent tolerances) or for bullet development.

Tungsten... don't know the history behind that. I know it isn't cheap so I'm guessing it may be designed as AP ammo.

[gorfle]

16. If this legislation passes...

If this legislation passes, I will go back to voting Republican.

I have voted Democrat since 2006, believing that there were more pressing issues that needed to be addressed to turn us away from tyranny, and hoping that the Democrats had learned their lesson from 1994.

I will not abandon my core belief, however.

If this legislation passes, I will abandon the Democratic Party.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

19. Next gun show, I'm swinging by the NRA table and renewing my old membership.

And giving them an extra $20. That's about the best we can do at this juncture.

[iverglas]

40. gotta get their coffers lined for 2012

They're going to need your money to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term, right?

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

51. The NRA exists to propmote rkba... they re a single issue lobby

If Obama (or anyone else) is on the other side of the fence the NRA will work to fight them.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation.

An easy early morning question:
Why do you think the NRA dislikes Obama, Clinton, Holder, Pelosi... ?

[dairydog91]

23. Next up: SNIPER RIFLES

Or to put it another way: Any rifle capable of piercing low-level body armor and that has a range greater than 200 meters. In other words: Your .30-06 hunting rifle will become a "Long-Range Armor-Piercing Cop-Killer Sniper Rifle". If you have a couple hunting rifles, you own a "sniper's arsenal". This is going to be fun...

[X_Digger]

24. aka "High Powered Weapons Cache" n/t

[jeepnstein]

28. This just in...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
Contributed by Mike Soraghan
02/26/09 11:59 AM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat no when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.
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.
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don't want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.
TheHill.com

That's hardly and enthusiastic cheer for bringing this particular Politician Killing Zombie legislation back.

[DonP]

30. Sounds like she'd like to stay Speaker for a while longer.

I doubt that it would have any impact on her own re-election, but there are plenty of Blue Dogs that would have a real hard time facing their constituents if we tried to get another, even more restrictive AWB passed.

Bet she recalls the last time we played this stupid game that put Gingrich in the speakers seat and set the stage for Bush. Kind of like when Ann Richards decided to fight the Texas concealed carry law and a lot of smart folks believe it cost her the governor's mansion. What ever happened to that guy that won anyway?

Sure the Dems don't need those gun nuts anyway, right?

[Redneck Socialist]

49. Wow, maybe some of them are learning.

That's pretty encouraging actually.

[Abq_Sarah]

29. Well, this is unfortunate

[iverglas]

31. a US administration that gives a damn

about how its policies affect its neighbours.

What a refreshing change.

Now Pres. Obama, we Canadians would like to have a word about that gun show / private transfer exemption from from purchaser background checks ...

[f the letter]

32. What evidence can you provide

that giving up Constitutional rights through a ban of weapons with certain cosmetic features affects our neighbors? In the article it blatantly states that automatic weapons and grenades are the current weapons of choice in the Mexican drug cartel/police war, and those are both banned here already.

The misleading language being used to push this forward is quite disingenuous as well.. "cop-killer bullets" etc.

[Furyataurus]

33. I think

we should send more guns to Mexico. Lord knows the defenseless crowd could use them.

[gorfle]

34. Any administration

Any administration that puts the interests of our neighbors ahead of our citizens has betrayed the people it was elected to represent.

The first concern should always be how policies affect the governed. All other interests are subservient to theirs.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. please explain............

All MILITARY caliber weapons are illegal for civilians in Mexico and have been since before Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico. And they mean any and all military calibers, current or obsolete. One reason the 1911 pistol in 38 Super was popular there, one in .45 is muy prohibido! 7x57, 8mm, 30-06, 7.62x39, and .308 rifles and ammunition are among the prohibited as well, one reason the Villistas liked Model 8 Remingtons and "treinta-treinta" (30-30 Winchesters.)

The weapons used in the firefights Holder mentioned were "FULLY AUTOMATIC and GRENADES", neither of which were covered by the expired Assault Weapons Ban.

So just how does a ban on guns which are neither fully automatic or grenades accomplish anything except allow stupid people to think the government is doing SOMETHING?

Yep we got trouble in River City, ORANGES are a menace, therefore we will reinstate the ban on APPLES.

They must be dumb if they don't know the difference or they think we are dumb and don't know the difference.

Or maybe they think the number of dumb people they fool will outvote those that they don't fool.

Maybe "Bait and Switch" is a good public policy technique.

It appears to have a chorus of fans here and abroad.

[iverglas]

55. maybe this will help

ORANGES are a menace, therefore we will reinstate the ban on APPLES.

ORANGES were used in the one example I cherrypicked for you, therefore APPLES are no problem at all.

[one-eyed fat man]

58. They picked the cherries..........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=185255&mesg_id=185296

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=185255&mesg_id=185296

Holder only is rewording what the party platform and then candidate Obama said 6 months ago.

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

Note especially the part about "As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

If he does know the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic and his website still says what it says, then what does that say about his position?

Moreover, what does it say when the Attorney General states the use of grenades and machine-guns by Mexican drug cartels is a justification to ban SEMI-AUTO weapons in the US?

Their intent is clearly to frame the argument with deliberate deceit to take advantage of technically inept and ignorant. They SAY semi-auto and SHOW pictures of people shooting machine guns.

[iverglas]

59. well my goodness, if those Democrats are that dumb and dishonest

one does have to wonder what it says about you that you voted for them.

You voted for them, right?

[Raskolnik]

61. Do you agree with everything done by those receiving your vote?

I'll put my credentials for supporting Obama up against anyone on DU, but I am also able to recognize that his administrationis made up of human beings, and is capable of making a policy decision with which I disagree.

That's an adult viewpoint that recognizes complexity in the world, in contrast to your "one does have wonder what it says about you that you voted for them. You voted for them, right?" nonsense.

[iverglas]

65. well, you see,

Disagreeing with a policy position really is quite different from doing everything in one's power to defeat a party/government that adopts that position.

You see disagreeing with a policy position, I see tomahtoes.

[Raskolnik]

68. And for some reason you are unable or unwilling to differentiate between those two

points on the spectrum.

[iverglas]

71. apparently you didn't read my post

I'm not unable or unwilling to differentiate between anything.

I'm not seeing what I'm told I am supposed to see. I'm seeing the other thing.

[Raskolnik]

72. That's right. You see what you want to see, and you don't let facts get in your way.

That's the problem.

[iverglas]

74. I can only see what's there

I certainly appreciate that not everyone who votes Democrat supports all Democratic Party policies. There's a very limited choice available. I have the luxury of more choice. I am still occasionally (twice in several decades) compelled to vote for a party that is not my first choice, much as the Democratic Party would not be many people's first choice if there were another choice.

If I voted for the Liberal Party next time we have an election -- if my local NDP candidate didn't have a snowball's chance and my goal was to defeat the Conservatives above all -- I simply would not then set about undermining that party and government at every turn by opposing a policy of its that distinguishes it from the Conservatives. For example, the firearms registry, eh? Should I vote for the Liberals and spend my time kicking up huge stink about Liberal firearms policy, something I KNOW to be a convenient wedge for prying loose votes away from the Liberals? Not if I didn't want the Conservatives to win next time around.

If I wanted the party I voted for to succeed in accomplishing all the things that were the reason why I voted for it, I would not devote my efforts to attacking one minor aspect of its agenda. Not and expect to be taken seriously when I proclaimed my sincere support for the party and opposition to its oppenents.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

[one-eyed fat man]

63. near thing

On balance, the positive things in the platform outweighed the transparent duplicity on this issue. The disappointment is not that they they are doing bait and switch assault weapons dance (we had fair warning), but that it's one thing they really should have let lie until the important stuff like fixing the foreign policy mess, the economic fiasco, and the deficit. What good it is to be shed of the idiots from the last 8 years if all we get for our vote are different idiots?

[iverglas]

66. and then there's the other way of looking at it

that it's one thing they really should have let lie until the important stuff like fixing the foreign policy mess, the economic fiasco, and the deficit.

Do it all early and leave the right wing and its gun militant crew with trying to rally its troops around this policy after it's been in place for three years of peace and prosperity.

One person's not important is another person's important.

[one-eyed fat man]

67. well, they did tell me..........

If I voted for Goldwater in '64, I'd find myself embroiled in a no-win Asian land-war......................................

[Squatch]

57. I never thought of the US Constitution as a "policy"...

but that's just me.

Our gun laws are not affecting Mexico. Mexico's lax law enforcement and institutional governmental corruption are the reason they're having problems right now.

"Now Pres. Obama, we Canadians would like to have a word"

Dear Canadians, get fucked eh?

[iverglas]

60. when are you people going to get the memo???

Jingoistic chauvinism and the ethnocentric xenophobia underlying it are not fashionable this year.

Refusing to take responsibility for the effects of US policy on the world is not good enough for your new president.

(And nobody said your constitution was "a policy", but nice try at bashing that straw chap.)

You actually did a reasonably good job of playing the role of reasonable person when you used to hang out here. Something must have happened.

[Squatch]

62. To quote the dearly departed MrBenchly..."Too damned funny"

(At least I seem to recall that being one of his favorite phrases)

"when are you people..."

"ethnocentric xenophobia (is) not fashionable this year."

Or, is referring to USAmericans "you people" another kind of ethnocentric xenophobia?

Anyways...how've you been? I've had the absolute pleasure of serving with members of your own Royal Canadian Regiment in Afghanistan. Truly great folks (and thanks to your gov't for their continuing support in OEF, though I hear public opinion in CAN is changing in favor of withdrawing forces in the next year or two.)

[iverglas]

64. nice shot, but missed

Or, is referring to USAmericans "you people" another kind of ethnocentric xenophobia?

Why don't you ask someone who referred to USAmericans as "you people"?

Public opinion is divided, and mine less so. We do not belong in a military occupation of Afghanistan. Parliament has voted to leave in 2011, but unless the Liberals grow a spine, that won't likely happen. Of course, that would require that the Liberals grow some principles, and there's no chance at all of that happening.

Legalize the opium crop, and stop using Canadians (and anyone else) to protect the profits of organized crime, is my position.

My great-grandfather, I have recently learned, deserted from the British military in 1878 after 5 years in India when he was about to be stop-lossed to Afghanistan instead of discharged as promised. The whole rest of his life was determined by that act, of course; and of course, one way or another, I wouldn't be here if he hadn't. Military occupations don't work in Afghanistan, not that they're wise in any context.

[Squatch]

69. Were you or were you not talking to me...

when you said "you people"?

Taking your "you people" as a reference to moi, a bona-fide USAmerican, and other people like moi, a reasonable person would draw the conclusion that "you people"....aw nevermind, you see where I'm going with this.

Still hundreds of years after the initial British occupation of Afghanistan (or what would become Afghanistan later), there is no love lost between those two. The adding-insult-to-injury thing is that the British are now in control of Helmand Province, which is primarily Pashtun. The Pashtun, as you know, massacred the British in 1839 which ultimately led to the partitioning of the Pashtun people by the Durand Line. I believe it's that partition which lies at the heart of our current conflict over there (at least in the Southern and Eastern Afghan provinces).

So, while legalizing opium seems like a way to resolve the conflict, I believe a more thorough peace would be achieved by the dissolution of Colonial British boundaries and the emergence of ethnically homogeneous countries or confederation of states that more or less encapsulate the greater Afghan peoples (Pashtun, Hazara, Tajiks, Nuristanis, etc).

[iverglas]

73. I was talking to you

qua person who says things like:

Our gun laws are not affecting Mexico. Mexico's lax law enforcement and institutional governmental corruption are the reason they're having problems right now.

(a simplistic dismissal of geopolitical realities and rejection of collective share of responsibility_

and

Dear Canadians, get fucked eh?

(assholery)

Not qua citizen of any particular country. I'm perfectly aware that there are people in the US, and could name people at this website, who do not share your analyses and sentiments.

You're also male. And yet you didn't interpret what I said as referring to men. Or blond people, or people with big noses, or whatever other characteristics you might have. Hope that clears it up.


So, while legalizing opium seems like a way to resolve the conflict

Well, not quite so fast. I was a little flippant, but I didn't mean to offer the solution. The beginnings of an economic base for the society, and a reduction in the resources available to the bad guys. I'm not in the camp that believes that ending a prohibition will end all the problems ascribed to it. There will still be bad guys, who will not just wither and die if they don't have (as much) opium crop to work with.

I believe a more thorough peace would be achieved by the dissolution of Colonial British boundaries and the emergence of ethnically homogeneous countries or confederation of states that more or less encapsulate the greater Afghan peoples (Pashtun, Hazara, Tajiks, Nuristanis, etc).

I proposed the Belgian solution for Iraq right at this very website some years before my guy Joe offered his rather less sophisticated version. ;)

[Squatch]

75. Wait just a damned minute...what just happened?!?

Did we actually agree on something?

"I believe a more thorough peace would be achieved by the dissolution of Colonial British boundaries and the emergence of ethnically homogeneous countries or confederation of states that more or less encapsulate the greater Afghan peoples (Pashtun, Hazara, Tajiks, Nuristanis, etc).

I proposed the Belgian solution for Iraq right at this very website some years before my guy Joe offered his rather less sophisticated version. ;)"

(holding a bottle of champagne in reserve, waiting on confirmation that we did, in fact, agree on something) :rofl:

[iverglas]

76. how many gun salute would that be?

[Squatch]

77. For you Iverglas...every damned gun I own

which may or may not be a lot. But, since you're Canadian, any number of guns greater than zero is "a lot". ;)

[iverglas]

80. maybe I'll just go crack that bottle of Henkell Trocken

It's been that kind of week.

Or maybe the Stolichnaya and veggie juice would work better ...

And there had better be some Miss Vickie's potato chips waiting for me. With dill dip.

I'd offer, you know, but.

[Squatch]

82. I ended up with a gin and tonic.

If you ever get a chance, try Gruet's demi-sec. It's a great little wine for $12 and doesn't have that sense of self importance that kinda pervade European wine descriptions (it's ok...I'm from Germany originally):

Henkell Trocken inimitably combines sparkling wine expertise with a unique degree of elegance, class, individualism (?), vigour and dynamism (?!?), making it the ideal sparkling wine for casual yet stylish celebrations.

You ever notice how some wine descriptions are just, well, dumb? For once, I'd like to read a wine description that goes like this: "Malbec. Tastes like fermented malbec grapes, which are delicious."

[iverglas]

84. Henkell Trocken

is cheap. ;) Well, $12. And left over from new year. So: free.

No Gruet found at LCBO:

http://www.lcbo.com/main/en.shtml

You'll have to send me some, I guess. (I'll offer a bottle of Quebec ice wine in exchange.) Semi-dry, sparkling, half-and-half red/white? Sounds not bad. As long as you're not trying to palm German white wine off on me, we'll be cool. Or Californian. Bleeeeah to both. I like my white dry and tasteless (think: Colli Albani) and my red ever so slighty not dry. No couth at all, me.

About all I need in a red wine description is: will (will not) give you excruciating shooting pains in your jaw hinges. From the tannin, I gather. I was also getting MSG headaches at Chinese restaurants in 1970, before anybody'd heard of MSG ...

[paulsby]

79. do you have any evidence

that so called "assault weapons" are the weapon of choice for murder in canada.

cause in the US, they aren't.

rifles, for instance -- ALL TYPES -- make up less than 5% of all homicides.

[iverglas]

81. yeesh

do you have any evidence
that so called "assault weapons" are the weapon of choice for murder in canada.

That would be a no. There is quite a collection of evidence, however, that firearms purchased at gun shows in the US (and also otherwise by straw purchase), virtually exclusively handguns, are used in considerable numbers (relatively speaking, of course) of homicides in Canada. And of course other crimes. I never see the need to limit any discussion of harms caused with firearms to homicides, myself.

Gun show sales being what I was actually talking about, you may have noticed.

[Indy Lurker]

43. Will an AWB get past Heller?

Heller says the 2nd Amendment protects weapons of a type that are in common use.

Wouldn't most AW qualify?

[derby378]

54. This just in - Ray Schoenke of AHSA tells Holder to back off

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=30537928463&topic=7716

Based on your comments today, it appears that the Obama administration may attempt to reinstate <the 1994 semi-auto ban>. As President of AHSA, I encourage you to negate that effort. The assault weapons ban is an issue of personal freedom, that deeply concerns America's hunting, shooting, and sporting community. And even greater than the politics, the issue is bad policy.

Most importantly, the law had no measurable effect on crime reduction. Instead, the law demonized lawful gun owners and became a lightning rod for a decade long public debate over gun crime that merely served to divert time and resources from our already over-burdened law enforcement agencies. Frankly, it has been an unnecessary distraction. Gun owners support efforts to keep our communities safe. We just want those policies directed at the root cause of crime and violence and not just symbolism, which is how the Washington Post accurately described the ban back in 1994.

[d72r]

56. holder is a jerk off!!!

Here goes all the week ass Democrats working on getting themselves voted out of office again. I agree with alot of democratic views with the exception of the gun bans. Don't these idiots understand ALOT of democrats own guns? You would think with all the problems this country has they would wait a while and not jump right on the gun issue. I can't remember the last time I sold full automatic weapons or hand grenades to illegal mexicans? Oh wait, We can't have those weapons either....Anyone who has a full auto permit is not gonna risk it selling registered full auto weapons to mexicans. IT'S TIME TO VOTE THESE ASSHOLES BACK OUT OF OFFICE BEFORE THEY TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS!!!!!!

[Taitertots]

70. The new Meme is

That we need gun control laws to stop crime in Mexico.

Seems easier to explain then trying to tie them to crimes in America.