In the face of a world-wide economic crisis as well as a war that "we will end", President Obama's staff is spending time trying to re-enact the assault weapons ban that Clinton signed into law and that the Bush administration got repealed. What's the best reason for it they can come up with? Because Mexican drug lords are able to buy "sophisticated" weapons in the US and get them over the border so easily.

Say what? You mean that border we've been trying to hard to close? The one we've spent millions of dollars on to build SOME fences? The one the Mexicans have NEVER cared to see closed? And then, on top of all that, the only actual weapons they mention being a big problem in Mexico are automatic weapons and grenades. NEITHER OF THOSE ARE LEGAL HERE, EITHER. Well, that's technically not true as automatic weapons are legal in VERY rare cases and are VERY difficult to obtain legally. Currently legal automatic weapons are not making it across the border in droves. Semi-automatic weapons? Probably. But there's a HUGE difference between the two.

And other than how it looks, there are few fundamental differences between many hunting rifles and the things being called "assault rifles." The differentiation is ridiculous. It boils down to how many bullets it holds and how it looks. Nevermind the power of it. The fact that it could kill someone from so far away they'd never hear the shot. Or several someones. And all it would do is put a production ban on them. The thousands that are out there will still be out there. They'll just be more expensive since the demand will be higher than supply.

So will criminals have a tougher time getting them? There's never been any correlation to "assault weapons" and crime of any significant nature. Nothing. Nothing about gun control equates to access for criminals. So why bother with it? It makes SOME people feel good. That's it. It does little more than violate our second amendment rights. I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Does anyone else find it just a bit odd that since the feds seized the "anonymous" data that MLB was collecting and made it public that everyone who has admitted taking steroids has also said they quit in 2003 right before the players union voted to ban them and start testing? It's no secret that their own testing is incredibly weak and there are rumors that people have been tipped off to imminent tests, so why the heck should we believe NOW that the deeds were only done when MLB had no rule against it? Sure, people are basically admitting to using controlled substances, which is illegal. But going after that criminally isn't all that likely. The key here is that they are trying to protect their precious "legacy" and records by only admitting to what was done when there was no MLB rule against it.

The whole thing is a farce. Congress should have only gotten involved several years ago enough to say "you guys investigate this, clean it up WELL, and give us a full report detailing EVERYTHING so that WE are sure you cleaned it up well. Then we want to see you keep it clean. Anything less and we WILL clean house." Period. End of story. If Congress can be as involved as they've been thus far, well, they could have done that, too. Bud Selig seems to think he's above all that, but he's not. I'm sick of seeing taxpayer dollars spent on this kind of thing, but I do think they needed a good housecleaning. We could have done it a lot cheaper. I can't stand Barry Bonds, but this witch hunt for perjury is a little nuts. If you can't prosecute one perjury case for a lot less money than this, don't bother. He's scum and he has to live with it whether it's a few months in a Federal prison or at home, and it's not going to change how anyone else does things no matter which one he ends up in.

Looks like the anti-gun lobby is starting to rally now that Obama is in power.  There's already a new bill that's been introduced, and this one is a whopper.  It's completely unconstitutional, and not just that, it's irrational.  When will the gun lobby learn that how many bullets a gun holds has almost zero relationship to violent crime?  *sigh*  See some commentary on the bill here.  

I remember when the basketball was enough.  I remember when there didn't have to be an additional "show."  Sure, the All-Star game was never about competition as much as it was about showing off the best of the best, but that was still all you needed.  Slam dunk contests didn't need phone booths and 12 foot special-built goals and custom shoes.  Okay, maybe they did need the custom shoes.  But you get the idea.  

...we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.