Because of court rulings about legal pronouncements in one state conflicting with public policy in another. If FFCC was applied that way then every state would have to recognize Mass. same-sex marriages.
Which has been something that I think they SHOULD be forced to do. It's the principle of the FFCC. States are prohibited by the constitution in entering into treaties and agreements like a CCW reciprocity agreement. How are licenses for driving a car addressed? I've always understood it to be the FFCC.
And that article refutes his level of stated support.
"He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind."
That's ballistic fingerprinting and backdoor registration. Fiscally unworkable and technically difficult.
He went on in his speech: "Obviously we have to first and foremost do everything we can to take reasonable steps to keep our children safe," she said. "And while safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights, we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang members and people with mental health problems."
To which I must ask, why not take those dangerous individuals whom you cannot trust to possess firearms legally (and who routinely possess them illegally) off the street and keep them off the street?
Obama's comments about US troops came from his staff having spoken to a US Army Captain
Actually I watched the video of him saying it. He said the captain deployed part of his platoon to Iraq and part of it to Afghanistan and that they deployed without rifles and had to take AKs from Taliban. So many things about that are just utterly confusing.
I haven't complained about Bush specifically targeting al-qaeda or the Taliban. I have complained about his going into Iraq. Obama's comments about Pakistan stem from the fact that in 2005 we failed to strike out of fear of damaging diplomatic relations.
War is a question of making fewer mistakes than the other guy. I wish we'd done the air-strike but we need to be sensitive and prudent when we do act. I've read a lot of operational actions in WWII. The number, scope and body count attached to those mistakes are legion. From what I've seen, compared to WWII, we're doing damn good in Iraq. Compared to what other folks have found in Afghanistan when they invaded, we're doing REALLY well there too. The Mountains west of the Punjab are NOT for the faint of heart to invade. They're not for the foolish either.
However, stories abut the military being under equipped and under supplied have been common since this whole thing started.
The suggested link doesn't work for me at all.
Procurement has been a serious issue LONG before this war. The worst examples I've heard of are during the 90s when units couldn't qualify soldiers on small arms because they didn't have enough ammo. One specific case had them able to qualify ONE soldier with the M249 with the ammo available or 2 soldiers in a transition qualification level. The Serbian exercise was funded out of procurement and maintenance budgets which made things excessively tight, I disagree with Congress withholding the funds, But I'd argue that continuing the mission with out the funding raises some serious questions.
The fact that we're still running NG battalions through the Balkans today and no-one complains, I have to ask, what exactly is the left unhappy about? It's not ok if a NG troop deploys to Iraq. It is ok if he deploys to the Balkans. There's a hell of a lot less shooting but mechanical wear and tear on materials and supply infrastructure is the same whether the M113's are patrolling a road into Ugljevik in the Balkans or up MSR Michigan.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Re: Obama on Guns and Pakistan part II
Date: 2008-02-29 07:00 pm (UTC)Which has been something that I think they SHOULD be forced to do. It's the principle of the FFCC. States are prohibited by the constitution in entering into treaties and agreements like a CCW reciprocity agreement. How are licenses for driving a car addressed? I've always understood it to be the FFCC.
And that article refutes his level of stated support.
"He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind."
That's ballistic fingerprinting and backdoor registration. Fiscally unworkable and technically difficult.
He went on in his speech: "Obviously we have to first and foremost do everything we can to take reasonable steps to keep our children safe," she said. "And while safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights, we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang members and people with mental health problems."
To which I must ask, why not take those dangerous individuals whom you cannot trust to possess firearms legally (and who routinely possess them illegally) off the street and keep them off the street?
Obama's comments about US troops came from his staff having spoken to a US Army Captain
Actually I watched the video of him saying it. He said the captain deployed part of his platoon to Iraq and part of it to Afghanistan and that they deployed without rifles and had to take AKs from Taliban. So many things about that are just utterly confusing.
I haven't complained about Bush specifically targeting al-qaeda or the Taliban. I have complained about his going into Iraq. Obama's comments about Pakistan stem from the fact that in 2005 we failed to strike out of fear of damaging diplomatic relations.
War is a question of making fewer mistakes than the other guy. I wish we'd done the air-strike but we need to be sensitive and prudent when we do act. I've read a lot of operational actions in WWII. The number, scope and body count attached to those mistakes are legion. From what I've seen, compared to WWII, we're doing damn good in Iraq. Compared to what other folks have found in Afghanistan when they invaded, we're doing REALLY well there too. The Mountains west of the Punjab are NOT for the faint of heart to invade. They're not for the foolish either.
However, stories abut the military being under equipped and under supplied have been common since this whole thing started.
The suggested link doesn't work for me at all.
Procurement has been a serious issue LONG before this war. The worst examples I've heard of are during the 90s when units couldn't qualify soldiers on small arms because they didn't have enough ammo. One specific case had them able to qualify ONE soldier with the M249 with the ammo available or 2 soldiers in a transition qualification level. The Serbian exercise was funded out of procurement and maintenance budgets which made things excessively tight, I disagree with Congress withholding the funds, But I'd argue that continuing the mission with out the funding raises some serious questions.
The fact that we're still running NG battalions through the Balkans today and no-one complains, I have to ask, what exactly is the left unhappy about? It's not ok if a NG troop deploys to Iraq. It is ok if he deploys to the Balkans. There's a hell of a lot less shooting but mechanical wear and tear on materials and supply infrastructure is the same whether the M113's are patrolling a road into Ugljevik in the Balkans or up MSR Michigan.