Wrong. Operation Gunrunner was very different from Fast and Furious. Gunrunner actually tried to track guns *AND* involved the Mexican law enforcement authorities.

Fast and Furious let the guns just walk. Walk away without a care in the world. Walk away whilst keeping the Mexican in the dark.

And yes, Fast and Furious was a ploy to enable sever gun control like the permanent reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.

"In an April 2010 e-mail to a colleague, Burke predicted that the operation would have a huge public impact: âoeItâ(TM)s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasers of assault weapons,â he wrote. âoeSome of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.â

Article at Of Arms & The Law: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/01/us_attorney_den.php

Really?

""I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied. Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.""

Article is from 2009. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

Then you know little about warfare. Tanks are *never* sent in without supporting infantry. A tank without infantry is a sitting duck. Google: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=EWEsT7CmDKbV0QGTh6nHCg&ved=0CB0QBSgA&q=tanks+with+infantry+support&spell=1&biw=1320&bih=698

I'm sure the Vietnamese, Iraqis and the Afghanis would like to disagree with you.

Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.

What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?

The same Robert Rodriguez who had sumbit to medical research studies to come up with funding for his first film?

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rodriguez#Career

Link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=iceweasel-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&ei=2zPmTs_kMMT00gGT98X9BQ&ved=0CDAQvwUoAQ&q=robert+rodriguez+medical+research+studies&spell=1&biw=1320&bih=696

We should obviously BAN illegal assault shovels! No citizen needs a shovel that's painted black and has rubber grip with finger grooves! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202562616/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Or one with a adjustable handle! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202819477/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Just like a telescoping stock, these adjustable shovels only have one use: to build hi-tech drug tunnels!!

I say we force landscapers, contractors and other manual laborers to be fingerprinted, obtain a shovel license and be limited to buying one shovel a month. Who the hell needs more than one shovel a month! Plus, you must specify the make, length and blade material on your shovel application. And specify exactly show good cause for needing a shovel. Though, the licensing officials will never objectively define what "good cause" is.

Because faces, eye color, hair all matter when women wear an outfit. For example, certain color or pattern dresses look better with blond hair. Certain cuts of a shoulder or neck line can look better with different shaped faces. Short hair vs long hair for certain styles. It all matters when putting it together.

It's the same with makeup. You use certain shades and strokes of color to help balance a woman's face or accentuate certain aspects, e.g., cheekbones.

If you want growth, go elsewhere.

Should I get cancer?

If I got jumped by a bunch of guys, I would rather have someone in body armor show up with mace than no-one at all.

Then I would say you and these self anointed "super heroes"are supremely ignorant of the laws governing the use of force, deadly force and self-defense. There is centuries of well established law (dating back to medieval England) governing when it is appropriate for civilians to use force and deadly force against assailants.

Anybody who likes to consider them a well informed citizen should read Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". Read this even if you have no intention of ever owning a gun. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Gravest-Extreme-Firearm-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001

But how do these Super Yahoos know who is who in a situation like that? In the aforementioned 3 against 1 scenario, were the 3 the instigators or did the 1 try to rob the three and then had the tables turned on him?

Is that husky male who appears to be beating a woman a rapist? Or is he a vice cop who is trying to arrest a combative prostitute (who are known to yell "Rape!" when being handcuffed as to create a distraction)?

See the problem? You don't think do-gooders like these Yahoos have ended up in prison for getting involved in something they knew nothing about? You think just because he "only" carries mace that some individual might not end up dead from a head injury because of their actions and end up being charged with murder or manslaughter?

Use your Google Foo and look up Massad Ayoob's Ayoob Files. He's been writing about this stuff for years in an effort to educate the public about the use of force and deadly force. Ayoob is my "Super Hero": all research, writing. educating and no glory.