Posted on 01/14/2008 5:41:31 AM PST by servantboy777
Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.
The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
But not all at once. The tech base works both ways. After the first or second raid, things could get dicey. Unless they just call in an air strike and blow your whole house up.. but that itself could be dicey, as those sworn to 'support and defend' decide that there are better places for their ordnance.
But don't forget he promised to sign Texas CHL law when he was running against Queen Anne for guv. He kept his word. So he's not completely anti gun, just anti arms rights. A CHL is government permission to exercise a right.. not that I haven't gone and gotten that permission, I have.
Only in your case, it would be for you to either abstain from voting Rep or to vote 3rd Party (essentially throwing away/wasting your vote).
You guys already pulled that schtick in 2006 and look what it got us. Empowerment of the socialists, Pelosi and Dingy Harry running things, and revitalization of the DemocRat Party. You guys didn't learn anything from 2006, did ya? I guess it'll take a helluva lot worse "end results" (see nuke attacks under a DemocRat administration) for you to finally wake up and smell the reality. Sad, that. Only problem is....you'll be hurting not just yourselves, but many, many others, as well.
gun Civil/1st Amendment/etc rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation"
Hmmmm.....he would be tarred and feathered...and then shot by our founders......
“(Fixed magazine that you have to break the gun open to load as one example. Pump action ARs as another)”
BAAARRRFFF! A pump action AR? Never. I need to get the gun soon and stock up on ammo. I’ll get 80,000 rounds, oh wait, that’ll get me in trouble too.
http://www.topix.com/city/south-bend-in/2007/08/armageddon-ready-80-000-bullets-in-house
The morons want a “Republican” because they are terrified of what a Conservative Republican would do to the country.
Any who thinks that FR is still a Conservative website these days is stuck on stupid.
Socialist “Republican” = GOP and RNC
What did the Jews do to piss Bush off?
>Bush has quietly been going after gun owners since he was elected. I noticed it seemed to get even worse after his re-election when he didn’t need to worry about getting elected again.
I will say I am surprised by this as he now is clearly in the open for the average Joe to see. Of course people who kept up with the issue knew he was anti-gun from the get-go, we just didn’t realize he was so extreme.<
Remember the first time the LOST Treaty was being pushed by Bush? That should have told you he had the UN Charter as a backstop. Removing firearms from civilians is in the UN rules, he’s just doing what he promised his boss that he would do while he was in Office.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf
The whole thing. USDOJ is making a strong case for “reasonable restrictions”.
Not necessarily. We've always had issues with the Party Reptiles trying to sway debate with their cheerleader BS during political silly season. I remember being called an "unappeasable" numerous times when we were debating Bush's RINO'ism before his first term.
This is nothing new. Nor is it likely to go away anytime before the next Civil War.
Arguably, Fred and Duncan are the only two "real" candidates. Followed distantly by Mike and Ron, each of whom have serious flaws IMO, who are as much again ahead of tthe Rudy McRomney troika.
Note: this scale also follows who is best on RKBA issues. Amazing what holding firm to a Founding Principle can do in regards to other areas a potential POTUS must face. This is why many of us "one issue voters" often use the Second Amendment as an "x-ray" issue to examine a candidate. Anyone not upholding Individual RKBA is automatically discarded as not having a clue as to the nature of Individual Rights, or the rest of the Constitution for that matter.
I've read it.
The argument that "reasonable regulation" is permissible rests on assuming that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is the SAME english common law right to defend self and state that exists in Great Britain today.
It's equivalent to claiming that ratification of the Second Amendment has no effect on the right. The argument is so very weak that I consider it the weakest possible argument consistent with present laws.
The administration is obligated to provide comment on such an important case. Unless they were willing to file a brief which claims that they are presently infringing the rights of every American, it's about the best I would have hoped for.
Every move that the occupying army took in 1775 Boston was LEGAL under english common law. Our Founders petitioned the central government with their grievances, but there was no legal remedy whatever to challenge the confiscations of the occupiers. The Second Amendment was CLEARLY intended to prevent such confiscations.
No, his Yankeefied education and friends are showing.
People with guilty consciences, and people who live in ant-pile cities, can't stand the thought of people owning guns.
I'm convinced that tenement life turned "urban ethnics" into gun-haters. Accidentally discharge a firearm while cleaning or loading it, and you'd kill people on the second, fourth, fifth, and seventh floors.
Why does an agent of a constitutionally-constrained, lawful government need to wear a mask?
Because that's essentially what his balaclava is.
Reminds me of that newsmagazine photo of Serbian soldiers going out on patrol in the back of a 6x6....in the back was the sergeant, looking murderous as hell and tough as nails, and carrying -- for what sinister purpose the mind can only imagine -- a crossbow. And he and all his reports were wearing masks, military masks that snapped on to their helmets and BDU's. And I thought, well, that kind of tells me where these guys are coming from.
Same thing here.
No official of the government, conducting legal, Constitutionally authorized duties (outside of undercover operations),
should be able to conceal his identity or to prohibit a citizen from recording his actions.
No tape on the bad number, no masks, no “turn that thing off”.
Dick Cheney must be spinning in his grave
~~~~~~
Huh? WHat’d I miss? Cheney’s in his grave already?
Was going to post that one as well.
To be fair I think he has done ok there as well. That being said I would never vote for the liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.