Posted on 01/14/2008 5:41:31 AM PST by servantboy777
The idea that FReepers are pushing to elect a RINO is sickening to me. It should be sickening to all FReepers.
Coupla points here.
And by the way, the Administration's brief in Emerson prefigured this posture and foreshadowed a complete turn against gun ownership by the Republican "RiNO" clerisy and their masters.
As for nuclear attacks, well, one would certainly demonstrate the public need for personal gun rights (the example of New Orleans shows that we would be on our own in matters of security), and it would kill one hell of a lot of urban Democrats and RiNO's. Not that that would be desirable, the damage would be fantastic at all recognizable levels and some unrecognizable ones as well. I'm just saying. (Liberals call it "blowback". Well, "blowback" yourself, kiddo.)
There is a footnote in Ashcroft's letter, although I wasn't able to find where in the text it was referenced:
"1Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment dos not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, ..."
"Compelling state interests" is one of the criteria of "strict scrutiny" if I recall correctly. The problem is that ANY scrutiny opens us up to somebody's judgement that a particular weapon is just too darn dangerous; which is exactly what DC says about handguns.
The application of "strict scrutiny", however, goes beyond just making unsupported claims. The state must prove that the law in question touches as lightly as possible on the protected right. In the case of handguns in DC, it's hard to see how background checks on gun owners is not sufficient, though even that is an infringement. Background checks have been in effect for many years and crime rates have not been greatly affected by them, as far as I know. DC can't make a credible claim that non-criminals become criminals simply because they own a gun.
Excellent point, and it corroborates your point about the fatal stupidity of "personality" politics.
My mother, rest her soul, imbibed somewhere the idea that one voted the man, not the issues. I saw her point and I also saw that it was fatally flawed, inasmuch as the man hasn't been born, who doesn't have feet of clay. Hell, we're all made 100% of clay. Some of it's just a little stiffer than other bits.
Over the Gorebot, and his melting glaciers and melting Constitution? Any day.
That said, I wish Bush had given this brief not to the Solicitor General, but to "Call Me Al" to argue before the Court. "Go nuts, Al, really let the Supreme Court know, how much we hate the Second Amendment. Tell them to 'nullify' it."
I make tiny joke :-)
I hear you. We are currently suffering death by a thousand cuts with the rinos in charge.
No question.
I like shooting revolvers more than autos, but I find autos a lot easier to clean than revolvers.
The Viper strikes.
Well, at least he is consistent. He showed us what he thought about “unrestricted” free speech when he signed McCain - Feingold.
Jorge Arbusto is not a Conservative !He is also not compassionate !
YOU are missing a “key ingredient here”. We are well down the road to being ruled by socialist tyrants. Rinos are simply getting us there slightly slower than the dems.
Something to think about. Get boiled slowly, and not notice. Or rapidly, in which case you notice, jump out of the pot and kick somebody’s a$$.
I hate Bush.
Ok...so what's the alternative, guys??? What you guys already tried in 2006? Newsflash....that only made things WORSE.
I'm open to suggestions. Suggestions re: ANYthing BUT what you did in 2006, that is....ie: voting third party or not voting at all....just because you didn't approve of the RINO excrement. And what did we get instead? Jackass excrement. MUCH more stinky than before.
So...sure. Let's hear your brilliant alternative. Wow me with your wisdom. Ge ahead!
From my perspective, this is the SAME EXACT crap I heard right before the 2006 election. Ya'll just handed the reins over to Fagosi & Company. What's next? For an encore, ya'll planning to hand over the reins to Hitlery now?
....This man is not a friend to gun owners....
He’s no friend to conservatives of any stripe.
....Rudy McRomney....
McKook should be on the list too.
The Second Amendment applies to all free persons. It has never applied to people who are, for whatever reason, not free persons.
I don't think the Founding Fathers would have necessarily required someone to have committed a crime in order to be found mentally incompetent and put under someone else's control. Such finding would not have been made lightly, however, nor would it have been reasonable to deny someone's RKBA if it wasn't also reasonable to severely confine their actions in other ways. Significantly, any person who was so restricted would be widely recognized as "not free".
Why is that guy wearing the uniform of a criminal?
***It’s at least as bad as the California law, which has produced some really “interesting” AR derivitives. (Fixed magazine that you have to break the gun open to load as one example. Pump action ARs as another)***
Was it the Enfield where you put the rounds in through a clip, into a fixed magazine?
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.