Best regards to all,
Best regards,
I can assure you, this has more than rankled me.
I am a longtime Bush supporter. You can check my posts going back to 2,000 and not find any Bush bashing on my part. It has pained me that he let me down on immigration and I said so, but I sucked it up and held my water.
Shooting me in the back over my 2A rights, whowever, might be too much. If we lose this SCOTUS decision with GWB's help, I'll be more than bitter and certainly not forgiving. BTW, I'm being mild here and not posting my true anger over this.
Hell, if I’d have known that “W” had all these major problems, I would have just gone fishing, instead of hauling my old butt out of bed, to vote for him!
“W” has got to be the biggest let down in my life!
Here’s a better headline:
Bush is a Traitor.
Why would any candidate pursue support or cater to the interests of a constituency so easily duped?
I read the Washington Post article. I read it a second time. It wasn't clear to me what the soliciter was saying, and I didn't trust the WashPost staff writer, so I went and dug up the actual brief in question.
Reading it carefully, it makes some sense and isn't any kind of backstabbing. It supports, clearly, the over-ruling of the gun ban in DC.
The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov't has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.
Now I understand that some of you think these kinds of laws are unconstitutional, and they may well be, but they are the status quo and have been for the last century and defending them on the books is hardly the kind of thing you need to flip out on the president over.
So cool your jets. And read the brief if you want right here.
And Fred is the ONLY one of the candidates to comment on this amicus by the DOJ!!!!!
I am sick of tilting at windmills. Is there anything we the base can do to force Bush to do our budding? Can we block his “legacy” issues in the Congress, such as denying a penny of aid to the Palestinian nazis? How about Republican Senators blocking his every appointment until he backs down on this?
No, not "reasonable restrictions. What part of "shall not be infringed" allows "reasonable" restrictions. This brief calls for "height ed scrutiny" of gun control laws. But the very least that the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights is "strict scrutiny". The difference is that in the former, the government would only need to show some legitimate "governmental purpose" for the restriction. They would not have to show that the restriction was effective in addressing that government purpose. Nor would they have to show that the restriction was the minimum possible to address the "governmental purpose".
Very few gun control laws could pass the "strict scrutiny" test. Most could and cording the governments brief, all current federal ones would.
A pox on both the "No individual right" and "resonable restrictions" bastids.
What if:
this brief brings the Dems out in support of “reasonable gun control{whatever the hell that is}”, ie this is a “see come” to get them to show their cards while tripping over their left feet, and forced to play to the base. This puts them on record and is fodder when whoever is the candidate tries to move to the center in the general election. The Dems have been avoiding gun issues like the plague. Stratergy??? I don’t know.
Actually I was pissed about the brief just like ya’ll.
“Administration Rankles Some With Stance in Handgun Case (Presidential amicus brief on DC Gun Ban)”
Is there even ONE conservative remaining in America that isn’t at least a little bit disgusted with this pr*ck?
After reading the Brief, I am not opposed to its recommendation: remand the decision back to the lower court for further review.
MERELY more in keeping with a series of catastrophic blunders by a President who either presented himself as something he was not, or is lacking in certain reasoning capabilities, or both.
Merely the sight of this impostor turns my stomach.
His failure to punish the Fallujans for the butchery of American contractors back in his first term turned an up until then successful military operation into a catastrophe. The Muslims stared and he blinked.
He went on to demonstrate his lack of reasoning abilities, or fraudulent credentials - choose them as you will, with Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports, failure to defend our southern borders, persecuting Ramos and Compean, stabbing Israel in the back, an idiotic experiment with missiles on Russia’s western borders, an irrational scheme involving Benazir Bhutto, selection of series of incompetent or left-leaning advisers - Norman Minetta, the FEMA wonderboy,
Chrissie Whitman, Tom Kean Senior, the former Attorney General, the present Secretary of Defense Gates (criticizing the few friends you have in public is tantamount to exemplary stupidity - even in an administration which has excelled in that area) - and now this.
Stabbing the gun owners of America in the back over the Second Amendment just as he stabbed all Americans in the back when he signed McCain-Feingold.
Bush has done some things write. Nobody is 100 % wrong even if they try as hard as possible. But most of those correct decisions do not outweigh the damage this man has done to the conservative movement in the Republican Party and, by extension, to the conservatives in general in America.
Bush II will ultimately rank right up there with his equally incompetent father, his predecessor of the many sexual adventures, the peanut planter Jimmah Cahtah, Lyndon Johnson, Rockefeller Republican Ford, the schizophrenic Richard Nixon and the “Prince of Camelot” John Kennedy, as the worst of American Presidents.