Posted on 02/13/2008 5:41:30 PM PST by Amerigomag
Leave it to the Bush Administration to put forward the argument that the Constitution permits "reasonable" infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
The Solicitor General, Paul Clement, of the United States is the lawyer for the Justice Department. On January 11, Clement dropped a bomb designed to destroy the Second Amendment.
The bomb was a friend of the court brief that is a marvelous work of Newspeak as described by George Orwell in his novel of a horrifying future where words mean the opposite of their original definitions.
On the one hand, the brief argues that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that predated the creation of the U.S. government by the people. On the other hand, it concludes that any and all guns can be controlled or banned if a federal court finds that to be a reasonable restriction or ban.
The brief asserts that there is an "unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail . . .." It is somewhat amazing that a brief in defense of the DC gun ban would say such a preposterous thing. It is the District of Columbia, with its gun ban, that usually has the highest murder rate of all U.S. jurisdictions. In high-gun-ownership jurisdictions such as neighboring Fairfax County, VA (with nearly twice the D.C. population), the murder rates are much lower. In Fairfax County it is more than 100 times less than the D.C. murder rate.
In some thirty pages of flip-flopping arguments, the Justice Department brief never once considered what the founders of the American republic might have meant by the phrase "shall not be infringed." But the Clement brief did criticize the idea that the Second Amendment was a categorical prohibition on banning guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at intellectualconservative.com ...
If Mr. Bush will take positions like this, just think what awaits with one of the three clowns in the race to take his place when they take over the job.
Feh. Looks like you can’t trust anyone anymore.
If Mr. Bush will take positions like this, just think what awaits with one of the three clowns in the race to take his place when they take over the job.
I’ll pursue reasonable restrictions on government, in the meantime.
Well as long as it’s reasonable. [/sarc]
The court’s going to say, you are 100% right but we’re going to shaft you anyway. Look for mass collecting of all firearms over much objections.
The Bush Administration is a bunch of RINO’s.
The GOP is a goner. Time for a new, REPRESENTITIVE PARTY!!
Tea anyone?
Wrong. The threat is inherent in restricted firearm possesion. If everyone was armed, or even potentially armed this would be a much safer country.
George has gone ‘round the bend.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”
— Thomas Jefferson
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Time to get busy at the reloading bench ....that does it, I’m sending this year’s contribution that was earmarked for a politician to the NRA. Lock and load.
Its shocking how violent felons are arrested over and over and over again. The system works harder to keep people out of prison than in. Ban criminals (keep them locked up) instead of guns, and we wont have this problem.
That argument is unbelievable.
But when I ask them to define "reasonable", after some hemming and hawing, they finally admit that their definition of "reasonable" is "whatever *I* think is... well... reasonable!"
They both consider themselves to be the ultimate authority, being that they are more balanced, enlightened, and intelligent than pretty much anyone around them. Sort of gives you a glimpse into the mind of the average liberal: it's basically a small room lined with mirrors.
But when I ask them to define "reasonable", after some hemming and hawing, they finally admit that their definition of "reasonable" is "whatever *I* think is... well... reasonable!"
They both consider themselves to be the ultimate authority, being that they are more balanced, enlightened, and intelligent than pretty much anyone around them. Sort of gives you a glimpse into the mind of the average liberal: it's basically a small room lined with mirrors.
I think the bottom line here is that we consider a “conservative” as one who defends the constitution. The Administration, and some other Republicans, define a “conservative” as one who defends the status quo, whatever it is.
Right now, the law of the land restricts firearms at the whim of congress. Defending that whim is more important to the Justice Department than the fact that many years of gun control are clearly unconstitutional.
If congress outlawed guns, the “conservative” in the White House would probably defend that decision as well.
Deeply disturbing. This ruling will speak volumes about freedom’s future.
If you can support “reasonable” bans on the First Amendment, why not support “reasonable” bans on the Second Amendment. Why don’t we just get rid of the pesky document altogether?
Any questions on why threatening us with the democrats doesn’t work anymore?
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.