[Djarum]

BANG

[Nathan _in_Arkansas]

HOOOOAAAH!!!!

[anniegetyourgun]

Leave it to the NYT to come up with such a headline.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Yeah. The headline confused me too. I didn't think Ashcroft had changed his stance on the issue. I could tell right away it must be a good thiing because the Noo Yawk Times didn't like it.

[basil]

ping!

[Sender]

It's a good start, "reversing" decades of lies and idiocy. Let's see how far back towards freedom we will swing.

[Senator_Blutarski]

There have been many naysayers and conservative critics of the Bush Administration on FR over the last 16 months. Here is solid evidence that we have elected the right man, and that right man has appointed the right people.

Something George W. Bush understands is that change on contentious issues is incremental. The country will not support radical change. However, radical change can be effected through a series of much smaller changes.

The Democrats have long understood incremental change and have used it effectively to achieve their goals. Bush shows he understands their game and is turning their game against them. Smart politicians learn quickly from their opponents.

[lepton]

The Supreme Court's view has been that the the Second Amendment protected only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia," as the court put it in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that remains the court's latest word on the subject.

What they don't mention is that the case considered any military issue personal arm to fulfill that requirement: like machine guns and battle rifles.

[lepton]

n October, the federal appeals court in New Orleans, saying it did not find the Miller decision persuasive,

That's a lie. They didn't find the later manglings of the Miller decision pursuasive. Ones which claimed the Miller decision said things that literate people could not find in it.

[Balding_Eagle]

More evidence, within an endless stream of evidence, that

there isn't a tinkers d*mn of difference between Clinton/Gore and George Bush!

Posted to alleviate the pounding, apoplectic hearts of the Bush Bashers.

[180grain]

subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons.

"And whatever happened to the words, Shall not be infringed, when you place restrictions upon a persons Constitutional rights for any reason(s) then the true intent of the Second Amendment is not being met".

After all, in the eyes of our government are not we all lacking the ability to do for ourself what we ask them to do for us, ie: Social Security, Welfare, Education, Health Care and on. Does this make us unfit?

[SnuffaBolshevik]

Has Linda Greenhouse gone to the orthodontist yet?

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Thank you, President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Solicitor General Ted Olson!

[Robert A Cook PE]

So, by reading the Constitution literally, and by following its words, Ashcroft is "setting new public policy."

Makes you wonder what Reno was doing.

No wonder the liberals are scared/fearful/hate-filled towards Ashcroft.

[Southack]

This is good news and a positive, pro-gun-rights step, but this being FR, and FR being inundated with professional Lefties and liberals who pretend to be more "conservative" than Reagan himself, no doubt we will hear cry after cry about how Bush sold us down the river by daring to change this policy.

It's all so...

predictable.