Attention: The Administration just blundered in a catastrophic fashion | Redstate
The news broke late last night that the Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in the DC Gun Ban case, asking that the Supreme Court overturn the Court of Appeals decision striking down the DC Gun Ban. This is a move of breathtaking idiocy that may have already cost us the election.
Okay, for you morons who think a prexy candidate’s stand on the Second Amendment doesn’t have much relevance to the fight to support the RKBA, read this and weep.
We have the first chance in almost eight decades to see the Second finally, legally established an an individual right (and all that potentially entails for liberty) and the farking George W. Bush compassionate conservative administration steps in and stabs us in the back!!!.
This is the same GWB who some time ago announced he would sign a renewal of the assault weapons ban if such landed on his desk.
I’ve had it. We simply can’t trust these bastards. Bush is, of course, a long-established disgrace to the conservative wing of the GOP, and is, in fact, no conservative at all. He is, in fact, of the same ilk as John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani, so if any of these men are elected and later damage the cause of conservatism in the US, conservative voters have only themselves to blame, as I blame myself for voting for GWB, even when it was obvious what he was (no conservative) to those who cared to actually look at his record and his own statements.
That’s it. I simply won’t vote for a moderate/liberal GOP candidate trying to masquerade as a conservative. I’ve had enough Bushes (father and son) to last two lifetimes. I want an actual conservative to vote for. If the GOP can’t provide me with one, then the GOP won’t be getting my vote.
Enough is enough.
UPDATE: Of Arms and the Law: Government files amicus — on DC’s side!
That is, the DoJ REJECTS the DC Circuit position that an absolute, flat, ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, and contends that it might just be justified, it all depends on the evidence.
There was a saying during my years in DC that the GOP operated on two principles: screw your friends and appease your enemies. Yup.
I suppose that here is where I would note that the only candidate in the race who will demonstrably uphold your individual right to keep and bear arms is Fred Thompson, right? All the others either admittedly won’t, or have flipped, flapped, and flopped all around the issue. (OK, Paulbots, the only one with even a remote chance at gaining a major party presidential nomination).
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
When will the GOP realize that the neocons came from the left and infiltrated/hijacked the Republican party with the mid-term goal of bringing corporate-backed socialism to the USA?
Every red-blooded, card-carrying, gun-owning, America loving Republican needs to take a good hard look at Ron Paul before writing him off as a kook.
We have the first chance in almost eight decades to see the Second finally, legally established an an individual right (and all that potentially entails for liberty) and the farking George W. Bush compassionate conservative administration steps in and stabs us in the back!!!.
Um, no.
The Bush DoJ did say they think it’s an individual right, they just took the utterly asinine position that it’s not a “strict scrutiny” individual right.
There’s plenty to legitimately criticize in this action. So why are you criticizing them for the one thing they didn’t do wrong?
Um, Greg?
An individual right subject to the sort of scrutiny that lets the status quo prevail is no individual right, it’s not even a right.
I have pointed out this sort of reasoning before - wherein, for instance, the US Constitution appeared to guarantee rights, but did not actually do so, because it permitted state governments to infringe all they wanted to, thus depriving the individual citizen of liberty.
This is more of the same sort of bullshit. What the Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to do is codify an interpretation of the Second that would permit all of the sorts of infringements we already have to stand - and would permit more of them to be added. In other words, the so-called “individual right” might mean even less liberty than we have today would be permissible.
And we would not get that interpretation changed in our lifetime.
So you, in your pathetic quibbling, may lap vigorously and continually at the Bush anus, but I refuse to do so. Bush is a back-stabbing fuckwad, and no friend of the Second. In fact, this action makes it plain he likes his Second toothless and without meaning.
If you like that too, please go fuck yourself until you bleed.
Thank you.
An individual right subject to the sort of scrutiny that lets the status quo prevail is no individual right, it’s not even a right.
So, then, what rights do we have? We certainly don’t have free speech, since the Supreme Court that you love so well upheld McCain Feingold. (Yes, I know, Bush fucked up and signed it. That’s one of his many mistakes in the last 7 years.) Are any of the rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights alive, according to your analysis?
As to the action being discussed here, I’m relying on Arms and the Law:
Now, do I think that’s a bad move by the Bush DoJ? Hell yes.
But, did the Bush DoJ say the 2nd Amendment does not provide an individual right. No, they didn’t.
When you start out your screed against them with a statement that’s provably false to fact, nothing else you say has any value. Criticize them for what they did, not for what they didn’t do.
(BTW, your comments here are a further demonstration of what I was saying in my first comment that so set you off. You don’t like Bush, so everything he does must be wrong, and anyone who doesn’t hate him as much as you do must be a total ass-kisser. Here’s a hint, just for you: when someone says “they’ve taken an utterly asinine position“, that’s not praise, or ass-kissing. Claiming that it is just makes you look bad.)
Greg, learn to read.
“This case is the first in eight decades where we have a chance of establishing the Second as an individual right.”
That is clause one of the message.
“And GWB stabs us in the back.”
That is clause two.
They are separate. For my message to say what you think it says, it would have to go something like this: “In the first chance we’ve had in eight decades to establish the Second as an individual right, the Bush administration petitioned the court not to establish the Second as an individual right.”
But I didn’t say that, did I?
I said, “Bush stabbed us in the back.”
Which is exactly what his petition to effectively gut any individual right by petitioning to lower the level of scruitiny in order to permit government to continue right along as they have been doing.
Worse, that decision, if so taken, would preclude any other opportunity to establish a different level for lord knows how many new decades.
I don’t need hints from a reflexive Bushbot either, pal. You’ve had a liplock on the Bushian nethers ever since you’ve been coming here. Allow me to repeat my suggestion from my last post: If you dislike my opinions so much, why do you keep coming here? I suggest we’ll both be happier if you stop doing that.
I don’t hate George W. Bush. But I do loathe the way he has botched his time in office, and done great damage to his country and his party in the process. He’s going to manage to accomplish the difficult Clinton triple: Enter office with his party controlling the White House and congress, and leave office with his party controlling none of them.
He’s also going to leave office with our enemies in a stronger position than when he entered it. To wit:
al-Qaeda is now in control of Waziristan, possibly a more strategic location than Afghanistan. Further, al-Qaeda’s funding from Saudi Arabia remains undisturbed.
Iran is stronger, and will succeed Saddam Hussein as the controller of Iraq. They are also moving closer to developing nuclear weapons. Syria also remains the same threat it was before. And Iranian surrogates like Hizb’Allah and Hamas threaten to take over Lebanon and the Palestinians.
And North Korea is already violating the terms of the joke of a treaty Bush negotiated with them.
History will judge him as the worst American president since Jimmy Carter, and that is a high standard of lowness to meet. But he’ll do it easily.