Yet even more republican scumbaggery

YoteSackbuster

New member
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 14, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Paul Clement

Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.

But Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge to the handgun ban, told the newspaper he was troubled Clement suggested more hearings on the case.

"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he told the paper. "This is definitely hostile to our position."

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

But the newspaper said most of Clement's new brief urges the Supreme Court to decided most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the 2nd Amendment.

He said the failing in the D.C. law is that it totally bans handguns in the homes of private citizens. But he urged the court to recognize, "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

The Justice Department long had endorsed gun controls until Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 switched the department's position to support individual gun rights, the Times said.

The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.

Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.
 
How Quote:
Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.


does the Bush Administration determine or interpret out of
Quote:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


shall not be
to allow a "variety of gun restrictions"?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The Amendment does not say "May", it says "Shall"... Two totally different legal terms... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angry-smiley-055.gif

"may" implies permission to do something.
"shall" implies a directed order to do something.
 
Quote:
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment,"



What about the threat to public safety that government holds? Many tens of millions of people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. I daresay that's a heck of a bigger threat than law-abiding gunowners.

Also, even a 'shroom-induced hallucination couldn't get close to that interpretation of the 2A; where'd they come up with that?! According to a guy I heard yesterday on Mike Bane's podcast ( Down Range TV ), this smacks not of the handiwork of politicians, who come and go, but of bureaucrats, who make long careers in Washington and are answerable to seemingly no one. This does not mean politicians are off the hook, but it just points out yet another layer of enemies we have to beware of.

Yep, it's another proud legacy of those gunowners who voted Republican, which is to say voted for the pale Democrats. Isn't it funny that no one accuses Republican-voting gunowners of throwing away their votes on a party that takes them for granted and hasn't shown one substantive move in their favor (at least at the federal level) for a loooong time? No, that's reserved only for Libertarian/independent-voting gunowners. Wake up, folks, the Republican party is no friend of gun rights or gunowners.
DAL
 
Last edited:
What's up with the title of this thread? Not all republicans feel this way. Democrats, if they had it their way, would ban all private ownership of firearms.
 
IMO, when we read these threads we all can come out with differing opinions. Now, Bush, the republican, will no longer be running for POTUS, OK? That's settled, I THINK!
If you think the Democraps will protect your 2nd amendment RIGHTS better than the republicans, & there are exceptions on both sides, than you need to support those candidates.
Each of us as individuals have these rights just the same as all the other rights gauranteed by the Constituion.
These decisions made about our 2nd amendment rights are frustrating when they don't go the way we, as individuals, would like them too.
Our representatives were elected by the majority to represent us. We would not have enjoyed the last 8 years of our 2nd amendment rights if Gore the Goofy or Kerry the Commie had been elected. No one else was running.
My main agenda is our 2nd amendment rights but there are several other things to consider when voting like taxes, right to life, government control of our lives, freebies for the lazy,[entitlements], immigration, etc.
You weigh all these & cast your vote.
If you vote Democrap its gauranteed your 2nd amendment rights will be regulated, you will be taxed to take good care of our illegal immigrants with our entitlement programs, you will have the government, controlled by the Democraps, which already controls congress, the power to get all this stuff accomplished
It is our duty to not let this happen. VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Take a look at all the Republicans' records not what they are saying to garner votes. LOOK AT THE RECORDS. That will tell you the story of that candidate. Not 30 second TV & radio sound-bites. You all do agree that polititions lie to get votes. LOOK AT THE RECORDS. You have to study these guys & that other thing,& make an educated decision on who to vote for in the best interests of your rights.
Now, the candidate I'm supporting is Fred Thompson.
I came to that conclusion because of his RECORD.
If Jesus Christ were elected for POTUS people would find something to [beeep] about. Thats politics.
Did I say 'LOOK AT THE RECORDS?'
We will all be OK if we vote on a candidate's RECORD. Not what color, gender or how old the candidate. THE RECORD. Now get'er dun! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
Quote:

Yep, it's another proud legacy of those gunowners who voted Republican, which is to say voted for the pale Democrats. Isn't it funny that no one accuses Republican-voting gunowners of throwing away their votes on a party that takes them for granted and hasn't shown one substantive move in their favor (at least at the federal level) for a loooong time? No, that's reserved only for Libertarian/independent-voting gunowners. Wake up, folks, the Republican party is no friend of gun rights or gunowners.
DAL



I was very active in the Republican party for a long time. Dal is right, he understands the problem. The Republicans are selling us out, big time, and the majority of "conservatives" are not deeply involved enough within it to understand that. Oh, the R's give lip service to our freedoms, but, when it comes to voting in Congress or your state legislature they do otherwise. They hare moved over to where the Dem's were, big spending and more government intrusion.
 
Quote:
Quote:

Yep, it's another proud legacy of those gunowners who voted Republican, which is to say voted for the pale Democrats. Isn't it funny that no one accuses Republican-voting gunowners of throwing away their votes on a party that takes them for granted and hasn't shown one substantive move in their favor (at least at the federal level) for a loooong time? No, that's reserved only for Libertarian/independent-voting gunowners. Wake up, folks, the Republican party is no friend of gun rights or gunowners.
DAL



I was very active in the Republican party for a long time. Dal is right, he understands the problem. The Republicans are selling us out, big time, and the majority of "conservatives" are not deeply involved enough within it to understand that. Oh, the R's give lip service to our freedoms, but, when it comes to voting in Congress or your state legislature they do otherwise. They hare moved over to where the Dem's were, big spending and more government intrusion.


Mr. greg223, I can apreciate your experiance on this matter & that is why I would ask YOU this question. Based on their RECORD & not the screwball opinions on this & other gun owners sites, who would you be willing to support to protect our 2nd amendment? A Democrap or a Republican? Those are the only logical parties because a third party would gaurantee our defeat. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
While I agree Greg we freedom loving people are at a crossroads. The way I see it there are three possible solutions to the problem.

1) A new third party.

2) Join the Libertarian Party

3) Regain control of the Republican Party from the globalists and Socialists.



1 is not politically viable IMO.

2 would be extremely difficult because so many mainstream conservatives vehemently disagree with the Libertarian positions on defense, prostitution, and drugs to name a few.

3 is a long shot but probably our best option. New blood is the answer but when new blood becomes part of the "machine" it quickly becomes old blood. It's like the proverbial dam springing leaks but we patriots are running out of fingers to plug them. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif I for one will keep slugging away until the trump sounds. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif



outhouse.jpg
 
Last edited:
Quote:
While I agree Greg we freedom loving people are at a crossroads. The way I see it there are three possible solutions to the problem.

1) A new third party.

2) Join the Libertarian Party

3) Regain control of the Republican Party from the globalists and Socialists.



1 is not politically viable IMO.

2 would be extremely difficult because so many mainstream conservatives vehemently disagree with the Libertarian positions on defense, prostitution, and drugs to name a few.

3 is a long shot but probably our best option. New blood is the answer but when new blood becomes part of the "machine" it quickly becomes old blood. It's like the proverbial dam springing leaks but we patriots are running out of fingers to plug them. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif I for one will keep slugging away until the trump sounds. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
A good argument for term limits. Our founding fathers were indeed people of knowledge. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif



outhouse.jpg


 
Quote:
who would you be willing to support to protect our 2nd amendment? A Democrap or a Republican? Those are the only logical parties because a third party would gaurantee our defeat. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif


Bill Richardson has a higher rating than most of the republican candidates. You have to look at the person not the party.
 
Quote:
Bill Richardson is already out of the race, so he really doesn't matter now, does he?


That's true. But it does show that all Dems aren't anti-gun and we've seen that many in the GOP aren't pro-gun.
 
no one has said that all dems are anti gun. the reality is that the party leadership is, which is what matters most, and every single democratic party presidential candidate with the sole exception of Richardson is anti gun, & that party has already shown that they have no use for him.
 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Yep, it's another proud legacy of those gunowners who voted Republican, which is to say voted for the pale Democrats. Isn't it funny that no one accuses Republican-voting gunowners of throwing away their votes on a party that takes them for granted and hasn't shown one substantive move in their favor (at least at the federal level) for a loooong time? No, that's reserved only for Libertarian/independent-voting gunowners. Wake up, folks, the Republican party is no friend of gun rights or gunowners.
DAL



I was very active in the Republican party for a long time. Dal is right, he understands the problem. The Republicans are selling us out, big time, and the majority of "conservatives" are not deeply involved enough within it to understand that. Oh, the R's give lip service to our freedoms, but, when it comes to voting in Congress or your state legislature they do otherwise. They hare moved over to where the Dem's were, big spending and more government intrusion.


Mr. greg223, I can apreciate your experiance on this matter & that is why I would ask YOU this question. Based on their RECORD & not the screwball opinions on this & other gun owners sites, who would you be willing to support to protect our 2nd amendment? A Democrap or a Republican? Those are the only logical parties because a third party would gaurantee our defeat. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif



At this point in time, I do not believe that is the issue. The task at hand is to elect the best candidate. Obviously, I believe that to be Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, some discredit him by their own personal actions. The 2nd Amendment and pro-life issue has always been on the forefront of how I vote. I just returned a few minutes ago from our Republican Central Committee meeting, a packed out crowd, something I have never seen here before. As to be expected the leadership was cool towards an overwhelming number of Paul supporters there. My perspective is that the GOP is fractured because the leadership has abandoned the principles in its own platform and this has led to a lot of discontent between liberal and conservative Republicans. Thats the view from here anyway.
 
Quote:

You have to look at the person not the party.



Problem is, even if a democrat is pro-2nd amendment they my still vote along party lines and traditionally the democratic party is anti-gun.
 
Back
Top