The Bush Administration's Support for Gun Control


PDA






green-grizzly
January 24, 2008, 05:32 PM
It is nice to see partisian differences being put aside for the good of the country.:mad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/24/uk-ordered-to-make-blair_n_83011.html
The Bush Administration's Support for Gun Control
By Paul Hemke

More evidence emerged this month that the gun debate is turning a corner in America.

Only days after signing the first gun control legislation in over a decade, the Bush Administration has now disavowed the most extreme outcomes implicit in the gun lobby's view of the Second Amendment.

In its brief in the D.C. v. Heller case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bush Administration acknowledges that because of the "unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail" that "various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment."

The Brady Center welcomes this surprising development. It demonstrates the problem with the "private purpose" interpretation of the Second Amendment. This view might have sounded good politically to the Ashcroft Justice Department [pdf], but now the Bush Administration realizes that the lower-court decision could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of" common-sense gun control laws like the "federal machine gun ban," the restrictions on firearm possession by felons, and the licensing of gun dealers.

Rather than defend the long-standing view of virtually every Federal court - that the Second Amendment has an obvious militia purpose, and is no barrier to the adoption of gun control laws by legislative bodies responsible for providing public safety and for weighing competing views on the effectiveness of and need for such laws - the Bush Administration brief proposes a "heightened scrutiny" test when the gun control law "has no grounding in Framing-era practice."

This test would consider the "practical impact" on the individual ("including the nature and practical adequacy of the available alternatives") and the "strength of the government's interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction."

This case-by-case approach would permit "Second Amendment doctrine to develop in an incremental and prudent fashion," according to the Bush Administration. Judges in different parts of the country could presumably reach different decisions on similar gun control restrictions based on the different law enforcement challenges in those communities.

Do we really want judges making those decisions rather than democratically-elected legislative bodies? Nine national police organizations have joined the Brady Center's brief [pdf] defending the pre-Heller state of Second Amendment law, which gave this power to communities.

Police and mayors and district attorneys (all of whom are on briefs supporting the District of Columbia) know that gun control laws that make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons help keep their communities safe.

The Second Amendment should not be a barrier to the adoption of sensible gun laws that help save lives. We're glad that the Bush Administration seems to agree.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Bush Administration's Support for Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DerbyDale
January 24, 2008, 05:56 PM
I'm a conservative and voted for Bush twice...
This would not be the first time Bush has betrayed us all...

:banghead: Pushed for Amnesty for Illegals (aka Compressive Immigration Reform)

:banghead: Allowing Mexican Trucks on US Highways taking jobs from American Truckers.

:banghead: Not Pardoning Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean and letting them Rot 23hrs a day in Solitary Confinement.

:banghead: Trying to destroy Americas sovereignty with the North American Union or SPP.

:banghead: Spending money like a drunk sailor on a 3 day pass.

:banghead: And the list goes on and on and on...

HK G3
January 24, 2008, 06:05 PM
Bush has been waging a war against the Bill of Rights ever since September 11th, using the horrific events on that day as an excuse to assault the Constitution.

Why should we be surprised when he goes after the 2A? He's already gone after all the others...

Winchester 73
January 24, 2008, 06:09 PM
I'm a conservative and voted for Bush twice...

Don't feel bad.I did much worse.Voted for James Earl Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992.
My wife tried to warn me both times.
As I was still in my Moderate,Bleeding Heart Mode,I didn't listen.
She still reminds me every Prez election year of my stupidity.

Scorpiusdeus
January 24, 2008, 06:12 PM
I never voted for GWB. I thank god I never did. What a waste of eight years.

Winchester 73
January 24, 2008, 06:19 PM
I never voted for GWB. I thank god I never did. What a waste of eight years

Did you vote for Al(I invented the Internet and alerted the World to Global Warming)Gore instead?
Would that have been a better waste of eight years?

Halo is for Kids
January 24, 2008, 06:22 PM
IBTL:

Just wait until later this year when "emergency powers" are enacted and voting is delayed indefinitely for the "good of the country."

keeleon
January 24, 2008, 06:22 PM
:banghead:Not Pardoning Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean and letting them Rot 23hrs a day in Solitary Confinement.

That is actually my single biggest reason for being very upset with him currently. I can understand the desire to appease both sides of the fence along the amnesty line. I don't agree with it, but if his line of thinking is that "they are here, and our economy would collapse if they were kicked out" is not that far off of the truth.

However, no one in his administration has even commented on the Ramos and Compean situation, and I am positive they are very aware of it. He is putting the message out there that we will NOT be enforcing our borders whatsoever while he is in office.

If the 2 agents were wrong in what they did, they should have been fired for sure, but 12 year in solitary away from their families for PROTECTING OUR G***AMN BORDERS?! In my opinion those men were heroes for doing something I wouldn't have the balls to do (combating illegal mexican drug cartels), and Bush's administration hasn't even given a reason why he will not pardon them.

And don't tell me that it is not a big enough issue for him to address personally, because as I stated it affects the whole southern border with Mexico.

Cmdr. Gravez0r
January 24, 2008, 06:25 PM
in before lock

maybe this is Bushie's way of reddeming himself to the public at large before leaving office.

hso
January 24, 2008, 07:14 PM
Cmdr. Gravez0r is correct if we don't keep this one between the lines and out of the ditch. Stay on topic.

Think before you post.

mgregg85
January 24, 2008, 07:52 PM
I've had enough of the past 16 years of bush/clinton regimes. If we elect hillary it will just be another 4 or 8 wasted years.

Aguila Blanca
January 24, 2008, 09:01 PM
E-mail sent:

--------------------------------
Dear Mr. President:

Shame on you. SHAME!

Your Department of Justice has just submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case supporting the "right" of the government to impose numerous (unspecified) regulations on firearms use and ownership in the United States.

SHAME!

Please review your oath of office. Please review the Constitution of the United States, in particular the Second Amendment, and then read the report prepared on the subject of the Second Amendment by the Department of Justice shortly before Mr. Ashcroft's resignation.

The Second Amendment is crystal clear: The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What is a regulation if not an infringement? The government cannot "regulate" a right without infringing that right. The Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous. It is incomprehensible that a Republican President would or could allow his Department of Justice to openly attack the very Constitution you swore an oath to protect and defend.

In the name of America, I call on you to instruct your Department of Justice to withdraw that brief. It is unacceptable to "the People."

Very truly yours,
{Aguila Blanca} (Veteran)

hoji
January 24, 2008, 09:32 PM
Well you did vote for him. I TOLD YOU SO.

See what voting for the lessor of two evils gets you.

v35
January 24, 2008, 09:48 PM
Oh, hoji beat me to it!

See what voting for the lessor of two evils gets you.

I've done that often enough. Never again!

Pramunitus
January 24, 2008, 09:58 PM
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is your oath of office, which you have sworn before the American people on two occasions. I added emphasis. I wish you would do the same. If the Solicitor General's brief in D.C. vs Heller is truly the best of your ability, may God help us.

Intrepid Dad
January 24, 2008, 10:17 PM
I voted for Bush twice because there wasn't a better choice that actually had a chance of getting elected.

Oh, and In Before The Lock :)

ColinthePilot
January 24, 2008, 10:35 PM
I find it really ironic that the media has been letting up a tad recently (i.e. the guard or whatever she was at the church wasn't labeled as a redneck murderer), my military friends don't like guns and only tolerate having to qualify with an M-9, and a republican from Texas is promoting gun control...I think the end is near.

In before the lock.

jakemccoy
January 24, 2008, 10:45 PM
There is very little that's conservative about Bush.

SDDL-UP
January 24, 2008, 10:47 PM
I voted for Bush once! Second time I'd seen enough and voted Constitution Party with a clear conscience. I may be force into doing so again.

I had hoped Bush would have been better but he's showing us his true colors and he...

aww.. I better hold my tongue about him and other liberals.


Too bad America it was nice knowin' ya!

ndh87
January 24, 2008, 11:03 PM
"various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment."


Where the F*** do you get right to regulate out of right to keep and bear arms?!?!?!:banghead::fire::fire::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:

bogie
January 24, 2008, 11:33 PM
Please make sure you vote for anyone but one of the Republican candidates.

Sincerely,

The Democratic National Committee

Biker
January 24, 2008, 11:59 PM
I'm voting for a republican, Bogie - Ron Paul. He's the only one, though.

Biker

Just Jim
January 25, 2008, 12:04 AM
Well the fruit never falls far from the tree. George Bush senior joined the NRA to get elected then turned against them after election. Alot of bad things was said about senior and his son isn't about to forgive and forget. I still believe we are in Iraq because Sadam tried to kill senior an junior wanted revenge, and got it.

I look for real drastic gun control measures before Bush leaves office. I hate to say it but Bush will prove me right.

jj

Flyboy
January 25, 2008, 12:18 AM
Not a day goes by that I don't feel ever better about not voting for Bush in 2004, and I lived in a state with only two choices.

No, I didn't vote for Kerry, either.

It sure is nice not having to shave with my eyes closed.

bogie
January 25, 2008, 01:47 AM
So, I may be a little slow...

It's better to have the Clintons back in the white house?

Redtail
January 25, 2008, 01:50 AM
It doesn't matter if you vote republican or democrat. They have different ways but they have the same goal. That's why it's very important to look at the voting records of each politician, instead of just listening to them, action speaks louder than words.

I hope that the SC would wake up and do their job correctly.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2008, 02:00 AM
Bogie nailed it.

Those of you complaining about Bush haven't said how life would be better with Gore, Kerry, or H.R. Clinton running the circus.

This is The HIGH Road. Save the name calling and disrespect for the Yahoo! political forums. He is still The President of The United States. I didn't tolerate disrespectful speech for Clinton, I sure won't accept it for Bush.

Lock it anytime.

Robert Hairless
January 25, 2008, 02:04 AM
mljdeckard:

This is The HIGH Road. Save the name calling and disrespect for the Yahoo! political forums. He is still The President of The United States. I didn't tolerate disrespectful speech for Clinton, I sure won't accept it for Bush.

Agreed. Completely.

HK G3
January 25, 2008, 02:11 AM
This is The HIGH Road. Save the name calling and disrespect for the Yahoo! political forums. He is still The President of The United States. I didn't tolerate disrespectful speech for Clinton, I sure won't accept it for Bush.

I haven't seen any name-calling. All I have seen in this thread are a lot of people frustrated with his policies.

Phyphor
January 25, 2008, 02:12 AM
What is it with folks whom upon hearing complaints about Bush promptly launch into "But what about Gore/Kerry/Clinton?"

Seriously, ***?
None of them won the election. Bush did. And he's happily screwing us over.

So, are we supposed to just shut up and take it?

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 25, 2008, 02:17 AM
What is it with folks whom upon hearing complaints about Bush promptly launch into "But what about Gore/Kerry/Clinton?"

Because those were the only other options. That's just the way it is.

Complianing is worthless. Only complaining partnered with better ideas is worth anything. If you don't like something, don't just sit on your ### and rip on it. Propose something better. So instead of telling us how much the President sucks, why not tell us how it would be better with the alternative.


The reality is, we got the better of the 2 choices.

jfh
January 25, 2008, 02:52 AM
The reality is, we got the better of the 2 choices.

There it is. And, the next election may well be worse in terms of the choices available.

Jim H.

bogie
January 25, 2008, 04:03 AM
HOW do we know he's screwing us over?

Because we keep hearing it on CNN, etc... The major media haven't had a good thing to say about him since he took office.

Personally, I think his main fault is that he tried to work Washington like he worked the Texas legislature, and do a lot of bi-partisan win/win kinda stuff - Washington sees that as a sign of weakness, and it's all over...

The Democrats aren't really pushing anything more substantial than "change."

Well, if you don't vote against Hillary, you're gonna get some "change." And you probably aren't going to like it.

Unless, of course, you're one of the folks who continually troll over here from Democratic Underground, relentlessly pushing the "vote for anyone but a republican" schtick.

mr hanky
January 25, 2008, 05:01 AM
I like Ron somebody or other...

foob
January 25, 2008, 05:13 AM
Voting someone who supports the Bill of rights > voting someone because he doesn't have a D behind his name.

There's no guarantee a Democrat president (ok maybe Hillary) will pass a gun control bill, just like there's no guarantee a Republican president will not pass a gun control bill, or advise the supreme court to keep the DC ban.

In the end, I would have picked Al Gore, sure maybe there wouldn't be tax cuts, but there wouldn't have been a war from lies, or guantanamo, or rendition, or torture, or US citizens being held without right of Habeus Corpus. After 8 years, if it isn't clear the lesser of two evils was Al Gore, you have blinders on. Ooh he blathers about global warming, that's so scary.... right. At least that doesn't affect the BOR.

I guess Bush was the better choice if you weren't arrested for false dirty bomb allegations. As long as you paid your taxes and never did foolish things like post online about your gun collection, sure you were safe.

The two supreme court judges he nominated don't even have any positive gun right views.

alsaqr
January 25, 2008, 07:07 AM
This 50 year Republican is not drinking the Kool Aid any more. The lesser of two evils is still evil. 2004 was the last hold my nose, vote and barf act for me.

hoji
January 25, 2008, 08:25 AM
Those of you complaining about Bush haven't said how life would be better with Gore, Kerry, or H.R. Clinton running the circus.

I have posted many times saying how we would be better off with Gore in 2000{ and I voted libertarian in 2000 and 2004} How? Let me tell you. With Gore in in 2000 the Republicans would still have the House and Senate. After 2 years Gore would have effed things up so bad that the Republicans would have GAINED ground in both 2002 and 2004. The AWB was toast regardless{remember GWB campaigned on renewing it}

If Gore had introduced the Patriot Act, it would have at least been read, and the GOP would have in all likleyhood, scuttled it.

RKBABob
January 25, 2008, 09:17 AM
I'm a conservative and voted for Bush twice...
This would not be the first time Bush has betrayed us all...
+1,000,000,000,000... a number suprisingly similar to the national debt.

GWB has actually made me ashamed of the "Republican" notation on my voters card... I may actually re-register as independant after the primary, so I won't be so ashamed to present my card at the polling place.

So, now he's attacking the 2A... why am I not suprised.

It was during his 2nd term that I began looking for another political party, and discovered the Libertarians. If Guiliani wins the primary, I might throw my vote away in their direction in protest. They may never win, but perhaps the Republicans will take notice if they post significant numbers in the polls, and clean up their own act.

romma
January 25, 2008, 09:26 AM
We are never going to get a candidate that is perfect for everyone.

If I got a candidate that I agreed with on everything, it would be myself!

Just Jim
January 25, 2008, 10:23 AM
Can anyone tell me which president took away the manufacture of machineguns for the public???


jj

RealGun
January 25, 2008, 10:26 AM
Reads like the L&P of old...make us proud.:scrutiny:

K3
January 25, 2008, 10:31 AM
As has been stated before, our lack of choices are the biggest problem.

You see, the majority of people are just fine with a lot of government intrusion in their lives. Most folks would gladly trade *a little* liberty for some .gov provided safety.

The American nomenklatura know this, and this is why we have the candidates we have for BOTH parties. Watch the media very carefully. The Republicans they endorse are generally big government people.

The fight for liberty and RKBA really hinges on how effective we can be in grass roots conversion of the rank and file. It's awfully difficult to overcome the spoonfed media saturation and the political soundbites from 'those who know what's best for us', but if liberty is to have any chance, it has to start on the bottom rung of the ladder.

Oh sure, by all means write congresscritters and the President. That must be done, but we need to win others over so that MORE letters flood the inboxes of those who pen our laws and policies.

Even if we can't get a majority of the country to be as gung-ho about RKBA, we do need to increase numbers AND be loud about it. Anybody notice how in the soundbite world we live in that the position held by the ones talking it up the most and loudest seems to be the one held up as majority opinion regardless of the actual numbers?

Rant off.

Just Jim
January 25, 2008, 10:37 AM
As far as giving respect, every politicion has my respect till they do something to lose it. Anti gun bills is the quickest way but there are alot of other things they do that is plain criminal. To stop the discussion of these matters is just as criminal to my mind.

jj

LAK
January 25, 2008, 10:56 AM
Hard to believe; but the proof is in the pudding. Enough people were fooled by this fake, who is still viewed by some as "conservative" and "patriotic", enough of the time, to allow him to stay in office for two terms and do more damage than the likes of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter could have done in three or four terms in succession.

If our next pres does not pole ax the North American Union stone dead and serve the U.N. their eviction notice the Constitution along with the 2nd will be viewed as that of the Confederate States.

If you do not want another fake in the WH - ask them what they will do about the NAU, and the U.N.

-----------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

junyo
January 25, 2008, 11:35 AM
In the end, I would have picked Al Gore, sure maybe there wouldn't be tax cuts, but there wouldn't have been a war from lies, or guantanamo, or rendition, or torture, or US citizens being held without right of Habeus Corpus.I'm consistently amazed at how every bad thing in the world can be traced back to George Bush. It's like the man is Keyser Söze. I didn't like him, didn't vote for him the first time, but have become one of his biggest supporters simply out of sheer contarian revulsion at the nonsense that constant spews forth about how American became Nazi Germany two seconds after Bush was sworn in, right before he gunned down the Supreme Court and replaced them with his Skulls and Bones buddies, rolled the Constitution into a cigar, and slept with every married woman in America.

The "lies" that the Bush Administration told were the exact same "lies" that Algore and Slick Willy had been pushing for a couple of years prior, trying to sell their own war. They were the same "lies" that most Western intelligence agencies believed. And they were lies made more credible by the post Cold War gutting of intelligence services, and the resulting lack of people (and data) in/from the field. Rendition and torture preceed Bush by decades and were fairly heavily used by the Clinton adminstration. Members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, were briefed on the current administration's use of coercive interogation techniques, and raised no objections until it was politically expedient. Habeus corpus has been suspended several times during war, and one of the primary legal basis of the current administration's legal stance is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton. And Bush didn't stand by and twiddle his thumbs while three quarters of a million Rwandans were hacked to death, although, trying to be multilateral with the UN in Dafur, Bush still might get there. Yet somehow, Bush is unique in the annals of inept Presidents.
Personally, I think his main fault is that he tried to work Washington like he worked the Texas legislature, and do a lot of bi-partisan win/win kinda stuff - Washington sees that as a sign of weakness, and it's all over...You're darn right. Compromise is for suckers in the modern political arena. And by trying to split the middle Bush pissed off the loud squeaky ends, and they never let him (or anyone else) forget that he wasn't good enough. It doesn't matter that he made the best out of a crappy situation (handed a country with a recently burst bubble economy, enemies that don't respect you might or your will, a gutted military, and a nation so deeply divided that to this day half of them don't believe you were legitmately elected. Oh yeah, and one of the worse terrorist attacks on your home soil in 50 years. Piece of cake right? He wasn't perfect, or idealogically pure, or a true believer, so he's worthless. Yeah, it's so very amazing that we don't have better choices, because who wouldn't want to be publically maligned, slandered, have every decision and word endlessly analyzed and judged by every yahoo with an internet connection, give up their privacy, and put their person and family in mortal danger for a job with those kind of perks?

-terry
January 25, 2008, 01:33 PM
The reason they never let him (Bushy) forget that he wasn't good enough is that he wasn't.

junyo
January 25, 2008, 02:04 PM
I eagerly await your entry into the race terry.

Heavy Metal Hero
January 25, 2008, 02:09 PM
I eagerly await your entry into the race terry.

Being that Terry has not obligated himself to that position and that this is a free country, should he not be able to have an opinion? What is wrong with calling a spade, a spade?

By your logic, if you were an automotive repairman and you didn't do a "well enough" job on someone's car, would you tell them "I'd like to see you get here and do it."

We do pay the president, and as "customers" of the United States of America I feel we have all right to judge any public figure.

Funderb
January 25, 2008, 02:09 PM
It weren't me.

bogie
January 25, 2008, 02:15 PM
Well, being that Bush is obviously dumber than a guy who managed to flunk out of law school, to flunk out of divinity school, and who _still_ ended up over in Viet Nam despite his and his daddy's best efforts... Oh, I just can't handle it...

Bush lost the public relations war. And that's about the gist of it.

Now, what are your plans going to be when we're looking at 4-8 years of Clintons?

Now, when the media looked at Bush, the economy was _all_ his fault - not the fault of the administration who'd been in power for eight years prior... Are they going to do the same thing to Hillary? Nope - she's going to be blaming Bush four years from now... And the media will be puking it back up.

What -are- your plans?

After all, you -have- thought this through, right?

What are your plans, after you _facilitate_ her election? Are you going to buy more guns? More ammo? Hunker down in the bunker? After all, Hillary knows what's good for you. And they're not going to make the same mistakes they did with the first AWB...

Gun-Ther
January 25, 2008, 02:22 PM
Maybe it's a sign that the political climate is turning more overall anti-gun, Repub and Democrat. If so, heck yeah, I'd like another 8-yr Clinton-type presidency. With the great economy and strong dollar we had with Bill, think of all the cool (albeit "regulated") guns you could buy! These days we can barely afford ammo for all those 30-round mags.

Deavis
January 25, 2008, 02:27 PM
Can anyone tell me which president took away the manufacture of machineguns for the public???


I'll play along with that ridiculous statement. I know... Reagan! Oh wait, Reagan didn't make the law, he simply signed it. Oh crap, there it is again, reality rearing its ugly head! The POTUS doesn't make laws, ahhh, man what the heck? The sky is falling, what am I to do? I want to blame one man when for everything but I can't because this nation is run by 3 branches of government. Oh me oh my!

The 86 FOPA was a big step forward for gun owners, don't let one point blind you like it does so many others. Compromise is the way things get done in the real world, I know it doesn't apply to this fake little world on the THR, but it is true. Would it be nice if 922o didn't exist, sure, but the FOPA was a big step. Wars are won with battles, sometimes you give ground in one area to gain more in others. Short term thinking is what dooms most people to mediocrity.

Limeyfellow
January 25, 2008, 02:35 PM
Yes, Reagan only signed the law. Now if you talked about his time as Governer in California pushing most of the Californian gunlaws that we so detest sure. His lobbying of the Brady law and strong support of it. Thats fine. Though he supported many of the things in the 86 ban his role in bringing it through the congress and senate was only partly blamed on his influence.

Just Jim
January 25, 2008, 02:41 PM
So if a Republican signed a ban on guns it's ok??? I thought conservatives where pro 2nd?? I am a conservative and I own a subgun and it pains me I can't buy another because of the laws.

jj

bogie
January 25, 2008, 02:45 PM
Uh, Jim... You _can_ buy another subgun...

fearless leader
January 25, 2008, 02:48 PM
Quote: I'm a conservative and voted for Bush twice...
This would not be the first time Bush has betrayed us all...

I know what you mean, but I couldn't vote for Scarey Kerry.

Allen Keys is Pro Gun, but the media ignores him. I wanted him to get the nomination a long time ago.

Just Jim
January 25, 2008, 02:49 PM
The 86 FOPA was a big step forward for gun owners, don't let one point blind you like it does so many others. Compromise is the way things get done in the real world, I know it doesn't apply to this fake little world on the THR, but it is true. Would it be nice if 922o didn't exist, sure, but the FOPA was a big step. Wars are won with battles, sometimes you give ground in one area to gain more in others. Short term thinking is what dooms most people to mediocrity.

To compromise is to give in. I can make any number of examples where you wouldn't want to compromise. Why compromise if your side is right???

jj

Triphammer
January 25, 2008, 02:49 PM
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America

Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament" -- 10/25/07.

She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?" That's a good question - it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America ?
The answers may surprise you!

In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico , it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overru n prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
In Colorado , 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico . That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado .

Denver 's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida , 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America , the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago , Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free
experience.
& nbsp;
If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home' --

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A. , 20,000 members of the ' 18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

America 's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich . Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy - which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in
California , Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act

Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico 's poorest citizens now live ins ide and along our border from Brownsville , Texas to San Diego , California in what the New York Times called, "colonias" or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, dru gs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America 's new " Third World " inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico .

We sh ould invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico . We already invite a million
people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing law lessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

Interesting Statistics. Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sic k of reading them:

1. $11 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.
http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal
aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscale xec.html

3. $2.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $17 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars PER DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
ttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http:/ /transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. D uring the year 2005, there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border.
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=deportation

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sen t home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States !"
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!

Just Jim
January 25, 2008, 02:51 PM
Uh, Jim... You _can_ buy another subgun...

Yes if I wanted to spend a fortune. The second amendment is becoming a rich mans right.

jj

fearless leader
January 25, 2008, 03:03 PM
Quote:In the end, I would have picked Al Gore, sure maybe there wouldn't be tax cuts, but there wouldn't have been a war from lies, or guantanamo, or rendition, or torture, or US citizens being held without right of Habeus Corpus. After 8 years, if it isn't clear the lesser of two evils was Al Gore, you have blinders on. Ooh he blathers about global warming, that's so scary.... right. At least that doesn't affect the BOR.

No terrorist attacks since 9/11.<that's a period. Algore would have crawled under a desk and hid.

HK G3
January 25, 2008, 07:41 PM
Okay, I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I feel it has to be said, mainly because it gets irritating to read such factually inaccurate viewpoints being voiced so often, especially when I feel it is ultimately detrimental to our common cause.

Al Gore would not have hid under his desk and cried for his mommy after 9/11. It's very possible 9/11 may not even have happened in the first place, and all of us would be whining about how Al Gore was trying to push for more fuel efficient vehicles right now, instead of worrying about the myriad of problems we have today. Look at what Sandy Berger and other former Clinton officials were saying about the threat that Al Qaeda posed to the country to Condeleezza "no one thought they'd fly planes into buildings" Rice, who chose at best to de-emphasize the legitimacy and importance of those intel reports, and at worst, to flat out ignore them. And who remembers Richard Clarke? Former Reagan official, again, ignored by this administration, not only on 9/11 but also for the Iraq war.

Then let's not forget this:

http://www.classbrain.com/artmovies/uploads/bush.jpg

Bush sat around reading to kids after he had been told the country was under attack. Was it Russian ultranationalists launching a tactical strike? Terrorists? No rush to go find out the nature of the threat - he'd rather keep reading and hope that others were up to the task. I find it hard to believe that Al Gore could have done any worse.

After 9/11, for the first time since FDR addressed a shocked and grieving nation after Pearl Harbor, Bush was handed a golden opportunity to do something BIG for us as a nation. We all stood together, liberals, conservatives, greens, libertarians, everyone, united as Americans brought closer to eachother as a society thanks to the tragedy that befell our country men in NYC. He chose to squander this opportunity, calling for us to go out and SHOP. Go buy crap. That was his great contribution.

The push to the Iraq war was a joke. Sure, he was using faulty intel that was given to him. However, recalling the Vallerie(sp?) Plame fiasco, it was clear that they intentionally embellished certain aspects of their information. It was also clear, that prior to the war, Saddam Hussein was complying with Hans Blix and the UN inspectors to an increasing degree. The region was stable back then with Hussein in power. He was a bad guy for sure, but there are a lot of bad guys in the world, and if you want to take one of them out, hopefully, we could do better than this...

Now, we have Iran flaunting the US, because they realize that we have our hands tied with this Iraq fiasco, the budget is in the toilet, the dollar has been outshined by the Canadian dollar, Bush's Blackwater boys sure didn't help anyone out during hurricane Katrina, but they were more than happy to go and take other people's guns illegally, by the barrel of automatic rifles that law-abiding citizens can't legally own... The government spy programs have grown ever more powerful, the 4th amendment rendered practically irrelevant, people debating whether or not TORTURE is appropriate... Not to mention vetoing SCHIP multiple times, letting poor kids die of Staph infections, and letting the insurance industry continue to ream its clientèle...

But yes, Gore is bad because Sean Hannity says that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan and routed the Taliban, and therefore it must be true. He also would have made the grave mistake of not have invading Iraq after 9/11 despite its having no ties to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Clearly, only a true visionary like George Bush could see through this lack of connection, and execute this wonderfully well-thought out excursion into the desert, which was clearly in America's best interests, both economically, and safety.

Let's all keep espousing blatant misrepresentations of fact, perpetuating this notion that Republicans = security, democrats = fiery death + rapists roaming free across the countryside. It does our country a great favor to polarize things to this degree.

Now because I know that criticism as a general rule on these forums is discouraged sans constructive feedback, what do I propose we do? I think you can't just sit around and rule out either party. You have to vote for the best individual for the job.

The best thing we could do, as pro-Bill of Rights individuals (at least I hope everyone who defends the 2A would defend the other 9 amendments of the BoR) is to try and change opinion and policy on both sides of the aisle. Don't just mock the "other" side and outright ignore them. If I were an on-the-fence voter and I saw this thread, and the general disdain that most have for the democrats, it may just reinforce the stereotype that gun-owners are single issue voters, who care more about their guns than the state of the country, and will try and rationalize even the worst foreign/domestic policy provided the candidate was pro-gun. Maybe if the democrats were inundated with letters from people indicating that they like their ideas, but are very hesitant to vote for their candidates due to their hostile view of the 2A (regardless of whether or not they actually did intend to vote for them), it would produce some change within their party? Even on that Democratic Underground site, there is a lot of debate over gun control, with a lot of people voicing a viewpoint very similar to ours.

Ultimately, we'll be better off if both parties were to drop their gun control stance, and if the calls from Brady Bunch fell upon deaf ears. That should be our long-term goal. Championing one party over the other merely leads to the situation we are currently facing - a very real possibility of the primaries producing two staunchly anti-gun candidates. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why the likely-to-win candidates from both sides are so bad this year. On the Democrats side there was real promise (w/ respect to 2A) with Bill Richardson. Edwards is interesting as he seems to completely avoid the subject of gun control - either he's afraid of angering Southerners by saying he supports gun control, or he's worried about angering the DNC by saying he's against it. On the Republicans' side, you had Thompson and Ron Paul. Huckabee is a friend of the 2A, but he's far too interested in having the government regulate other personal aspects of our lives. He also seems to be all for continuing along Bush's path...

We really need to work on changing public opinion, and trying to make people understand why the Bill of Rights, including the 2A are so important. As others have said, ultimately changing the opinion of the guy next door is probably more important than writing letters to your local elected officials and their headquarters.

And it looks like I've written a short novel here...

jfh
January 25, 2008, 07:55 PM
Clearly, if we are back to reporting DU Underground propaganda on GWB as truth, it is time to either move this thread to The Round Table at APS or close it.

HK G3, may I suggest you review the rules for posting here, and consider alternatives to your current facts and style.

Jim H.

-terry
January 25, 2008, 07:58 PM
Very Nice HK G3. Unfortunately, reason is not as respected as it probably should be. Get your asbestos suit out and be ready. :)

-terry

Kentucky
January 25, 2008, 08:22 PM
I dont want to hear about how Bush is not as bad as Clinton. If you believe that, then you really dont pay enough attention, or dont have very good critical thinking skills. There are a whole lot of people who are staunch defenders because of what they want him to be, not what he really is.

For those of you who think the lesser of two evils is a viable scenario, that is only true if the lesser of two evils is acceptable. If the lesser of the two evils is still intolerable, it is time to jump in the fray and make some new choices.

Here is a scenario illustrating this point. Let's say that a thug has broken into your house and taken your daughter hostage. He offers you two options. One, he is going to rape her and then shoot her in the head where she will die a painless death. The second option, he rapes her and then tortures her to death. Will you choose the lesser of two evils? NO! If you are any kind of man you will try to make something else happen, even if your chances of success are small. Why? Because the lesser of the two evils is still unacceptable.

Even if you assume that Al GOre would have been able to do more evil with a congress that would have been hostile to him, Bush's actions is supporting the AWB, refusing to secure the border, pushing the SPP and NAU, etc... are too evil to be acceptable!

I know that some of you think that the lesser of two evils is better because it slows our descent into the fire. The Democrats may push us 100MPH into the fire, liberal Repubs like Bush, Guliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney may only push us at 80MPH. Both are a problem. Eventually we better vote for someone who will take us away from the fire, or we will be burned by whoever gets us there.

Those of believe in the "lesser of two evils" are incredibly short-sighted.

doc2rn
January 25, 2008, 08:22 PM
We are never going to get a candidate that is perfect for everyone.

This is why I wanted Perot to win. The one person I thought would be able to fix things.

Kentucky
January 25, 2008, 08:24 PM
As long as some naive people keep accepting the lesser of two evils, the choice they are given will be more evil every cycle. Reagan>Bush>Guliani/McCain/Romney/Huckabee.

meef
January 25, 2008, 09:06 PM
Oh brother. Here we go.

Again.

Gag me with a Bush-bashing thread.

:barf:

SSN Vet
January 25, 2008, 09:19 PM
I guess I'm stupid enough to think...

1. the guy who let the AWB expire and didn't push for renewal is good for RKBA.

2. all those with bright shiny new PG/HC AKs and ARs owe the guy a thank you.

3. all I read from that article is that the guy thinks that the NFA bans are constitutional.

wrt. to Iraq....

Bush has killed more Islamic Jihadist than all of his predecessors combined and imho, that's a good thing.

Ya he's far from a conservative......but it's the libs cursing him the loudest, and that should tell ya something.

and finally.....

voting for Bush twice has guaranteed my R2KBA for two reasons....

1. Roberts

2. Alito

if we had a crystal ball to truly know the devil that was Al Gore, John Kerry or any of the Dim wits lined up to day, we'd be singing President (lesser of two evils) Bush's praises for a thousand years.

My only regret is that I can't vote him in for a third term.

Kentucky
January 25, 2008, 09:54 PM
1. the guy who let the AWB expire and didn't push for renewal is good for RKBA

He said he would sign it if it came to his desk. He would too.

2. all those with bright shiny new PG/HC AKs and ARs owe the guy a thank you.

Not even close. He didnt do ONE thing for us on that. That bill sunset on it's own. I own a Daewoo K1A1. Less than 2000 of them in the country I believe. You can thank his father for that, they have been banned from import since 91. If he were interested in preserving the 2A he would have done something about that, among other things.

3. all I read from that article is that the guy thinks that the NFA bans are constitutional.

Then your reading comprehension isnt that good, or you have a very narrow scope of study. Did you read ANYTHING about the brief that the Bush administration DOJ filed requesting that the Supreme Court reverse the lower court decision in DC vs. Heller. The Bush administration has specifically asked the Supreme Court to ban American citizens in this city from owning handguns .

That is a LONG way from just thinking NFA bans are constitutional. And by the way, NFA bans are NOT Constitutional.

Bush has killed more Islamic Jihadist than all of his predecessors combined and imho, that's a good thing.

I wont pretend that I am at all bothered about killing jiahdis, but they dont scare me a bit. The power that Bush has created for the Executive Branch though has me very troubled. Even if you 100% trust George Bush, there are going to be others assuming that power after he leaves, and it will continue to grow. Study the Patriot Act and then tell me what you think about Hillary Clinton having the powers it defines to combat "domestic terrorism".

And dont for a minute pretend that Bush is doing this to fight Islamic terrorists. If so, he wouldnt have proclaimed many times that the Muslim religion is a great religion, and that we are not at war with them. If it were, we would have chosen some other country besides the ONE non-muslim government in the Middle East (Israel aside) to overthrow.

I wonder if people even think sometimes. Do you realize that Iraq was the only non-muslim government over there? Do you realize that NOW, because of us, it is a Muslim government? Do you realize that 2/3 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? Yet we continue to provide them with billions in funding.

Finally, dont pretend that Bush is a bit concerned about terrorism when he doesnt do one thing to secure our border, but instead he encourages illegal immigration, and is pushing a North American Union. Clearly Bush is not interested in fighting terrorism, and he has all the money that he needs. I challenge you to ask yourself, if all this hoopla is not about fighting terrorism, what is it about?

For the record, this is coming from someone who voted for Bush, and was a huge supporter of his for several years. I finally realized I was being extremely stubborn, and that I defended him because of what I WANTED him to be, not what he is.

Many of us defended him mostly because of how hard the press attacked him. We also defended him because we are (for lack of a better term) manly men. We are red-blooded Americans and we perceived the Iraqis as the enemy. We are not bleeding hearts, we wanted to crush them, go to war with them, heck most of us even wanted to bomb them back into the stone age. But folks, we were being led by the nose, we were easily manipulated we were so naive we didnt even realize it.

There is no doubt the Muslims want to take over this country, just like they are doing in France and other parts of Europe. They want to take over the whole world. But there is also no doubt that they are not able to harm us in a substantial way if America is properly governed. The assault upon our liberties and freedoms is a much more grave threat than what comes from the Islamic jihadist's, and George Bush is no friend of our liberties.

I hope some people will read this and actually think and study the facts, not just respond with emotion. WE NEED TO THINK!

Biker
January 25, 2008, 10:23 PM
Truth in a teacup, Kentucky.

Biker

Archie
January 25, 2008, 10:57 PM
And of course, there was never an Attorney General John Ashcroft who publicly stated the Second Amendment applied to individuals, was there? And of course, President Bush had nothing to do with that, did he?

No, President Bush has not been a gunowner's dream. However, every Democrat since Lyndon Johnson has been a gunowner's nightmare.

Campeon and Ramos: Sorry guys, but those two punks shot the illegal (and that's all he was at the time) out of spite for looking stupid and not being able to catch him. Once they shot him, he fell down and neither Campeon or Ramos attempted to arrest him. He couldn't be prosecuted for drug smuggling in any event because Campeon and Ramos destroyed all evidence of the smuggler driving the vehicle. For those with intellectual honesty, check out "Texasmonthly.com", September 2007.

I spent six years as a Border Patrol Agent and those guys are a disgrace.

Sorry to inform all the tinfoilhat crowd, but no individual rights have been violated by the Bush Administration. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not criminals awaiting trial and therefore deserving of U. S. Constitutional rights of speedy trial. They enemy soldiers at best, being detained to insure they do not resume hostilities toward our nation and people. At worst, they fall under the heading of 'brigands and bandits' and rate summary execution in the field.

This is amazing. I always thought fellow gun owners were thinkers and self-educators. I didn't realize so many simply swallow whatever line the liberal media is spouting this week.

So, all you Bush hating gun owners go ahead and cut your throats and vote for Hillary. Go ahead and prove how much you really don't like President Bush because the 'media' told you to.

The only problem is, you're cutting my throat and all other gun owner's throats as well.

Javelin
January 25, 2008, 11:03 PM
The Bush administration has gone from bad to worse in a hurry. I honestly do not know how his advisors meet with him every week and still look him in the eye.
I mean seriously, everyone on his staff have failed him and the American public so miserably I dont know how they can even in all good conciousness accept that paycheck every 2 weeks. So sad.

:)

bogie
January 25, 2008, 11:53 PM
I still haven't heard anyone tell me about how the Clintons will be better.

As for Bush and the schoolchildren - Could he actually have DONE anything? I'd have stayed there, while my people went out and figured out just what was going on. Then, I'd be getting one heckuva report the instant my butt hit that nice leather limo seat.

WHY will the Clintons be better? WHY? I _really_ want to know!

SSN Vet
January 26, 2008, 12:02 AM
I defended him because of what I WANTED him to be, not what he is.

in all honesty....this likely describes me....

and yes, I'm not as well studied as I could be....thanks for explaining where the "Bush is no friend to 2A" attitude comes from.

But.....

at least I'm not drinking the media's blue Koolaid and spitting it back up on the high road as so many others are...

SO...

what about my strongest assertion...

Roberts and Alito!!!!!!

those were the two most important 2A related decisions Bush could possibly have made...

and it's looking very much like he got it right.


AND....

as far as the 9/11 school kid thing....

what was he supposed to do?

wet his pants and hide under a desk and scare all the kiddies.

he handled himself with dignity and thought of other people by keeping calm and composed.

fyi...that's what leaders are supposed to do in a time of crisis.

Stevie-Ray
January 26, 2008, 12:12 AM
I often think about the 2 times I voted for Bush. Then I remember what total morons Gore and Kerry have remained.................

I certainly don't agree with Bush all the time. But the alternative..............:barf:

GunTech
January 26, 2008, 12:12 AM
Thanks to all the buzz about problems with voting machines, and rigging of primaries, here's a scenario:

Election time comes around and shockingly, there is evidence of poll rigging. Elections rescheduled as soon as voting problems resolved. In the mean time, the current administration remains in power. Just like in those African 'democracies'.

You saw it here first. Remember me after I get sent to the camp. :)

Biker
January 26, 2008, 12:16 AM
"Avenge me.....AVENGE MEEEEE!"

Biker:cool:

Bartholomew Roberts
January 26, 2008, 12:55 AM
This properly belongs in the Political Forum, which we no longer have.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Bush Administration's Support for Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!