W on the 2A (original title: Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers)

[Zundfolge]

...but my question was in reference to court battles that another poster said the Bush Administration had been fighting on our behalf.

PRESIDENTS DON'T FIGHT COURT BATTLES!!!


There is only ONE member of the administration who you could remotely say has anything to do with "court battles" and that's Attorney General John "2A is an individual right" Ashcroft.


I keep hearing people complain that Bush isn't pro-2A enough ... but the choice in this next election isn't between Bush and a pro-2A candidate, its a choice between Bush and a BIG OLD ANTI ... hell, might as well be Chuckie Schumer or Diane Feinstein on the ticket.




I don't like Bush, but I DO like many of the people around him (and as far as 2A goes, I like Ashcroft ... on other issues like the Patriot act, not so much) but since the realistic choice is Bush or Kerry, I seriously doubt that Kerry is going to make us happy.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

PRESIDENTS DON'T FIGHT COURT BATTLES!!!

Sigh... Zundfolge, I dont know if you were specifically responding to me but ...

If people would read the context of my statement it would be so much easier to discuss this.

Someone made the comment that the Bush administration was fighting for our side in the courts.

The exact statement was:

we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them

I asked for examples of these court battles, knowing there were no cases where anyone in the Bush Administration had entered into a court battle regarding the second amendment.

Instead of answers, what people respond with is a list of legislative and executive actions taken by the Bush administration (none of which involve the courts), and a very loud statement that Presidents don't fight court battles, which was exactly my point to begin with.

 

[Zundfolge]

Sigh... Zundfolge, I don't know if you were specifically responding to me but ...

Sorry ... I just used your statement to put my response in context ... I've heard this complaint many times that "the administration isn't making laws that do this" or "the administration isn't fighting in the courts for that".


Presidents don't write laws or fight court battles ... that was really all my point was (it was apparently yours as well).


as for:

we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them

I agree ... and as far as the second amendment goes, the GW Bush administration has come the closest in a long time to actually fighting for our rights (Ashcroft has publicly and on the record said that the 2A is an "individual right" ... not exactly a big fight, but more action then I've seen before) Not even under the Reagan Administration was there that clear a pro 2A position (and certainly GHWB was no friend of the 2A ... compared to his father GW is Ron Paul )

 

[JPL]

Isn't it the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General, who argues the US position in court cases?

 

[LAK]

QUOTE: "The Bush lines that elicit the most cheers: "When it comes to better securing the homeland, to fighting the forces of evil and spreading peace, results matter. ... When it comes to choosing a president, results matter."

The other big applause lines also are reminders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Bush's aggressive foreign policy:

• "This nation had a choice to make: Either forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and hope for the best ... or take action to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time."

• "I will never relent in bringing justice to the enemy and protecting our country, whatever it takes."

• "If America shows uncertainty and weakness ... the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." .... " END QUOTE

..... This business of how "tough" George Bush is on "terror" and how he is "doing a good job" of protecting the CONUS is just so much bs. The borders have remained wide open for more than three and a half years, there are upward of ten million unknowns incountry, more flooding across, and it is evident that he has no intention whatsoever of jeopardizing his cronies' plans for the new Pan American state.

As for his 2nd Amendment stance; he could - with the stroke of a pen - mobilize the unorganized militia under Title 10 Section 311 of the USC. Now
that would actually allow a good many people to actually exercize the individual right he claims to support, and such a volunteer force would be far more useful and meaningful than the "Americorp" and other duct tape and plastic bs coming out under "Homeland" Security.

 

[Justin Moore]

PRESIDENTS DON'T FIGHT COURT BATTLES!!!

Yes, its the Solicitor General.

 

[Gordon Fink]

but the choice in this next election isn’t between Bush and a pro-2A candidate, its a choice between Bush and a BIG OLD ANTI ... [sic]

And this is why we fail.

~G. Fink

 

[Zundfolge]

And this is why we fail.

Not sure I see how this means we "fail" ... so what is your solution?


If we fail with Bush and we fail with Kerry then that only leaves taking the guns we have to Washington and killing everything that moves ... not exactly a "high road" solution nor one we'd be likely to succeed at.

Or we turn our guns on ourselves.

Or we turn our guns in (before they even ask) and accept slavery.

 

[Gordon Fink]

We fail because far too many of us see only two political options. In fact, our choice this November is not between just not-so-pro-RKBA Bush and “big-old-anti†Kerry.

Yes, yes. I know. “But that’s all we’ll get.â€

~G. Fink

 

[Zundfolge]

We fail because far too many of us see only two political options.

So what's the third option?

Regardless of how much we'd love to see someone else (hell, I know I would love to see Badnarik actually win), unless one of them dies then after the election we will either have 4 more years of Bush or we'll get Kerry ... there is not dark horse who could come close to winning one state, let alone the election.

I understand that there are other people running for election, but the winner of this coming election is only going to be Bush or Kerry, so debating what Badnarik or Nader or Alfred E Newman would do if in office is pretty much pointless.


On a side note, I think the point of the post that originated this thread is that Bush is pro RKBA ... maybe not as rabidly as we'd like, but he isn't out there calling for more gun control (and when he said he'd sign a renewal of the AWB I'm sure he turned right around and said to the Republican leadership in the house and senate "now make sure a renewal doesn't come to my desk" ... not a political strategy I agree with, but its not "oh please please please gimme an AWB renewal to sign!!!" )