Bush DOJ supports DC gun ban!

[Mazeman]

Stop trashing the Republicans.

If it wasn't for Republicans, we wouldn't have Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia on the court, and *any* hope for a favorable ruling would be dead. Now, thanks to the GOP, it looks like the least we'll get is an individual rights ruling, which would've been a huge victory 20 yrs ago.

Sure, the Party is full of RINOs, but there are true conservatives who support gun rights (Fred). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The other option, the DEMs, is the sewer.

 

[harrygunner]

This is why the founders created three branches of government, each isolated and contentious with the others.

The 'Supremes' should write a formal letter to the DOJ, telling them to mind their own business.

 

[blacksheep]

The 'Supremes' should write a formal letter to the DOJ, telling them to mind their own business.

that would be outstanding!

 

[Kharn]

The government's required to defend the current laws before the courts, reasonable regulation's the only way '34, '68, 922(o) and Brady could pass scrutiny.

Kharn

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Is anyone surprised here? Individuals in government have power. They like to keep power. Because they have power, and because they want to keep it, they get to tell the masses what the definition of "reasonable" is. Kind of like that great metaphysician, Bill Clinton, explaining the definition of "is," and Bush, defining "torture" as "untorture."

Here is my unsolicited take on the meaning of a "reasonable" restriction on the right to defend yourself with the best means in existence. Do you support background checks of any sort? Why? Are you afraid of the "wrong hands" getting ahold of firearms? If those "wrong hands" are so dangerous, why aren't they either cold and dead, or holding prison bars?

"But that's not practical," some may interject, "those dangerous people are walking the streets, like it or not." I do not care. The ineptitude of the "justice system" has no bearing on my right to keep and carry whatever weapon with which I choose to defend myself. I would rather have everyone, convicted felons included, able to buy firearms, if it means that the just do not have to ask a government employee permission to defend their lives and that of their families.

Something tells me that if everyone had access to every kind of weapon with which he could conceivably defend himself and his family, those "dangerous people" about whom everyone seems to incessantly screech would become either wiser and better people, or neutralized threats. Neither end result seems too unpleasant to me.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[DENALI]

I agree to some extent with GEEKWITHA.45 but I would add that Jr. offered to extend the AWB if only they could get it to his desk! Did you think he was making a funny? File this under the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.........P.S. I'd be awfully cautious with the halleulah's for George's supreme court.....

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Wow. OK so far I have gotten this:

Our gov sold us out (You guys vote right?)

NRA sold us out (Yeah?)

NRA is going to save us (Sure they gave Ron Paul a B mind you)

In addition I read they are worried about 34 and 68 I read it as they are worried about losing 922o which was passed illegally so......

Oh yeah,

STEPHEN R. RUBENSTEIN
Chief Counsel
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20226

Shouldn't that say Mike Sullivan I thought GOA said he was going to take all our guns (sarcasm intended).

Now, People personally I'm getting sick of all this fast*, in March the Court begins talking and they say in June we will have an answer I will be more alert for that, as, to me it's where the door closes or opens.

* The Anti's and more ridiculous lies and the NRA, GOA sending scareware and hitting me up for money.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Voting and Ron Paul

Gunner said:

Our gov sold us out (You guys vote right?)

NRA sold us out (Yeah?)

NRA is going to save us (Sure they gave Ron Paul a B mind you)

I don't, in fact, vote. Voting is an act of aggression. The act of voting is the act of deciding who is going to implement policies coercively funded (through force or threat thereof) by other people's money (taxes.) I don't have any right to your money. None whatsoever. So I won't vote and vicariously choose someone to force you to pay taxes to support a policy I might like to see implemented.

Forget the NRA... do you suppose Ron Paul will "save" anyone? Ibid. He's not going to change the nature of coercive government. Would he be less damaging than the other candidates? Certainly. But he, like every other politician, would be implementing policies that would require the violence of taxation to impose, at the barrel of a gun or the implied threat thereof.

Do I pay the taxes they tell me I owe? I certainly do: but only because men with guns make me, not because I owe anyone anything. There's nothing morally wrong with giving your own money to someone who has a gun to your head. There's definitely something wrong with choosing someone who will put a gun to another person's head.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Art Eatman]

Welllll, it started out nice and Legal-Forum, and then went and got all Polytickal.

No-no.