RE: USDOJ Brief On Heller

[Waitone]

Bush has clearly made the calculation that the second amendment is not a hill worth dying on. He's determined vigorous support has many political downsides and comparatively few upsides. He will therefore waste himself making a principled stand on the second amendment. My statement assumes he is aware of constitutional constrains on governmental actions and is agreeable with those restrictions. I'm not so sure. I think just wants the problem to go away because there is no upside for him.

Then there is the reality of the globalists agenda demanding the restriction of gun rights in the US. Since Bush has yet to see a globalist action point he opposes one could safely assume he is acting consistent with his governing principals.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Bush has clearly made the calculation that the second amendment is not a hill worth dying on.

It's possible to take a broader view with a result that's even more frightening. In the 2006 elections many gun owners made a point of votiing against Republicans to "send them a message." They savaged George W. Bush.

The principle, I think, was something like "You can catch more flies with vinegar than with honey."

At any rate, the message got through. It's foolish for any party to count on gun owners.

 

[Cosmoline]

Little by little they make solid wins.

Which is exactly what the Heller case is. A small victory. It isn't asking too much to take the matter to the Supreme Court and have them clarify their position on the matter. Nor does it make any sense to claim that prattle about machine guns on the internet has somehow undermined the chances of winning in front of the nine.

The traitors in the current administration can have their say, as can all our enemies. And you can tisk your tongue about how we should have listened to the fear mongers at the NRA. But it's high time we had an answer--good or bad--to a basic question about what the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution means. We need to know where we really stand.

 

[doc2rn]

Nuts

I say we follow that greatest of military traditions and send them tons of nuts, following the infamous reply.

 

[DENALI]

Mr.Bush is IMO a terrifying creature. He's lameduck, he has an demonstrable history of going his own way no matter what the cost, the AWB sunsetted because it couldn't get to his desk, something he'd said he would "happily" sign if it could. I could really get going on this one but then the inquisitors would pile on if I do so I'll only say this, Mr.Hairless has an interesting point, one you should pay close attention to. I honestly believe that this administration would sell out on just about any constitutional issue, and indeed haven't they been doing just that every day for the past 7 years.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Cosmoline:

Which is exactly what the Heller case is. A small victory. It isn't asking too much to take the matter to the Supreme Court and have them clarify their position on the matter. Nor does it make any sense to claim that prattle about machine guns on the internet has somehow undermined the chances of winning in front of the nine.

The traitors in the current administration can have their say, as can all our enemies. And you can tisk your tongue about how we should have listened to the fear mongers at the NRA. But it's high time we had an answer--good or bad--to a basic question about what the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution means. We need to know where we really stand.

Is it not a bit extreme to speak of "The traitors in the current administration" and include them in "all our enemies"? So far as I know, the President of the United States of America is not a "traitor" in any rational use of that word. Why you consider him and other people your "enemies" is a matter best left to you. I don't consider the President or the government my "enemies."

I understand your point that "Nor does it make any sense to claim that prattle about machine guns on the internet has somehow undermined the chances of winning in front of the nine." You must believe that no one who matters is on the Internet and no one but your set who is interested in guns or Second Amendment issues reads messages in gun forums. Still, the brief that's being discussed here does include a focus on machine guns. If no one outside these forums has any interest in this constant "prattle" about machine guns it's surely a remarkable coincidence.

And yes, I also understand your point that "it's high time we had an answer--good or bad--to a basic question about what the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution means. We need to know where we really stand." That's part of what I mean. Winners don't create issues unless they believe they can win.

In general I understand that you know you're right and that everyone who disagrees is wrong, a traitor, and your enemy. In which case you have nothing to worry about.

Because the Heller case is by no means over I think it's premature to call it "A small victory" or any other kind of victory except by people who want the excitement and don't care about the outcome.

 

[revjen45]

"At any rate, the message got through. It's foolish for any party to count on gun owners."
It's foolish for gun owners to count on any party.

 

[Cosmoline]

Heller is a victory. Whether that victory will continue to the next level is the pending question.

I don't consider the President or the government my "enemies."

The executive branch of the Federal Government is the greatest threat to freedom we face, and has been since the founding of the Republic. This is the main reason we have a Bill of Rights, a separation of powers and a system of federalism. So we don't have a President with power to make law, enforce law and interpret law from the level of individual neighborhoods to the entire nation. Such a man would not be a President but a tyrant. Of course that is increasingly what we have, and by pursuing this power GW has betrayed his oath and the people who elected him on promises of a small goverment. But I digress.

To get back to the main topic, the bottom line is any time you bring a legal challenge to a law there's a risk you'll lose. But in order to be a winner you have to be willing to take risks. You believe we were better off going along with the GOP line and not making too much fuss when they ignore us. I disagree. By unmasking the true position of the Bush Administration for all gun owners to see the Heller appeal has done a GOOD thing. It's better to see the snake out in the open than have him hiding in your bedroll. And if we've been sleeping with snakes all these years maybe it's time we did shake out the bed roll.

 

[General Geoff]

I don't see what the big deal is. Think about this; the DOJ is essentially saying "But we ban machine guns, so handguns should be bannable too!"


I have a feeling the Supremes will say, "On the contrary, machine guns are no longer banned!"

 

[TexasRifleman]

and by pursuing this power GW has betrayed his oath and the people who elected him on promises of a small goverment. But I digress.

The history of the use and abuse of the "Executive Order" started many years before Mr Bush was elected and he's actually been lighter in his usage of this tool than his predecessor. Not to say that he has been a saint, but it's been worse believe it or not.

Nice in depth history of this questionable practice here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm

 

[Robert Hairless]

To get back to the main topic, the bottom line is any time you bring a legal challenge to a law there's a risk you'll lose. But in order to be a winner you have to be willing to take risks. You believe we were better off going along with the GOP line and not making too much fuss when they ignore us. I disagree. By unmasking the true position of the Bush Administration for all gun owners to see the Heller appeal has done a GOOD thing. It's better to see the snake out in the open than have him hiding in your bedroll. And if we've been sleeping with snakes all these years maybe it's time we did shake out the bed roll.

No, it's not that I "believe we were better off going along with the GOP line and not making too much fuss when they ignore us." I'm trying to say something far different and, obviously, not doing well at it. What I'm trying to say is consistent with what I said in my first message above.

Let me try again. Stability is vital for gun owners. So is avoidance of extremes: bouncing around so that people are either best friends or worst enemies isn't realistic and can't accomplish any long range goals.

I'm simply not interested in "unmasking the true position of the Bush Administration for all gun owners to see" or any of the rest of that. This is a President in his last months of his final term. He can't run for that office again, so I don't see any useful point to it. As for the Bush administration, it will be gone in a few months too.

My only interest is in working for Second Amendment issues, not against anything at all. I am and have been in it for the long run. Other matters are side issues that can't help in the long run. My interest in the Heller case has nothing to do with "unmasking the true position of the Bush administration."

I'm interested in what works, not in what doesn't.

 

[ilbob]

I don't consider W to be a traitor. He is clearly not the conservative he ran as. But that just makes him a typical politician.

Considering the choices we had - Gore/Bush, or Kerry/Bush, we got the better choices that were available to us. You can argue that voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, but the central question is whether you want to have a choice in the selection process. If you don't vote, or vote for someone who is not the Dem or Rep nominee, you are basically opting to allow others to make that choice for you. I know sometimes it is hard to accept voting for the less evil choice, but by not voting for the lesser evil, you are really only helping the greater evil.

The place to make a statement vote is in the primaries, and in the political process. If you don't like the available candidates, run for office yourself. Plenty of offices have only one candidate running, sometimes none. Get some political experience running for dog catcher. Become a precinct caption. Whining on the Internet is a good start, but it is just a start.

And remember the battle is never really over. Even if some miracle happened, and Ron Paul won, it would not put people into state legislatures and into congress to change existing laws. You still have to get people into those bodies to get rid of the awful laws already in place.

 

[Art Eatman]

This "discussion" is mostly political...