Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
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.
Maybe I missed or forgot the thread where this was already posted, but I'm curious why there is not a wave of gun-owner outrage concerning this statement/brief/position by/of the Bush administration.
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.
History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
It's time to shut down the yellow-house switch board again.
I forget where that list of the bitch numbers is, I will post it as soon as I find it.
This is especially agregious since it's already been argued by {I forget his name} before the supreme court that the administration regards the 2nd amendment as meaning that individuals have the right to keep and carry firearms.
The stinking pond scum sucking bureaucrats are torpedoing the Constitution..,
. . . Grizz
the Good Confession >The Only Begotten Son of God >
Grizz wrote:It's time to shut down the yellow-house switch board again.
I forget where that list of the bitch numbers is, I will post it as soon as I find it.
This is especially agregious since it's already been argued by {I forget his name} before the supreme court that the administration regards the 2nd amendment as meaning that individuals have the right to keep and carry firearms.
The stinking pond scum sucking bureaucrats are torpedoing the Constitution..,
I think it was Attorney General Ashcroft who made the stament around the time of the Emerson decision in the 5th Circuit court.
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.
History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
It was Barbara Olsen's husband. Mr. Olsen. Don't remember his first name. Barbara Olsen died on September 11 in the plane our heros took down... What's his name?
Maybe I have the last name wrong too... help me out someone...
He stated before the supremes that the 2nd amendment is the right of individuals.
Are you thinking of Ted Olson, Solicitor General between 2001 and 2004? He would have been the DOJ Attorney arguing before the US Supreme Court in the most important cases.
mod71alaska wrote:Are you thinking of Ted Olson, Solicitor General between 2001 and 2004? He would have been the DOJ Attorney arguing before the US Supreme Court in the most important cases.
Thanks so much, that's it exactly. Ted Olson. His wife was on the plane that the demon sauds flew into the pentagon..,
Let's phone the white house and make them recant the stupid opposition to our God-given rights..,
. . . Grizz
the Good Confession >The Only Begotten Son of God >
the whole scenerio is unerving and very troubling at the least.
i, for one, have very little faith or belief in our current system when it comes to intrepreting the second amendment. there are too many out there who still do not understand the underlying meaning of it.
there are those who would do away with the constitution and replace it with a "living" constitution if given the chance and i'd wager there are some of them in our congress as we speak.
remember, there are more who want to restrict your ownership, possesion and uses of firearms and they're all very much in the limelight of congress; kennedy, pelosi, kerry, schummer, feinstein, boxer to name a few. they're prepared to make you and i die in the enforcment of the laws they force on us.
i think at this stage we're in the "soap box" stage of the three box theory. we better be prepared to go to the third one when, not if, it comes.
it is destined to become messy at the best.
if you think you're influencial, try telling someone else's dog what to do---will rogers
Aw , dangit! Now I'm mad again. Why can't they just leave us alone.
Their all about ones right to choice, as long as it's their choice.
How come this faction, who preaches equality, personall rights to decision, and 'fairness' is always trying to take my stuff away?
They want to kill babies, but don't want to kill murderers. They want to smoke dope, but get mad when I puff a stogie. They want to travel the world freely, but get in a hissey when I drive my 4x4.
THEY WANT US TO SUBMIT TO ANIMALS , FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
That's it, I'm pouring a stiff one, and I'm gonna smoke that stogie my father in law gave me. Heck , I might even shoot into the air!
Lawyers and judges have gotten to the point they will argue anything for a buck and a little noteriety. The profession has accepted the notion that any position no matter how immoral or stupid deserves representation. That representation has become twisting and distortion of facts and the written word (thats not really lying). You keep throwing that mud long enough and hard enough and some will stick-IE their job.
Ask O. J. Simpson
Dave
Bottom line fellas, as Joe pointed out on another post, they have to disarm us before they can really push ahead with full-blown socialism. Most aren't dumb - just evil. Running up against the Second Amendment head on hasn't worked, so they nibble at the edges, trying to weaken it and wait for the opportunity to attack it head on when the attack favors their side.
That time is now.
Not to say I told you so, but I told you so. The SCOTUS is just too evenly balanced and the decision ends up riding on one man - Justice Kennedy. One man. Now with this idiocy coming from the Bush administration, we all see the set up.
YK, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on one point, about the decision resting with one man.
I'm going to suggest that the ultimate decision doesn't lie with the court at all. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter in deciding what our rights are. It is not the place of government to build a frame around our rights. Government exists to protect our rights as WE, the People, define them .
The final decision is in OUR hands. The hands of the People.
If we as a People debase ourselves to the point that we allow our selves to be dictated to by a group of socialist ogliarchs in black robes, then we shall reap what we sow.
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.
History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
FWiedner wrote:YK, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on one point, about the decision resting with one man.
I'm going to suggest that the ultimate decision doesn't lie with the court at all. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter in deciding what our rights are. It is not the place of government to build a frame around our rights. Government exists to protect our rights as WE, the People, define them .
The final decision is in OUR hands. The hands of the People.
If we as a People debase ourselves to the point that we allow our selves to be dictated to by a group of socialist ogliarchs in black robes, then we shall reap what we sow.
FW - I'll take that correction, for you are right. Unfortunately, I just don't see the majority of the people standing up for their liberties. Too many sheep - too few sheep dogs...
FWiedner wrote:YK, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on one point, about the decision resting with one man.
I'm going to suggest that the ultimate decision doesn't lie with the court at all. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter in deciding what our rights are. It is not the place of government to build a frame around our rights. Government exists to protect our rights as WE, the People, define them .
The final decision is in OUR hands. The hands of the People.
If we as a People debase ourselves to the point that we allow our selves to be dictated to by a group of socialist ogliarchs in black robes, then we shall reap what we sow.
FW - I'll take that correction, for you are right. Unfortunately, I just don't see the majority of the people standing up for their liberties. Too many sheep - too few sheep dogs...
Sometimes, doing what is right is a lonely proposition. Not many can do it, fewer will.
