Government files amicus -- on DC's side!

[Hazcat]

Call us one issue voters if you wish but I will not vote for a President that wants to further curtail or possibly end one of my  rights.

GWB and the republican party has sold us out.

Tom you wrote;

" 2) Would you rather fight a democrat who you have to get voted out of office, that means you'r stuck with them for their whole term, or a bad republican, where influence can be exerted through the party organization until you get the chance to vote them out. Soros and Bloomburg think political power comes from a checkbook. We can use that as well until it's time to use the other option"

What more power can we exert through the party than we have already shown? (as MB said, they would not have made it without us).  They take us for granted.

Well, step on me no longer!  If you want my support you will have to state and prove your loyalty to me first.  It is a two way street and we have been doing all of the giving and getting bumpkiss in return.  So, now YOU (Repubs) have to show me you will support me BEFORE I give you one more thing.  Thompson's' record is clear and outstanding on 2A.  His statement are strong and unambiguous in support of our right.  NONE of the others (except Hunter) can say this nor will their records stand scrutiny.

I vote Fred or I vote not at all!

[tombogan03884]

I agree with Rastus, without 2A the rest of the constitution is toilet paper. So I reiterate what I said before, either we do what we can with what we got or we get ready to start killing people (We ARE the ones with the guns)
 Which would you prefer? Maybe we can get some interior decorateing tips from Osama Bin Laden, He's been living in a hole in the ground long enough to have some ideas.Same with Saddam Hussien... Oh yeah, He's DEAD.
 I'm a sarcastic smart azz, but while you sit indoors with a beverage and your computer, make no mistake, this is no joke. Every veteran out there will tell you the same 2 things, 1) It ain't always the other guy that gets killed and 2) getting killed is not the worst that can happen to you.
  Personally I'd rather spend 20 years working with the ballot box and the courts than to spend the same length of time , maybe longer wrecking the countryside and causing animosity that will take generations to mend. If you want examlples of how that can go look at Veit nam, they fought the french, the Japanese , the french again,then us. They got what they wanted, but it cost them about 75 years and 1/3 of their population.
  Look at the Confederacy, they lost a huge proportion of their men, it was so bad that if the war had continued another year they would have been drafting SLAVES. Their entire economic system was DESTROYED, They gave the entire country side and they still LOST. ( All you southerners out there relax, you did get new clean cities out of it, compare Boston and Charlotte.)
Unless you WANT to turn America into another Yuogoslavia, you must find a way to make the ballot box and courts work for you.

[Tim Burke]

Not only will I not vote for a RINO, if the R-rats run one thinking I have no other place to go, I'll vote for the demonrat.
I do have an alternative. I can vote for someone who will stab me in the front.

[Rastus]

Not only will I not vote for a RINO, if the R-rats run one thinking I have no other place to go, I'll vote for the demonrat.
I do have an alternative. I can vote for someone who will stab me in the front.

Exactly.  Especially voting for someone who will stab me in the front.

I also remember the Democrat's rheteroic (sp?) and what they ended up doing.  That is to say, they talked big to jack people up then went part way...like Clinton's ban...it sucked, I hate it, it was wrong, but we got to keep what we had and esentially kept the ability to buy what we wanted except for cosmetics.....but if a RINO is gonna do the same kind of things to you...you tell me....what is the difference?  The commie lovin' Clinton's ban expired after a while....the traitor Bush's administration is shoving something somewhat more dangerous and permament down our throats. 

[ismram]

The Dem's got us right where they want us! In fighting! We might as well just start handing our guns in right now!!!!!!!!

[Sponsor]

[Rastus]

The Dem's got us right where they want us! In fighting! We might as well just start handing our guns in right now!!!!!!!!

Isram, I respect your opinion, but differ.  Here's my reasoning and I'm open to correction in my way of thinking.

1.  The fighting is not in.  We (2nd A. People) are out right now.  We've had our "throats slit" by one of our own.  Again.
     Also, with Rudy, Mitt and John it seems like a repeat performance for getting our throats slit one more time.
2.  If 1 above is true, then handing in the guns at the hands of the people we supported is inevitable.  Might take a few
     years, but my children will certainly suffer.
3.  I don't think we are talking about not supporting 2nd A. candidates.  I think we are talking about
     what we will do if we don't have a 2nd A. candidate to support.
4.  Given the choice of supporting someone from a portion of a party (Republican) that historically lies (the RINO portion not the party)
     to the people who help elect it, why not consider voting for someone who you know is lying?
5.  Let's think of this as a discussion "in our house" to hash out how to address this travesty and the election.
6.  I'm listening, I'm open, my mind is not made up other than I want a strong 2nd Ammendment candidate.  I as a person
     can't make this happen, so I may have to make a choice I don't want to make and I appreciate everyone's input.
7.  If I don't have a 2nd Ammendment supporter to vote for, everything is open for evaluation.

[Hazcat]

The Dem's got us right where they want us! In fighting! We might as well just start handing our guns in right now!!!!!!!!

The Dims have us no where.  WE (the republican party) put us here with people like Spector, and Rudy and Mitt etc.  They may be allowed to register and run as R but the party does not have to support them.  

For politicians it's all about power (personal and party) well, we need to show them where the power is.  Don't support us and we will NOT support you.

Voting for the lesser evil makes as much sense as saying I'm a little pregnant!

[Michael Bane]

We put ourselves here by playing the "lesser evil" game.

We let the people we elected, that we put in power, play "nudge nudge wink wink say no more." We let them get by with saying they were on our side but not asking them to prove it.

George Bush is living proof of that.

I am no longer in the business of votng for the "lesser evil." The lesser evil is still evil.

Michael B

[Hazcat]

We put ourselves here by playing the "lesser evil" game.

We let the people we elected, that we put in power, play "nudge nudge wink wink say no more." We let them get by with saying they were on our side but not asking them to prove it.

George Bush is living proof of that.

I am no longer in the business of votng for the "lesser evil." The lesser evil is still evil.

Michael B

Hear, Hear, Well said!

Let the Thompson campaign know that this has lighted a fire in the 2A camp.  I post on several blog sites and ALL are echoing our comments.  Fred needs to strike now while the iron is hot.

[Michael Bane]

BTW, since I've said so much negative stuff, I thought I should direct you to at least one blogger who doesn't think the sky is falling and thinks the U.S. brief is not so bad:

http://rightrainbow.com/archives/2008/01/no_the_bush_adm.html

No, the Bush Administration has not betrayed gun rights; UPDATE: Should the president do himself?

Glenn Reynolds is a law professor. I am not. In fact, I’m not even a lawyer. But I can still read a brief. And in a brief on the most important Second Amendment case ever, the Bush Administration does not betray gun rights, as Professor Reynolds avers.

The administration argues that the “the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right.” Further, the administration thinks that the gun control statutes at issue in DC v. Heller may well be unconstitutional. But, says the administration, gun control is subject only to “heightened scrutiny,” and not to the “categorical rule” adopted by the court of appeals. The administration wants the case “remand[ed] for application of the proper standard of review.”

Or, as Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog put it:

The Bush Administration urged the Supreme Court Friday night to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun for private use, but argued that the D.C. Circuit Court went too far in applying that personal right view. The appeals court, the new brief said, seems to have adopted a “more categorical approach” to gun control laws than is proper.

In a move designed at least in part to protect federal gun laws from being struck down, the new brief urged the Justices to uphold an individual right to a gun and adopt a flexible standard for judging specific laws, and then return the pending test case from the District of Columbia back to the Circuit Court for another look.
You could say that the administration hasn’t gone far enough in defending gun rights. But I don’t think you can fairly say that the administration has betrayed gun rights.

I believe he is 100% wrong in his analysis...I can read a brief, too, and what I read is Bush opening the door for assault weapons and handgun bans. I believe that the government's move had weaked our side of the argument, breathed new life into the dying antigun movement and enhanced the stature of our primary enemies. If that isn't a stab in the back, could someone tell me what is?

Michael B