Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/14/2008 3:32:07 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
To: neverdem
"And they came after the Jews but I did not resist, because I wasn't a Jew.

And they came after the Catholics and I didn't resist because I wasn't a Catholic so by the time that they came after me...there was nobody left to resist...!"

Same with the guns. It may be a bit past 1984 but we are still on track for a despotic state.

2 posted on 01/14/2008 3:38:04 PM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Better start reading up on what happened during Prohibition ... same thing again is coming if it’s not stopped ......


3 posted on 01/14/2008 3:38:19 PM PST by SkyDancer ("There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress - Mark Twain")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Yes. The only question is whether this merely represents a broken Justice Department, or whether they are also speaking for President Bush. The first possibility is still Bush’s fault, but at least it would be a matter of neglect and incompetence rather than a deliberate attack on the Constitution.


4 posted on 01/14/2008 3:41:00 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

This whole brief shows what a back stabbing liberal jorge is. Has he are anyone in his “Jimmy Carter Light” administration said one word about this? Are they going to? Has the GOP said one word about this? Are they going to?


6 posted on 01/14/2008 3:43:33 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Can somebody tell me when, precisely, the Justices will be hearing the arguments. Thanks.


7 posted on 01/14/2008 3:44:02 PM PST by ProfessorGage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

We already know that the Bush DOJ represents Mexico. Does this mean it also represents the EU?


8 posted on 01/14/2008 3:44:18 PM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

OK, I’m still glad I voted for Dubya — Gore and Kerry would have been disasters — and I am going to push hard for whatever CINO the GOP nominates for November, but I find myself starting to hate Republicans.


9 posted on 01/14/2008 3:44:29 PM PST by Tribune7 (Dems want to rob from the poor to give to the rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
President Bush has the power to fix this by ordering that the solicitor general brief be withdrawn or significantly amended. Unfortunately, it may take an uprising by voters to rein in the Justice Department.

Burn up those phone lines, folks. Melt them, like we melted the lines going into Congress on the immigration issue.

NRA - it'd help if you send out an email and letters to this effect. Getting a couple of hundred thousand people calling

202-456-1414

over a few day period might cause Bush to withdraw this travesty, just to make us go away.

11 posted on 01/14/2008 3:56:27 PM PST by Ancesthntr (I’ve joined the Frederation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

RP used to mean republican party. Now it means rest in peace, republican party.


12 posted on 01/14/2008 4:05:15 PM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

I am not a Bush basher. You can’t find a single post from me doing so. I have mentioned that he’s let me down on border issues, without bashing him. But, I gotta tell you, if he causes me to lose my 2A rights, I’ll be pretty pissed and very unforgiving.


13 posted on 01/14/2008 4:08:28 PM PST by umgud (Thompson/Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

“et tu Brutus?”

So much for those supreme court appointments and the idea that Bush would become a conservative in his last term....

But then Sutton nailed Ramos and Campeon with firearms violations meant for the criminal use o g guns, not cops doing their jobs. Go figure...


14 posted on 01/14/2008 4:11:16 PM PST by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Back when Ashcroft was there, the DOJ had a different view. In fact they had put out this important and promising opinion in August 2004. This new found hand-wringing does not bode well.

If you read the brief of the D of C to the SCOTUS you see that there is the potential for serious mischief in this being messed with for this case.

15 posted on 01/14/2008 4:11:30 PM PST by n230099 ("If you don't blame the camera for porn, then don't blame the gun for shootings". (Unknown))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Wow, Bush betrayed Israel and now gun owners this week.

He’s on a roll.

NO RINOS!


16 posted on 01/14/2008 4:20:44 PM PST by TheThirdRuffian (This evangelical Christian is not fooled by Jimmah Carter Huckabee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

More than once the White House urged the oil companies in the Middle East to join together to work out a deal for the oil while the DOJ prosecuted them for the same thing. Might ask if we actually have a Gov’t.


18 posted on 01/14/2008 4:23:28 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The Department of Justice argument can be boiled down pretty easily. Its lawyers claim that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns.

Which explains, to some degree, why the gov is supporting this ban.

They know that once this travesty is struck down, the door is wide open to striking down other clearly unconstitutional bans.

19 posted on 01/14/2008 4:24:52 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Like any other government agency, [the DOJ] has a hard time giving up its authority.

It does explain a lot. The operating principle here is that a bad law is better than no law. It isn't.

20 posted on 01/14/2008 4:29:03 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Lets tell it like it is. If guns are banned, it will be the beginning of a total police state. We are gradually slipping into this. Is this what we want? It won't be long and some real kick a@@ has to start.
23 posted on 01/14/2008 4:37:42 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Basically, the DOJ argues that the federal government can do ANYTHING it wants with regards to gun and the 2nd Amendment offers absolutely no protection to the individual at all. IF the SC ruled in favor of the government, I think that it would be time to ask Claire Wolf if the awkward stage has passed.


24 posted on 01/14/2008 5:13:55 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

BTTT!


30 posted on 01/14/2008 6:39:47 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Bush is doing everything he can to make me regret voting for him.


31 posted on 01/14/2008 6:40:00 PM PST by Nachoman (My guns and my ammo, they comfort me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson