Bush backs right to bear arms

newsmax | 5/7/02

[Centurion2000]

Facta non verba

[jwalsh07]

Get the jerk away from the USA for about 4 months so he can't campaign for any incumbent Senators or Representatives. Plus, when you think about it, how much damage can he cause in East Timor anyway?

You ever heard of a fella named James Riady?

[Sungirl]

Yes...THANK GOD for this! He threw us a bone I guess....hahah

[Shooter 2.5]

I hate saying this but I think the Bush Administration is going to take this thing really slow. I think they already know that they can't win on Emerson and this is all PR to ease the country into understanding what the Second Amendment really means. The public as been sitting in front of the boob tube for too long and listening to what the liberal media tells them. There is only one problem with that. We need a ruling on Emerson yesterday. He!!, we needed it in 1934.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now."

Bullsh!t!

[Colonel Jim]

Thank God!

[Shooter 2.5]

ping

[Reagan Man]

Most conservatives and republicans, remain solidly behind President Bush and support a majority of his policy agenda. You don't sound like a Bush supporter, which means you probably never voted for him either. Hence, your one vote, will not be missed!

[Swordmaker]

The REAL MEAT of this article is the following:

"Reversing the four-decade-long federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high courtneed not test that principle now. "

If not now, WHEN?

Would an appropriate time to address this be when the court is more liberal? Perhaps this court is too ready to again use a strict construction on the Second Amendment and would establish a Supreme Court precedent that it IS an individual Right!

I sincerely wish it that Bush wants to wait until he can appoint one or two truly conservative Justices before this type of case is brought before the Supremes.

[Joe Brower]

Thanks for the flag, Julie.

While I am glad for these statements such as they are, I go by deeds, not words. Yes, this is much better than anything we could have expected if the Gorebot had stolen the election. And I sincerely hope that statist radicals like Micheal Barnes suffer debilitating strokes from their frustrations over news like this.

I reserve judgement, however, when I see terms like "reasonable restrictions" and the like. As another poster here has pointed out, that's a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and after seeing how the 2nd Amendment has already been ridden over roughshod since before I was born, I am justifiably dubious.

Noumenon's remarks about a "Potemkin village" are apt. This is defined as "Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance". The substance is in deeds. And I do not expect deeds to be forthcoming. The platitudes about "the high court need not test that principle now" do not inspire confidence. Cases like U.S. vs. Emerson do indeed need to go in front of the Supreme Court NOW. Copping out doesn't earn my respect, or my trust.

I will believe that these words, however comforting and refreshing on the surface, mean anything real when blatantly unconstitutional legislation like the 1994 "assault weapons" ban are allowed to sunset in 2004. Or when rogue agencies like the BATF and the FBI's HRT are reined in and held to task for the multitude of atrocities they have committed against American citizens.

Don't hold your breath. I sincerely hope I am wrong. Time will tell.

[Lurker]

If Ashcroft pushes Emerson to SCOTUS and then argues in favor of Mr. Emerson I'll be impressed.

That would be deeds instead of words.

Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath.

L

[Shooter 2.5]

ping

[S.O.S121.500]

What you said.......amen.

[William Tell]

Shooter 2.5 quoted from the article: "Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now."

Wasn't it the, now politically incorrect, Brer Rabbit story in which the rabbit begs not to be thrown into the briar patch when in fact that is what is desired?

Perhaps Ashcroft is taunting the Supreme Court by suggesting that their opinion isn't needed. Since the District Appeals Courts are not in agreement, the Supreme Court is duty bound to clarify this issue. Perhaps someone can remind me how many Justices must agree in order to grant "cert".

[RamsNo1]

Typical reply from someone who can't see past idol worship to find the truth.

[MileHi]

Bush bashers? I don't know either. This is a good thing no doubt. However W signed CFR and the so-called Patriot Act. I don't call criticizing that bashing if that is your implication. Hell, blind aligience ain't my style.

[anniegetyourgun]

Interesting how some will call a supporter of the President an "idol worshipper" when they don't even know the person. Oh well, you were right - the folks who have decided not to influence the process don't really matter anyway....

[anniegetyourgun]

Good for you. It's tough to find a prez you agree with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. Some here, however, wouldn't find a good word to say about this prez if their life depended on it.

[MileHi]

aligience = allegiance

Sheesh

[MileHi]

. It's tough to find a prez you agree with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues.

Yup. Right now I am about 40% for. When I see any budget reduced or any agency eliminated, I will get warm and fuzzy.

[Sandy]

The Federal Government in the past has been afraid to let a case get to the Supreme Court because it knows that a ruling like that would open a can of worms for the gun control crowd. This Administration isn't afraid of that ruling.

Meaning what? They're asking the Supreme Court to deny the Emerson appeal, but they're just kidding?